4/13/2017 G.R.No.

93475

TodayisThursday,April13,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.93475June5,1991

ANTONIOA.LAMERA,petitioner,
vs.
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSandTHEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,respondents.

EsmeraldoU.Guloyforpetitioner.

DAVIDE,JR.,J.:

Ataround8:30o'clockintheeveningof14March1985,alongUrbanoStreet,Pasig,MetroManila,anownertype
jeep, then driven by petitioner, allegedly "hit and bumped" a tricycle then driven by Ernesto Reyes resulting in
damagetothetricycleandinjuriestoErnestoReyesandPaulinoGonzal.1

As a consequence thereof, two informations were filed against petitioner: (a) an Information for reckless
imprudenceresultingindamagetopropertywithmultiplephysicalinjuriesunderArticle365oftheRevisedPenal
Codereadingasfollows:

Thatonoraboutthe14thdayofMarch,1985,intheMunicipalityofPasig,MetroManila,Philippinesand
withinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourttheabovenamedaccused,beingthenthedriverandperson
inchargeofanOwnerJeepToyotabearingPlateNo.NCC313UVPilipinas'85,andwithoutdueregardto
trafficlaws,rulesandregulationsandwithouttakingthenecessarycareandprecautionstoavoiddamage
to property and injuries to persond (sic), did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drive,
manageandopefate(sic)saidOwnerJeepinacareless,reckless,negligentandimprudentmanner,asa
resultofwhichsaidmotorvehiclebeingthendrivenandoperatedbyhim,hitandbumpedatricycleSUZUki
(sic) bearing Plate No. NA6575 MC Pilipinas '85, driven by Ernesto Reyes y Esguerra and owned by
ErnestoAntonel,therebycausingdamagetotheSuzukitricycleintheamountofP7,845.00andduetothe
impact the driver and the passengers of a (sic) tricycle Suzuki, sustained physical injuries which required
medicalattendanceasstatedoppositetheirrespectivenamestowit:

1.ErnestoReyesMorethanthirty(30)days

2.PaulinoGonzalMorethanthirty(30)days

3.PatricioQuitaligLessthannine(9)days

andincapacitatedthemfromperformingtheircustomarylaborforthesameperiodoftime.

whichwasfiledon10September1985withtheRegionalTrialCourtofPasig,MetroManilaanddocketedtherein
asCriminalCaseNo.64294andassignedtoBranch68thereofand(b)anInformationforviolationofparagraph
2ofArticle275oftheRevisedPenalCodeonAbandonmentofone'svictimreadingasfollows:

Thatonoraboutthe14thdayofMarch,1985,intheMunicipalityofPasig,MetroManila,Philippines,and
withinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourttheabovenamedaccused,beingthedriverofanownertype
jeepwithPlateNo.NCC313UVPil.'85whichhitandbumpedamotorizedtricyclewithPlateNo.NA6575
MC '85 driven by Ernesto Reyes and as a consequence of which Paulino Gonzal and Ernesto Reyes
sustained physical injuries and lost consciousness, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
abandoned(sic)themandfailed(sic)tohelporrenderassistancetothem,withoutjustifiablereason.

whichwasfiledon14November1985withtheMetropolitanTrialCourtofPasig(Branch71)andwasdocketedas
CriminalCaseNo.2793.

On29June1987theMetropolitanTrialCourtofPasigrendereditsdecisioninCriminalCaseNo.2793findingthe
petitioner guilty of the crime of Abandonment of one's victim as defined and penalized under paragraph 2 of
Article275oftheRevisedPenalCodeandsentencedhimtosufferimprisonmentforaperiodofsix(6)monthsof
arrestomayorandtopaythecosts.

Petitioner appealed from said Decision to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila which docketed the
appealasCriminalCaseNo.70648.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_93475_1991.html 1/5
4/13/2017 G.R.No.93475
Inthemeantime,on27April1989,petitionerwasarraignedinCriminalCaseNo.64294beforeBranch68ofthe
RegionalTrialCourtofPasig.Heenteredapleaofnotguilty.2

Petitioner'sappeal,CriminalCaseNo.70648,wasdecidedon31July1989.Thecourtaffirmedwithmodification
the decision appealed from. The modification consisted merely in the reduction of the penalty of imprisonment
fromsix(6)totwo(2)months.3

Stillunsatisfiedwiththenewverdict,petitionerfiledwiththeCourtofAppealson31August1989apetitionforits
review,docketedasC.A.G.R.CRNo.07351,assigningthereinthefollowingallegederrors:

THE RESPONDENT HON. JUDGED (SIC) ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, METRO MANILA, THAT "THE TRICYCLE DRIVEN BY
ERNESTOREYESWASBUMPEDBYTHEJEEPDRIVENBYTHEPETITIONER."

