THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSE BUAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Buan

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Jose Buan, a direct appeal by the accused from an order of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan refusing to quash an information for serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence. Buan had earlier been acquitted by the Justice of the Peace Court of Guiguinto of slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence arising from the very same vehicular collision. The case matters because it fixes the rule that criminal negligence is a single offense that cannot be split into as many crimes as there are victims or consequences, and that a prior acquittal or conviction for one such charge bars all the rest.

Procedural History

The Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan filed an information in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan for serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence. Before that case could be tried, the Justice of the Peace Court of Guiguinto tried Buan for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence and acquitted him on December 16, 1963. When arraigned in the Court of First Instance, Buan moved to quash on the ground of double jeopardy. The prosecution opposed the motion, the court denied it, and reconsideration was likewise denied. Buan then appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which heard the case as a direct appeal from the order overruling the motion to quash.

Facts

On July 23, 1962, Jose Buan was driving a passenger bus of the La Mallorca Company along the MacArthur Highway in the municipality of Guiguinto, Bulacan. Allegedly because of his negligence and recklessness, the bus struck and collided with the passenger jeep of Sergio Lumidao, damaging the jeep and causing it to turn turtle, and injuring its passengers.

Six passengers suffered slight physical injuries requiring medical attendance for five to nine days. Three others suffered serious bodily injuries needing medical attention for thirty to forty-five days. The jeep itself was damaged in the amount of 1,395 pesos.

A charge of slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence was filed in the Justice of the Peace Court of Guiguinto, where Buan was tried and acquitted. Before that acquittal, however, the Provincial Fiscal had already filed the information in the Court of First Instance for serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence. Both charges admittedly referred to the same highway collision.

Issues

• Whether or not the second prosecution for serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence placed the accused twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and is barred by his previous acquittal.

Applicable Provisions

Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines criminal negligence, is the provision the Court construes. The Court describes it in these terms:

The essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony.

This is the pivot of the ruling, because the offense is the careless act itself, not its consequences.

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, on complex crimes, was raised by the Solicitor General and rejected by the Court:

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code allows only the complexing of grave or less grave felonies.

The Court held that this did not authorize the prosecution to split the single negligent act into successive prosecutions.

Ruling

The Court ruled for the accused. Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. The law penalizes the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is taken into account only to determine the penalty; it does not qualify the substance of the offense. As the careless act is single, whether the injurious result affects one person or several persons, the offense remains one and the same and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions.

The Court relied on its own precedents. In People versus Silva, an acquittal for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence barred a later prosecution for homicide through reckless imprudence arising from the same accident. In People versus Diaz, the dismissal of a reckless driving charge barred a later information for damage to property through reckless imprudence. In People versus Belga, the dismissal of an information for physical injuries through reckless imprudence blocked two other prosecutions arising from the same collision. The same doctrine was reasserted in Yap versus Lutero. In none of these cases did the Court regard as material that the offenses were triable in courts of differing category, or that the complainants were not the same individuals.

On the argument that the lesser charge could not be joined with the graver one, the Court answered that the prosecution was not obliged to press the lesser charge first, but having done so and lost, it could not afterwards press the more serious charge arising from the same alleged recklessness.

Doctrine

Criminal negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code is a single offense. It consists in the imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law punishes the act, not its result; the gravity of the consequence affects only the penalty and does not change the substance of the offense. Accordingly, one careless act gives rise to only one crime of criminal negligence, no matter how many persons are injured or how much property is damaged. A prior conviction or acquittal for that act bars any subsequent prosecution for the same act, even if the later charge is graver, is filed in a court of different category, or involves different complainants. This is the rule of double jeopardy applied to quasi offenses.

Disposition

The order appealed from was reversed, and the Court of First Instance of Bulacan was directed to quash and dismiss the charge against Jose Buan, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the law penalizes the negligent act, not its result, so one careless act is one crime however many are hurt. Examiners use this case to test double jeopardy in reckless imprudence, especially where the earlier charge was slight physical injuries in a justice of the peace court and the later charge is serious physical injuries or damage to property in the Court of First Instance.