Reodica v CA 292 SCRA 87

Facts:
IsabelitaReodica was allegedly recklessly driving a
van and hit Bonsol causing him physical injuries
and damage to property amounting to P 8,542.00.
Three days after the accident a complaint was
filed before the fiscals office against the
petitioner. She was charged of "Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with
Slight Physical Injury." After pleading not guilty
trial ensued. RTC of Makati rendered the decision
convicting petitioner of "quasi offense of reckless
imprudence, resulting in damage to property with
slight physical injuries" with arresto mayor of 6
months imprisonment and a fine of P 13,542.00.
Petitioner made an appeal before the CA which reaffirmed the lower courts decision. In its motion
for reconsideration, petitioner now assails that
the court erred in giving its penalty on complex
damage to property and slight physical injuries
both being light offenses over which the RTC has
no jurisdiction and it cant impose penalty in
excess to what the law authorizes.
reversal of decision is still possible on ground of
prescription or lack of jurisdiction.
Issues:
Whether or not the penalty imposed is correct.
Whether or not reckless imprudence resulting to
damage to property and reckless imprudence
resulting to slight physical injuries are light
felonies.
Whether or not there is a complex crime applying
Article 48 of the RPC.
Whether or not the duplicity of the information
may be questioned for the first time on appeal.
Whether or not the RTC of Makati has jurisdiction
over the case.
Whether the quasi offenses already prescribed.
Held:
1. On penalty imposed
The proper penalty for reckless imprudence
resulting to slight physical injury is public censure
(being the penalty next lower in degree to
arrestomenor see the exception in the sixth
paragraph of Article 365 applies).
The proper penalty for reckless imprudence
resulting to damage to property amounting to
8,542.00 would be arresto mayor in minimum and
medium periods.
2. Classification of each felony involved
Reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical
injuries is a light felony. Public censure is classified
under article 25 of RPC as a light penalty and it
belongs on the graduated scale in Article 71 of the
RPC as a penalty next lower to arrestomenor.
Reckless imprudence resulting to damage to
property is punishable by a correctional penalty of
arresto mayor and thus belongs to less grave
felony and not as a light felony as claimed by
petitioner.
3. Rule on complex crime
Art. 48 on penalty for complex crime provides that
when a single act constitutes two or more grave
or less grave felonies, or when an offense is
necessary a means for committing the other, the
penalty for the most serious crime shall be
imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period. Both offenses cannot constitute a complex
crime because reckless imprudence resulting to
slight physical injuries is not either a grave or less
grave felony. Therefore each felony should be filed
as a separate complaint subject to distinct
penalties.
4. Right to assail duplicity of information
Rule 120, section 3 of the Rules of Court provides
that when two or more offenses are charged in a
single complaint and the accused fails to object
against it before the trial, the court may convict
the accuse to as many offenses as charged and
impose a penalty for each of them. Complainant
failed to make the objection before the trial
therefore the right to object has been waived.
5. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of the court is determined by the
duration of the penalty and the fine imposed as
prescribed by law to the offense charged. Reckless
imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries
and reckless imprudence resulting to damage to
property is within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
The case was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction
of the RTC of Makati and the decision of the CA
was set aside.

Court Ruling on Zaldivia v Reyes and Reodica v CA

on Prescription:

