Bill of Rights Ivler vs. San Pedro G.R. No. 172716November 17, 2010 !"#S$ Following Followin g a vehi vehicula cularr coll collisio ision n in Au Augus gustt 200 2004, 4, peti petition tioner er Jaso Jason n Ivle Ivlerr (pet (petition itioner) er) was charged before the Metropolitan rial !ourt of "asig !it# (M!), with two separate offenses$ (%) &ec'less Iprudence &esulting in light "h#sical In*uries for in*uries sustained b# respondent +vangeline - "once (respondent "once). and (2) &ec'less Iprudence &esulting in /oicide and aage to "ropert# for the death of respondent "once1s husband estor !- "once and daage to the spouses "once1s vehicle"etitioner posted bail for his teporar# release in both cases- 3n 2004, petitioner pleaded guilt# to the charge on the first delict and was eted out the penalt# of public censure- Invo'ing this conviction, petitioner oved to uash the Inforation for the second delict for placing hi in *eopard# of second second punishent punishent for the sae offense offense of rec'less iprudenceiprudencehe M! refused uashal, finding no identit# of offenses in the two caseshe petitioner elevated the atter to the &egional rial !ourt of "asig !it# (&!), in a petition for certiorari while Ivler sought fro the M! the suspension of proceedings in criinal case, including the arraignent his arraignent as a pre*udicial uestion5ithout acti 5ithout acting ng on pet petition itioner1s er1s oti otion, on, the M! proc proceede eeded d with the arra arraign ignent ent and, because of petitioner1s absence, cancelled his bail and ordered his arresteven da#s later, the M! issued a resolution den#ing petitioner1s otion to suspend proceedings and postponing his arraignent until after his arrest- "etitioner sought reconsideration but as of the filing of this petition, the otion reained unresolvedISS%&S$ %- 5hether petitioner forfeited his standing to see' relief fro his petition for certiorari when the M! or orde dered red hi his s arr arrest est fol follow lowing ing his no non6a n6app ppea earan rance ce at the arr arrai aign gnen entt in &e &ec'l c'less ess Iprudence &esulting in light "h#sical In*uries for in*uries sustained b# respondent. and 2- 5hether petitioner1s constitutional right under the ouble Jeopard# !lause bars further proceedings proceedin gs in &ec'less Ipruden Iprudence ce &esulting in /oicide and aage to "ropert# for the death of respondent "once1s husbandR%'ING$ he accused negative constitutional constitutional right not to be 7twice 7t wice put in *eopard# of punishent for the sae offense7 protects hi fro, aong others, post6conviction prosecution for the sae offe of fense nse,, wit with h the pri prior or ve verdi rdict ct ren rende dered red b# a cou court rt of co cope peten tentt *ur *urisd isdict ictio ion n up upon on a va valid lid inforation"etitioner adopts the affirative view, subitting that the two cases concern the sae offense off ense of rec' rec'less less ipr iprude udencence- he M! rule ruled d oth otherwi erwise, se, find finding ing that &ec'less &ec'less Ipru Ipruden dence ce &esulting in light "h#sical In*uries is an entirel# separate offense fro &ec'less Iprudence
&esulting in /oicide and aage to "ropert# 7as the 8latter9 reuires proof of an additional fact which the other does not-7 he two charges against petitioner, arising fro the sae facts, were prosecuted under the sae provision of the &evised "enal !ode, as aended, nael#, Article :;< defining and penali=ing uasi6offenseshe provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable- Indeed, the notion that uasi6offenses, whether rec'less or siple, are distinct species of crie, separatel# defined and penali=ed under the fraewor' of our penal laws, is nothing newhe doctrine that rec'less iprudence under Article :;< is a single uasi6offense b# itself and not erel# a eans to coit other cries such that conviction or acuittal of such uasi6 offense bars subseuent prosecution for the sae uasi6offense, regardless of its various resulting acts, undergirded this !ourt1s unbro'en chain of *urisprudence on double *eopard# as applied to Article :;<hese cases uniforl# barred the second prosecutions as constitutionall# iperissible under the ouble Jeopard# !lause3ur ruling toda# secures for the accused facing an Article :;< charge a stronger and sipler protection of their constitutional right under the ouble Jeopard# !lause- rue, the# are thereb# denied the beneficent effect of the favorable sentencing forula under Article 4>, but an# disadvantage thus caused is ore than copensated b# the certaint# of non6prosecution for uasi6 crie effects ualif#ing as 7light offenses7 (or, as here, for the ore serious conseuence prosecuted belatedl#)- If it is so inded, !ongress can re6craft Article :;< b# e?tending to uasi6 cries the sentencing forula of Article 4> so that onl# the ost severe penalt# shall be iposed under a single prosecution of all resulting acts, whether penali=ed as grave, less grave or light offenses- his will still 'eep intact the distinct concept of uasi6offenses- Meanwhile, the lenient schedule of penalties under Article :;<, befitting cries occup#ing a lower rung of culpabilit#, should cushion the effect of this ruling"etition granted-
