73 – Quasi Offense
and Double Jeopardy
Buerano vs. CA
115 SCRA 82 [Case Digest]
Facts:
20th 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
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento