MANUEL LAPUZ, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

A collision between Philippine Rabbit Bus No. 43 and Westlutran bus
No. 62 which took place in the barrio of Longos, municipality of
Malolos, Province of Bulacan, in the early morning of February 6, 1950,
gave rise to two criminal prosecutions filed in the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan against Manuel Lapuz the driver of Westlutran bus.
In one case Manuel Lapuz was charged with the crime of homicide with
serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, for the death of
Pedro Simbillo and for the injuries received by Remigio Barnea and
Marcelino Cardenas, all passengers in the Philippine Rabbit bus. In the
other case Manuel Lapuz was charged with the crime of damage to
property through reckless imprudence, for the destruction caused to the
Philippine Rabbit bus. After trial, the court found Manuel Lapuz guilty
in both cases and, in first, sentenced him to imprisonment for a period
ranging from two to four years, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
Pedro Simbillo in the sum of P4,000, Remigio Barnes in the sum of P600,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus the costs;
and, in the second case, sentenced him to pay a fine of P6,676.88 and
to indemnify Florencio P. Buan, owner of Philippine Rabbit Bus No. 43,
in the same amount with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
as to both the fine and the indemnity, plus the costs. Manuel Lapuz
appealed to the Court of Appeals which, in its decision of October 28,
1952, affirmed in toto the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, with costs. The case is now before us upon appeal by certiorari.

In the petitioner’s brief counsel has assigned ten errors seven of
which have reference to the main question of fact decided adversely to
the petitioner, namely, whether under the evidence the petitioner was
guilty of reckless imprudence so as to make him answerable for the
collision in question and its consequences. These assignments of error
need not be discussed, since the findings of fact of the Court of
Appeals against the petitioner are conclusive.

The eighth, ninth and tenth assignments of error are devoted to the
proposition that petitioner’s single negligent act resulting in the
death of one person, serious physical injuries to others, and damage to
property should carry only one penalty in accordance with article 48 of
the Revised Penal Code, and that at most he should be convicted only of
the complex crime of homicide with serious physical injuries and damage
to property through reckless imprudence.

The information for homicide with serious physical injuries alleged
facts sufficient to constitute such crime as that defined and penalized
by section 67 (d) of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law, whereas
the information for damage to property is under article 365, third
paragraph, of the revised Penal Code; and the trial court and the Court
of

Appeals convicted the petitioner as thus charged. Except as will
hereafter be indicated, the petitioner’s two separate convictions were
proper, since the provisions of section 67 (d) of the Revised
Motor Vehicle Law had correspondingly superseded article 365 of the
Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Moreno, 60 Phil., 712; People vs.
Aquino, 85 Phil., 604, 47 Off. Gaz., 4153; Eustaquio vs. Liwag, 86
Phil., 540, 47 Off. Gaz., (Sup.), No. 12, p. 172.) It is to be noted
that section 68 of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law specifically provides
that conviction thereunder shall not bar prosecution for other offenses
under another law.

However, Republic Act No. 587, which took effect on January 1, 1951,
amended Act No. 3992, otherwise known as the Motor Vehicle Law, in the
sense that section 67 (d) of the latter Act is now to the
effect that “if, as the result of negligence or reckless or
unreasonably fast driving any accident occurs resulting in death or
serious bodily injury to any person, the motor vehicle driver at fault
shall, upon conviction be punished under the provisions of the Penal
Code.” Although Republic Act No. 587 took effect after the accident in
question, the same may be applied it being more favorable to the
petitioner. Indeed, petitioner’s counsel invokes the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, the petitioner should be convicted, in
conformity with article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, of the complex
crime of homicide with serious physical injuries and damage to property
through reckless imprudence under the first and third paragraphs of
article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty prescribed in the
first paragraph to be imposed in the maximum period. This penalty (when
any person commits by reckless imprudence any act which, had it been
intentional, would constitute a grave felony) is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correctional in its maximum period, or from 4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is hereby modified by sentencing
the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for an indeterminate period
ranging from 4 months, arresto mayor, to 2 years and 4 months prision correctional,
and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Pedro Simbillo in the sum of
P4,000, Remigio Barnes in the sum of P600, and Florencio P. Buan in the
sum of P6,676.88, all with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, plus the costs. So ordered.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Diokno, JJ., concur.