Consti II case digest: IVLER VS MODESTO-SAN PEDRO

Double jeopardy: requisites

FACTS:

Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner herein, Jason Ivler was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig with two separate offenses:

1. Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries

2. Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property

Petitioner pleaded guilty for the first charge, but moved to quash the second charge invoking double jeopardy having been convicted for the previous offense.

MeTC however, refused quashal finding no identity of offenses in the two cases.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner's conviction in the first offense charged, bars his prosecution in the second offense charged.

HELD:

Reckless imprudence is a Single Crime, its consequences on persons and property are material only to determine the penalty.

The two charges against the petitioner, arising from the same facts were prosecuted under the same provision of the RPC, as amended, namely Article 365 defining and penalizing quasi offenses.

The proposition (inferred from Art 3 of the RPC) that "reckless imprudence" is not a crime in itself but simple a way of committing it.

Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless Imprudence bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi offense.

The Court thru Justice JB Reyes: Reason and precedent both coincide in that ones convicted or acquitted to a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determined the penalty, it does not qualify the substance of an offense.

Tests to determine double jeopardy:

1. Whether or not the second offense charged necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.

2.Whether the evidence which proves one would prove the other that is to say whether the facts alleged in the first if proven, would have been sufficient to support the second charge and vice versa; or whether the crime is an ingredient of the other