Bill of Rights

 Ivler vs. San Pedro

 G.R. No. 172716November 17, 2010
 !"#S$

Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler (petitioner) was
charged before the Metropolitan rial !ourt of "asig !it# (M!), with two separate offenses$ (%)
&ec'less Iprudence &esulting in light "h#sical In*uries for in*uries sustained b# respondent
+vangeline - "once (respondent "once). and (2) &ec'less Iprudence &esulting in /oicide and
aage to "ropert# for the death of respondent "once1s husband estor !- "once and daage to the
spouses "once1s vehicle-

"etitioner posted bail for his teporar# 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 Inforation for the second delict for placing hi in
 *eopard# of second punishent for the sae offense of rec'less iprudence-

he M! refused uashal, finding no identit# of offenses in the two cases-

he 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 criinal
case, including the arraignent his arraignent as a pre*udicial uestion-

5ithout acting on petitioner1s otion, the M! proceeded with the arraignent and,
because of petitioner1s absence, cancelled his bail and ordered his arrest-

even da#s later, the M! issued a resolution den#ing petitioner1s otion to suspend
proceedings and postponing his arraignent until after his arrest- "etitioner sought
reconsideration but as of the filing of this petition, the otion reained unresolved-

ISS%&S$

%- 5hether petitioner forfeited his standing to see' relief fro his petition for certiorari when
the M! ordered his arrest following his non6appearance at the arraignent in &ec'less
Iprudence &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 in &ec'less Iprudence &esulting in /oicide and aage to "ropert# for the
death of respondent "once1s husband-

R%'ING$

he accused negative constitutional right not to be 7twice put in *eopard# of punishent
for the sae offense7 protects hi fro, aong others, post6conviction prosecution for the sae
offense, with the prior verdict rendered b# a court of copetent *urisdiction upon a
valid inforation-

"etitioner adopts the affirative view, subitting that the two cases concern the sae
offense of rec'less iprudence- he M! ruled otherwise, finding that &ec'less Iprudence
&esulting in light "h#sical In*uries is an entirel# separate offense fro &ec'less Iprudence
&esulting in /oicide and aage to "ropert# 7as the 8latter9 reuires proof of an additional fact
which the other does not-7

he two charges against petitioner, arising fro the sae facts, were prosecuted under the
sae provision of the &evised "enal !ode, as aended, nael#, Article :;< defining and
penali=ing uasi6offenses-

he provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable- Indeed, the notion that
uasi6offenses, whether rec'less or siple, are distinct species of crie, separatel# defined and
penali=ed under the fraewor' of our penal laws, is nothing new-

he doctrine that rec'less iprudence under Article :;< is a single uasi6offense b#
itself and not erel# a eans to coit other cries such that conviction or acuittal of such uasi6
offense bars subseuent prosecution for the sae uasi6offense, regardless of its various
resulting acts, undergirded this !ourt1s unbro'en chain of *urisprudence on double *eopard# as
applied to
 Article :;<-

hese cases uniforl# barred the second prosecutions as constitutionall# iperissible

under the ouble Jeopard# !lause-

3ur ruling toda# secures for the accused facing an Article :;< charge a stronger and
sipler protection of their constitutional right under the ouble Jeopard# !lause- rue, the# are
thereb# denied the beneficent effect of the favorable sentencing forula under Article 4>, but an#
disadvantage thus caused is ore than copensated b# the certaint# of non6prosecution for uasi6
crie effects ualif#ing as 7light offenses7 (or, as here, for the ore serious conseuence
prosecuted belatedl#)- If it is so inded, !ongress can re6craft Article :;< b# e?tending to uasi6
cries the sentencing forula of Article 4> so that onl# the ost severe penalt# shall be iposed
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 cries occup#ing a lower rung of culpabilit#,
should cushion the effect of this ruling-

"etition granted-