Buerano vs. CA 115 SCRA 82 [Case Digest]

73 – Quasi Offense and Double Jeopardy

Buerano vs. CA

115 SCRA 82 [Case Digest]

 

Facts:

            20^th September 1957; Buerano’s LTB bus collided with the Mabuhay Bakery delivery panel driven by Hipolito Vismonte and owned by Chu Yu in Tanay, Rizal.  On Dec 3 1957; complaint was filed against Buerano for slight and less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence. The trial court found him guilty.  On appeal at the CFI and CA, it sustained trial court’s ruling.

            Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Rizal filed another case against Buerano for the Crime of Damage to property through reckless imprudence.  Petitioner filed motion to quash: he asserts its double jeopardy for he has been convicted already of slight and less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence

Issue:

            Whether or not CA was correct in ruling that aside from conviction for slight and less serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, a conviction for the Crime of Damage to property through reckless imprudence is necessary

Held:

            No.

Ratio:

            Accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. For the essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence under Article 365 of the RPC lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony.

            The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty; it does not qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence) remains one and the same, and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions.

Submitted by:  G-one T. Paisones

Submitted to: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

People vs Cano 17 SCRA 237 [Case Digest]

71 – Quasi Offense

People vs Cano

17 SCRA 237 [Case Digest]

Facts:

September 21, 1960, on the National Highway at San Isidro, municipality of San Fernando, Province of Pampanga, accused Ambrocio Cano, being then the driver and person in charge of La Mallorca Pambusco bus with body No. 846, drive, manage and operate said vehicle in a careless, negligent and imprudent manner, causing, as a result thereof the said bus driven by him to hit and bump a Philippine Rabbit Bus with body No. 257, then driven by Clemente Calixto, thereby causing damages to the said Philippine Rabbit Bus in the amount of P5,023.55, and on the same occasion inflicting physical injuries to the passengers of the said buses.

Issue:

            Whether or not reckless imprudence is a crime in itself

Held:

            No.

Ratio:

The proposition that "reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself but simply a way of committing it and merely determines a lower degree of criminal liability" is too broad to deserve unqualified assent.  In intentional crimes, the act itself is punished; in negligence or imprudence, what is principally penalized is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight, the "imprudencia punible." Much of the confusion has arisen from the common use of such descriptive phrases as "homicide through reckless imprudence", and the like; when the strict technical offense is more accurately, "reckless imprudence resulting in homicide", or "simple imprudence causing damages to property."

Submitted by:  G-one T. Paisones

Submitted to: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang

 

People vs Fontanilla 23 SCRA 1227 Case Digest

43

People vs Fontanilla

23 SCRA 1227

Facts:

            On September 1960, Fe Castro, a fifteen-year old virgin, was brought by her mother to the house of Mariano Fontanilla and his second wife, Magdalena Copio, a sister of Fe's mother, to serve as a helper. Fe Castro testified that during her stay in the house of Fontanilla for about three months, the accused succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her repeatedly, the total number of times she could not recall. Prior to this incident, the accused had made amorous overtures and advances toward her.

Fe Castro further testified that she subsequently repeatedly yielded to the carnal desires of the accused, as she was induced by his promises of marriage and frightened by his acts of intimidation. The accused made love to her during the day when his wife was away and at night when the latter was already asleep. Their intimacies lasted for almost three months until her aunt, the wife of the accused, caught them in flagrante on the kitchen floor. The following day she returned to her parents, and revealed everything to her mother two days later.

Issue:

            Whether or not qualified seduction is present when there is no element of deceit

Held:

            Yes.

Ratio:

While deceit is an essential element of ordinary or simple seduction, it does not have to be proved or established in a charge of qualified seduction. It is replaced by abuse of confidence. Under Article 337 of the Revised Penal Code, the seduction of a virgin over twelve and under eighteen years of age, committed by any person in public authority, priest, house servant, domestic guardian, teacher, or any person who, in any capacity, shall be entrusted with the education or custody of the woman seduced is "constitutive" of the crime of qualified seduction even though no deceit intervenes or even when such carnal knowledge was voluntary on the part of the virgin.

Submitted by: G-one T. Paisones

Submitted to: Atty. Cisco Franz S. Maclang