THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. BENJAMIN AGUILAR Y PEREZ AND JOSE OLIVEROS Y OLAT, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

People versus Aguilar

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Benjamin Aguilar and Jose Oliveros, two drivers charged with multiple slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence after their jeepney and taxicab collided at a Manila street corner and injured five passengers. The question is not who was at fault on the road, but whether the facts alleged even make out a punishable crime. The case matters because it fixes a rule every criminal law candidate must know: under the Revised Penal Code as it then stood, slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence were not a crime, and courts may not create crimes by inference.

Procedural History

The two drivers were charged by information in the Municipal Court of Manila. Both filed motions to quash on the ground that reckless imprudence is punishable only when the acts complained of would constitute a grave or less grave felony. The municipal court granted the motions. The City Fiscal appealed, and the Court of First Instance of Manila sustained the order granting the motions and dismissing the case. The People then brought the matter to the Supreme Court, which resolved the appeal by setting aside the order of dismissal.

Facts

On or about the twenty-fifth of April, 1955, in the City of Manila, Benjamin Aguilar was driving a passenger jeepney and Jose Oliveros was driving a Liberty taxicab. They met at the corner of Requesens and Oroquieta streets. The information alleged that both drove in a careless, reckless, and imprudent manner, at a speed greater than was reasonable and proper, and without the necessary precautions to avoid accident to persons and damage to property, considering the condition of vehicular traffic at the time and place.

The two vehicles bumped and collided with each other. As a result of the impact, five passengers of the jeepney sustained physical injuries that required medical attendance for more than one but not more than nine days, and that incapacitated them from their customary labor for the same period. Injuries of that duration are slight physical injuries.

Charged with multiple slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence, the drivers moved to quash. They argued that reckless imprudence is punishable only if the acts complained of would amount to a grave or less grave felony. The municipal court and then the Court of First Instance of Manila agreed and dismissed the case, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not slight physical injuries committed through reckless imprudence constitute a punishable offense under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code as it stood at the time of the information.
• Whether or not an information that describes the negligence in vague terms, alleging careless, reckless, negligent, and imprudent driving without specifying the kind of negligence, states an offense that can survive a motion to quash.

Applicable Provisions

Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Article 365. Imprudence and negligence. Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correctional in its minimum period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed.

This clause limits reckless imprudence to acts that would be grave or less grave felonies if intentional, and says nothing of light felonies.

Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed.

This clause likewise covers only grave and less grave felonies committed through simple negligence.

When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value, but which shall in no case be less than 25 pesos.

This clause addresses damage to property, not physical injuries, and so does not reach the case at bar.

A fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.

This clause punishes light felonies only through simple negligence, and the Court reads its silence on reckless imprudence as deliberate.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Article 365 punishes four situations: an act by reckless negligence which, if intentional, would be a grave or less grave felony; an act by simple negligence which, if intentional, would be a grave or less grave felony; a negligent act resulting in damage to another's property; and an act by simple negligence which, if maliciously done, would be a light felony. The article does not include an act of reckless imprudence which, if done intentionally, would constitute a light felony such as slight physical injuries. The Court applied the rule of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning the inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of another, and declared that courts should not consider as crimes by inference or implication acts or omissions not expressly and clearly punishable by law. The Court noted that the Legislature itself recognized the gap and filled it in 1957 through Republic Act Number 1790, which provided the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period for a light felony committed through reckless imprudence or negligence.

On the second issue, the Court held that the dismissal was nonetheless improper because the information described reckless and simple negligence equally. Following People versus Lingad, the Court observed that while the information designates the crime as slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence, its body does not specify the kind of negligence, alleging only that the act was done in a careless, reckless, negligent, and imprudent manner. From such a vague allegation one may infer that the act was committed either through reckless or through simple negligence, depending on the evidence the prosecution presents. Even if reckless imprudence was intended, the case is not beyond the law, for it may still be shown at trial that the accused acted only through simple negligence, on the theory that what is more or graver includes the less or lighter. The question, in the last analysis, boils down to a matter of evidence, since the elements of the two kinds of negligence are practically the same and differ only in degree.

Doctrine

First, under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code as originally worded, slight physical injuries committed through reckless imprudence were not a punishable offense, because the article expressly covered only grave and less grave felonies committed through reckless imprudence, and light felonies only through simple negligence. Second, penal laws are strictly construed: courts may not treat as crimes by inference or implication acts or omissions that the law does not expressly and clearly punish, and the rule of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius governs the enumeration in Article 365. Third, an information that alleges negligence in the generic language of careless, reckless, negligent, and imprudent driving without specifying its kind states an offense, because it may be established at trial that the accused acted through simple negligence, the lesser being included in the greater, and the matter is one of evidence.

Disposition

The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court for hearing on the merits, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that courts should not consider as crimes by inference or implication acts or omissions not expressly and clearly punishable by law, together with the gap in Article 365 later filled by Republic Act Number 1790. Examiners use this case on the principle of legality and strict construction of penal statutes, and on the rule that a vague allegation of negligence in an information states an offense because the greater includes the lesser and the matter is one of evidence.