Double Jeopardy
Same “Offense”
G.R. No. 93475 June 5, 1991
FACTS:
At around 8:30 o'clock in the evening of
14 March 1985, along Urbano Street, Pasig, Metro Manila, an owner-type jeep,
then driven by petitioner, allegedly "hit and bumped" a tricycle then
driven by Ernesto Reyes resulting in damage to the tricycle and injuries to
Ernesto Reyes and Paulino Gonzal.
As a consequence thereof, two
informations were filed against petitioner: (a) an Information for reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple physical injuries
under Article 365 of the Revised Penal
Code and (b) an Information for violation of paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the Revised Penal Code on
Abandonment of one's victim.
On June 1987 the MTC of Pasig rendered
its decision in finding the petitioner guilty of the crime of Abandonment of
one's victim as defined and penalized under paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the
Revised Penal Code. Petitioner appealed from said Decision to the RTC of Pasig.
In the meantime, on 27 April 1989, petitioner was arraigned for violation of
Article 365. He entered a plea of not guilty.
He filed a petition for review in the CA
but which was denied. He raised before the SC that that he cannot be penalized
twice for an “accident” and another for “recklessness.” He maintained that since
he is facing a criminal charge for reckless imprudence, which offense carries
heavier penalties under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, he could no
longer be charged under Article 275, par. 2, for abandonment for failing to
render to the persons whom he has accidentally injured.
ISSUE:
Whether or not prosecution for
negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code is a bar to prosecution
for abandonment under Article 275 of the same Code because it constitutes
double jeopardy.
RULING:
No, the SC affirmed that the 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, the petition should be dismissed for lack of
merit.
Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a
valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a
valid plea having been entered, and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without the express consent of the accused.
He is charged for two separate offenses
under the Revised Penal Code. In People
vs. Doriquez, the SC held that it is a cardinal rule
that the protection against double jeopardy may be invoked only for the same
offense or identical offenses. Where
two different laws (or articles of the same code) defines two crimes, prior
jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other,
although both offenses arise from the same facts, if each crime involves some
important act which is not an essential element of the other.
The two informations filed against
petitioner are clearly for separate offenses. The first, for reckless
imprudence (Article 365), falls under the sole chapter (Criminal Negligence) of
Title Fourteen (Quasi Offenses) of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. The
second, for Abandonment of one's victim (par. 2, Art. 275), falls under Chapter
Two (Crimes Against Security) of Title Nine (Crimes Against Personal Liberty
and Security) of Book Two of the same Code.
Quasi offenses under Article 365 are
committed by means of culpa.
Crimes against Security are committed by means of dolo.
Where the offenses charged are penalized
either by different sections of the same statute or by different statutes, the
important inquiry relates to the identity
of the offenses charged. The constitutional
protection against double jeopardy is available only where an identity is shown
to exist between the earlier and the subsequent offenses charged.
No comments:
Post a Comment