II

THERESPONDENTHON.JUDGEERREDINAFFIRMINGTHEFINDINGOFTHEMETROPOLITANTRIAL
COURT OF PASIG. METRO MANILA, THAT THE PETITIONER, "LOSING PRESENCE OF MIND AS THE
BLOODY SCENARIO WOULD INDUCE IN THE AVERAGE MOTORIST, HE (SIC) OPTED, PERHAPS
INSTINCTIVELY TO HIDE IDENTITY, APPREHENSIVE MAY BE OVER THE ENORMITY OF HIS
MISDEMEANORANDTHUSDECIDED(SIC)TOWITHHOLDASSISTANCETOHISFALLENVICTIMS."

III

THE RESPONDENT HON. JUDGE ERRED IN DECLARING THAT, "AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THE DEMEANOR OF THE
WITNESSES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO DISMISS THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF SAID COURT GIVING
CREDENCETOPROSECUTION'SWITNESSES"FORNOTBEING(SIC)SUPPORTEDBYSUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCEANDCLEARLYTHELAWANDJURISPRUDENCE.

IV

THE RESPONDENT HON. JUDGED (SIC) ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, METRO MANILA, FINDING THE PETITIONER GUILTY OF
THE CRIME OF ABANDONMENT UNDER ART. 275, PAR. 2, OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND
SENTENCINGHIMTOSUFFERTHEPENALTYOFTWO(2)MONTHSANDONE(1)DAYOFARRESTO
MAYORANDTOPAYTHECOSTS.

THE RESPONDENT HON. JUDGE ERRED IN NOT DECLARING NULL AND VOID ALL THE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF PASIG AND ALL THE PROCEEDINGS
BEFOREIT.4

TheCourtofAppealsfoundnomeritinthepetitionanddismisseditinitsDecisionpromulgatedon9November
1989.5Pertinently,itruled:

Wecannotsustainthecontentionofthepetitionerthatpar.2ofArt.275oftheRevisedPenalCodedoes
not apply to him since the evidence allegedly shows that it was Ernesto Reyes, the tricycle driver, who
negligentlycausedtheaccident.Petitionermissestheimportoftheprovision.Theprovisionpunishesthe
failure to help or render assistance to another whom the offender accidentally wounded or injured.
Accidentalmeansthatwhichhappensbychanceorfortuitously,withoutintentionanddesignandwhichis
unexpected, unusual and unforeseen (Moreno, Phil. Law Dictionary, 1972 ed., p. 7 citing De La Cruz v.
Capital Insurance & Surety Co., 17 SCRA 559). Consequently, it is enough to show that petitioner
accidentallyinjuredthepassengersofthetricycleandfailedtohelporrenderthemassistance.Thereisno
needtoprovethatpetitionerwasnegligentandthatitwashisnegligencethatcausedtheinjury.Ifthefactor
of criminal negligence is involved, Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code will come into play. The last
paragraphofArt.365providesthat"thepenaltynexthigherindegreetothoseprovidedforinthisarticle
shallbeimposedupontheoffenderwhofailstolendonthespottotheinjuredpartysuchhelpasmaybein
hisbandstogive."Petitionerwaschargedunderpar.2ofArt.275notunderArt.365oftheRevisedPenal
Code.

Hismotiontoreconsidertheabovedecisionwhereinhestronglyurgedforreconsiderationbecause:

xxxxxxxxx

...Wefindithardtovisualizethattheaccusedmaybepenalizedtwiceforan"accident"andanotherfor
"recklessness",bothofwhicharosefromthesameact.Wesubmitthattherecouldnotbeavalidcharge
underArticle275,when,asinthecaseatbar,thereisalreadyapendingchargeforrecklessimprudence
underArticle365oftheRevisedPenalCode.ItisourviewthatthechargeunderArticle275presupposes
thatthereisnootherchargeforrecklessimprudence.