1. Zaldivia v Reyes involves a violation of an

ordinance while in Reodica v CA the violation was
against the RPC.
2. Filing of a complaint in the fiscals office
involving a felony under the RPC is sufficient to
interrupt the running of prescription. But filing a
complaint under the fiscals office involving
offenses punished by a special law (i.e. ordinance)
does not interrupt the running of prescription. Act
3326 is the governing law on prescriptions of
crimes punishable by a special law which states
that prescription is only interrupted upon judicial
proceeding.
Zaldivia v Reyes
G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 277
Facts: A complaint was filed before the fiscals
office constituting an offense in violation of a city
ordinance. The fiscal did not file the complaint
before the court immediately but instead filed it 3
months later. The defendants counsel filed a
motion to quash on ground that the action to file
the complaint has prescribed. The fiscal contends
that the filing of the complaint before his office
already interrupts the prescription period.
Issue:
Whether
or
not
the
filing
of
information/complaint before the fiscal office
constituting a violation against a special
law/ordinance interrupts prescription.
Held: The mere filing of complaint to the fiscals
office does not interrupt the running of
prescription on offenses punishable by a special
law. The complaint should have been filed within a
reasonable time before the court. It is only then
that the running of the prescriptive period is
interrupted.
**Act 3326 is the governing law on prescription of
crimes punishable by a special law which states
that prescription is only interrupted upon judicial
proceeding.
Luz M. Zaldivia v. Hon. Andres B. Reyes, Jr.
Facts:
Petitioner Zaldivia is charged with quarrying for
commercial purposes without a mayor's permit in
the municipality of Rodriguez, Province of Rizal.
She moved to quash the information on the
ground that the crime had prescribed but it was
denied. She appealed to the RTC and denial was
sustained by the respondent judge.
Petitioner filed for a petition for review on
certiorari arguing that the case filed against her is
govern by the provisions on the Rules of Summary
Procedure. She contends that criminal cases like
violations of municipal or city ordinances does not
require preliminary investigation and shall be filed
directly to the court and not in the Prosecutor's
office. She also invoked Act No. 3226 An Act to
Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations
Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal
Ordinances and to Provide when Prescription Shall
Begin to Run. Concluding that the case should
have been dismissed since the case against her
was being filed in court way beyond the 2 month
statutory period.
The prosecution contends that when the case was
filed on the Prosecutor's office it suspends the
prescriptive period.
Issue:
Whether or not the prescription of period ceased
to run when the case was filed on the prosecutor's
office?
Decision:
Petition granted. Case dismissed on the ground of
prescription.
Ruling:
As a general rule, the filing of the case in the
prosecutor's office is sufficient to interrupt the
running of the prescriptive period except when the
case is covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure. If it is any crime, you file it in the
fiscal's office; the running of the prescriptive
period is interrupted. But in the case at bar having
only a penalty of arrestomenor it therefore falls
under the provisions of the Rules on Summary
Procedure. If it is covered by the Summary Rules,
the period continues. It must be the filing of the
case in court which will interrupt the period from
running.
Robin Padilla vs. CA
Summary of the Case:
One night, Enrique Manarang noticed the accused
appellants car running fast. After a while, a
screech of tires was heard and thus, made the
officer run out and investigate. Not so long, the
car continued to run, so a hot-pursuit took place.
Manarang then radioed the incident to the Police.

When the car was put to a stop, the driver rolled

down the windows with his hands raised. The
officers then noticed that it was the famous actor,
Robin Padilla. While apprehended, because of the
hit-and-run incident, the police saw the revolver
tucked in the left waist of Robin. So, the police
insisted that the gun be shown in the office if it
was legal. The crowd had formed and Robin was
shaking their hands and pointing to the police
while saying iyankinuhaangbarilko, as if it was in
the movies. The gesture then revealed a
magazine clip of a rifle which made the police
suspect that there is a rifle inside the vehicle.
Then the rifle was seen. The other firearms were
voluntarily surrendered by Robin.
Now, Robins defense was that his arrest was
illegal and consequently, the firearms and
ammunitions taken in the course thereof are
inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary
rule.
Robin Padilla was arrested, tried, and convicted for
illegal possession of firearms. He was in
possession of a .357 caliber revolver, Smith and
Wesson with 6 live ammunitions, One M-16 baby
Armalite Rifle with ammunitions, One .380
PietroBarreta with 8 live ammunitions, and six live
double action ammunitions of .38 caliber revolver.
Relation to Article3: Section 2.

Robin claimed that there was no search warrant or

warrant of arrest thus, making his arrest illegal
and the evidences inadmissible. The Bill of rights
purpose is to put limit to the governments power.
In the People vs. Marti case, the government was
not involved. In this case, the government is
involved but it was not illegal.
Why? According to whats written in the case, a
peace officer or a private person may arrest a
person: (a) when the person has committed, is
actually committing or is attempting to commit
and offense, (b) when an offense has in fact just
been committed, and he has personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested
has committed it.
The instances above clearly explain the legality of
the arrest. Robin Padilla, my idol had first
sideswiped a balut vendor and the incident was
heard by Manarang and he saw Robin fled away
from the scene, thus, committing a hit-and-run.
And Enrique Manarang was a peace officer.
When he was halted, the firearms were revealed
to the police officers without their act of
searching. The firearms were in plain view. And
the firearms were found by the police in their
pursuit of their official duties. And the police have
the right as to where they are because they were
in pursuit of Robin when they found the firearms.