havingbeendeniedintheResolutionof17May1990,6petitionerfiledtheinstantpetition.7
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_93475_1991.html 2/5
4/13/2017 G.R.No.93475
BeforeUsheraisesthissoleissue:

CouldtherebeavalidchargeforallegedabandonmentunderArticle275,par.2oftheRevisedPenalCode
whichprovidesasbasisforprosecution."2.Anyonewhoshallfailtohelpanotherwhomhehasaccidentally
wounded or injured" when, he was previously charged with "reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
propertywithmultiplephysicalinjuries"underArticle265(sic)oftheRevisedPenalCode?8

Hemaintainsthenegativeviewandsupportsitwiththeargumentthat"[f]orthesameact,thatis,thevehicular
collision, one could not be indicted in two separate informations at the same time based on "accident" and
"recklessness',forthereisaworldofdifferencebetween"recklessimprudence"and"accidentally'."Asexpanded
byhim:

. . . since petitioner is facing a criminal charge for reckless imprudence pending before Branch 68 of the
RegionalTrialCourtofPasig,MetroManila...whichoffensecarriesheavierpenaltiesunderArticle365of
theRevisedPenalCode,hecouldnolongerbechargedunderArticle275,par.2,forabandonment...for
having allegedly failed "to help or render assistance to another whom he has accidentally wounded or
injured".9

InOurresolutionof1August1990Werequiredrespondentstocommentonthepetition.

In its Comment filed on 10 September 1990, respondent People of the Philippines, through the Office of the
SolicitorGeneral,puttingtheissuesquarely,thus:

. . . whether or not prosecution for negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code is a bar to
prosecutionforabandonmentunderArticle275ofthesameCode.

answers it in the negative because said Articles penalize different and distinct offenses. The rule on double
jeopardy, which petitioner has, in effect, invoked, does not, therefore, apply pursuant to existing jurisprudence.
Hence,thepetitionshouldbedismissedforlackofmerit.

In Our resolution of 13 March 1991 We gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit
simultaneouslytheirrespectivememoranda.Petitionersubmittedhison22April199110whilethePeoplemoved
thatitsCommentbeconsideredasitsmemorandum.

WeagreewiththeSolicitorGeneralthatthepetitionerisactuallyinvokinghisrightagainstdoublejeopardy. He, 1 w p h i1

however,failedtodirectlyandcategoricallystateitinhispetitionordeliberatelyobscureditbehindasuggestion
of possible resultant absurdity of the two informations. The reason seems obvious. He forgot to raise squarely
that issue in the three courts below. In any case, to do so would have been a futile exercise. When he was
arraigned,tried,andconvictedintheMetropolitanTrialCourtofPasiginCriminalCaseNo.2793,hewasnotyet
arraigned in Criminal Case No. 64294 before the Regional Trial Court. As stated above, the judgment of
convictionintheformerwasrenderedon29June1987,whilehisarraignmentinthelattertookplaceonlyon27
April1989.Amongtheconditionsfordoublejeopardytoattachisthattheaccusedmusthavebeenarraignedin
thepreviouscase.11InPeoplevs.Bocar,supra.,Weruled:

Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after
arraignment,(d)avalidpleahavingbeenentered,and(e)thecasewasdismissedorotherwiseterminated
withouttheexpressconsentoftheaccused.

Moreover,heischargedfortwoseparateoffensesundertheRevisedPenalCode.InPeoplevs.Doriquez,12We
held:

Itisacardinalrulethattheprotectionagainstdoublejeopardymaybeinvokedonlyforthesameoffenseor
identicaloffenses.Asimpleactmayoffendagainsttwo(ormore)entirelydistinctandunrelatedprovisions
of law, and if one provision requires proof of an additional fact or element which the other does not, an
acquittalorconvictionoradismissaloftheinformationunderonedoesnotbarprosecutionundertheother.
Phrased elsewhere, where two different laws (or articles of the same code) defines two crimes, prior
jeopardyastooneofthemisnoobstacletoaprosecutionoftheother,althoughbothoffensesarisefrom
thesamefacts,ifeachcrimeinvolvessomeimportantactwhichisnotanessentialelementofthe
other.13

InPeople vs. Bacolod, supra., from the act of firing a shot from a submachine gun which caused public panic
among the people present and physical injuries to one, informations for physical injuries through reckless
imprudence and for serious public disturbance were filed. Accused pleaded guilty and was convicted in the first
andhesoughttodismissthesecondonthegroundofdoublejeopardy.Weruled:

The protection against double jeopardy is only for the same offense. A simple act may be an offense
against two different provisions of law and if one provision requires proof of an additional fact which the
otherdoesnot,anacquittalorconvictionunderonedoesnotbarprosecutionundertheother.

Since the informations were for separate offenses the first against a person and the second against public
peaceandorderonecannotbepleadedasabartotheotherundertheruleondoublejeopardy.

The two informations filed against petitioner are clearly for separate offenses. The first, Criminal Case No.
1 w p h i1

64294,forrecklessimprudence(Article365),fallsunderthesolechapter(CriminalNegligence)ofTitleFourteen

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_93475_1991.html 3/5
4/13/2017 G.R.No.93475
(Quasi Offenses) of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. The second, Criminal Case No. 2793, for
Abandonment of one's victim (par. 2, Art. 275), falls under Chapter Two (Crimes Against Security) of Title Nine
(CrimesAgainstPersonalLibertyandSecurity)ofBookTwoofthesameCode.

Quasi offenses under Article 365 are committed by means of culpa. Crimes against Security are committed by
meansofdolo.14

Moreover,inArticle365,failuretolendhelptoone'svictimisneitheranoffensebyitselfnoranelementofthe
offense therein penalized. Its presence merely increases the penalty by one degree. The last paragraph of the
Articlespecificallyprovides:

Thepenaltynexthigherindegreetothoseprovidedforinthisarticleshallbeimposedupontheoffender
whofailstolendonthespottotheinjuredpartiessuchhelpasmaybeinhandtogive.

Such being the case, it must be specifically alleged in the information. The information against petitioner in this
casedoesnotsoallege.

Upon the other hand, failure to help or render assistance to another whom one has accidentally wounded or
injuredisanoffenseunderparagraph2ofArticle275ofthesamecodewhichreads:

Thepenaltyofarrestomayorshallbeimposedupon:

xxxxxxxxx

2.Anyonewhoshallfailtohelporrenderassistancetoanotherwhomhehasaccidentallywoundedor
injured.

TheforegoingdistinctionssatisfytheguidelinesWemadeinPeoplevs.Relova,etal.,15whereinWeheld:

Itisperhapsimportanttonotethattherulelimitingtheconstitutionalprotectionagainstdoublejeopardytoa
subsequentprosecutionforthesameoffenseisnottobeunderstoodwithabsoluteliteralness.Theidentity
of offenses that must be shown need not be absolute identity: the first and second offenses may be
regarded as the "same offense" where the second offense necessarily includes the first offense or is
necessarilyincludedinsuchfirstoffenseorwherethesecondoffenseisanattempttocommitthefirstora
registrationthereof.Thus,fortheconstitutionalpleaofdoublejeopardytobeavailable,notallthetechnical
elementsconstitutingthefirstoffenseneedbepresentinthetechnicaldefinitionofthesecondoffense.The
law here seeks to prevent harassment of an accused person by multiple prosecutions for offenses which
thoughdifferentfromoneanotherarenonethelesseachconstitutedbyacommonsetoroverlappingsets
oftechnicalelements.

Undoubtedlythen,noconstitutional,statutoryorproceduralobstaclebarredthefilingofthetwoinformations
againstpetitioner.

WHEREFORE,forlackofmerit,thePetitionisDENIEDwithoutpronouncementsastocosts.

SOORDERED.

Fernan,C.J.,Gutierrez,Jr.,FelicianoandBidin,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1
Rollo,5.
2
Rollo,6.
3
Id.,69.
4
Rollo,1819.
5
Rollo,1421.
6
Rollo,23.
7
Id.,512.
8
Id.,910.
9
Id.,11.
10
Rollo,5861.
11
Peoplevs.Ilagan,58Phil.851Peoplevs.Consults,70SCRA277:Andresvs.Cacdac,113SCRA216
Peoplevs.Bocar,etal.,132SCRA166Gasparvs.Sandiganbayan,144SCRA415.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_93475_1991.html 4/5
4/13/2017 G.R.No.93475
12
24SCRA163,171.
13
CitingPeoplevs.Bacolod,89Phil.621Peoplevs.Capurro,7Phil.24Peoplevs.Alvarez,45Phil.472.
14
Article3,RevisedPenalCode.
15
148SCRA292,310.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_93475_1991.html 5/5