THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. FEDERICO DESPAVELLADOR Y DULOT, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Defendant Federico Despavellador is charged with damage to property
through reckless negligence. It is alleged in the information:

“That
on or about the 27th day of July, 1955, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, being then the driver and person in
charge of passenger bus (GMC) bearing plate No. TPU-4683 (Manila) did
then and there unlawfully and feloneously drive, manage and operate the
same eastward on Azcarraga street, in said city, in a negligent,
reckless and imprudent manner by then and there making the said bus run
at a speed greater than was reasonable and proper, without taking the
necessary precautions to avoid accident to persons or damage to
property considering the condition of the vehicular traffic at the time
at the said place, causing as a consequence of his said negligence,
recklessness, imprudence and want of precautions the said bus so driven
by him to strike and sideswipe, as in fact it struck and sideswiped
passenger jeepney plate No. TPU-5249 (Manila), driven by Jose Perez y
Eusebio and belonging to Librada Manalo, which jeepney was also
travelling eastward on said Azcarraga street, and also causing the
latter vehicle to hit, as in fact it hit a Meralco post, damaging the
said passenger Jeepney to the extent of P200.00, to the damage and
prejudice of Librada Manalo in the aforesaid amount of P2000.00,
Philippine currency.”

After due trial,
under a plea of guilty, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered
a decision in which it made the following findings:

“*
* *” On the early morning of July 27, 1955 a passenger jeepney with
Plate No. TPU-5249 (Manila) and driven by witness Jose Perez, was
travelling eastward on Azcarraga street, Manila, On board thereof where
some passengers among whom was Flaviana Enriquez, another witness who
had a cargo of fish valued at P85.00 which she was then taking to San
Juan for sale. Upon reaching that part of Azcarraga street in front of
the University of the East, the jeepney was overtaken and sideswiped on
the right side by a speeding big passenger bus, TPU-4683 (Manila),
which came from behind and was driven by the defendant Federico
Despavellador. The bus was going towards the same direction on the same
street. The act of sideswiping produced an inpact that forced the
jeepney to swerve to the center of the street, thereby causing it to
strike, bump into and collide against a post at the middle, as a result
of which it suffered damages in the amount of P200.00 (Exhibits ‘C’,
‘C-1′ to C-11’), and the cargo of fish totally destroyed. There is
evidence to show that the bus which the defendant was driving, was
racing with two other buses moments before the accident. Although the
bus did not show any appreciable, damage, the jeepney bore indications
of slight damage at the portion thereof which came into bodily contact
with the bus, in addition to the damages sustained by it on the front
part where it struck the post.

“The Court is convinced that
there was here a collision between the passenger jeepney and the
passenger bus; that the latter was speeding and so was the former; and
that the defendant is guilty of damage to property thru reckless
imprudence with contributory negligence on the part of the other
driver.”

*           *           *            *           *           *           *

The dispositive part of said decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, the defendant Federico Despavellador y Dulot is hereby
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of damage to
property thru reckless negligence imputed to him m the information
filed herein and quoted at the beginning of this decision, with
contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the damaged
jeepney, which should mitigate the civil liability of said accused,
and, in accordance with the applicable provisions of Article 365 of the
Revised Penal Code, hereby sentences him to pay a fine of one hundred
pesos (P100.00), which is the damage as fixed by the Court in the
exercise of its discretion and for which the accused should be made
liable, considering the contributory negligence on the part of the
driver of the damaged jeepney; to indemnify the owner of the said
jeepney, Librada Manalo, in the said amount of one hundred pesos
(P100.00) as well as to further indemnify Flaviana Enriquez in the
additional sum of eighty five pesos (P85.00) representing the value of
the fish belonging to her which had been totally destroyed, or to
suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with law in case of
insolvency to pay the fine and the indemnities; and to pay the costs.”

On appeal taken by the defendant, the Court of
Appeals held that the value of the damage sustained by the jeep driven
by Jose Perez had not been properly established, that the basis
essential to the determination of the imposable penalty which by law
(Article 365, Revised Penal Code) is dependent upon the amount of the
damage caused to the offended party was, therefore, lacking, and that
the extent of the contributory negligence of Jose Perez should be
ascertained further for a proper elucidation of the main issue in the
case, and, accordingly, set aside the decision of the lower court and
remanded thereto the record of the case “for further proceedings on the
questions of extent or amount of damages sustained by the jeepney
driven by Jose Perez and the contributory negligence on the part of
said Perez, on the condition that the evidence already adduced shall
not be received anew.” The Court of Appeals, moreover, directed the
court below to render, after a new trial, another decision “as the law
and the evidence so warrants.”

When the case was called in
the lower court, for the reception of additional evidence, the
witnesses for the government failed to show up, despite several
postponements granted on motion of the prosecution. Hence, the case was
deemed resubmitted for decision and another one was rendered, the
dispositive part of which we quote:

“There
being no evidence sufficient, in the opinion of the Court of Appeals,
to establish damage on the part of the jeep, decision is hereby
rendered convicting the defendant of damage to property through
reckless imprudence in the amount of eighty-five (P85.00), pesos,
representing the value of the wares of the passenger Flaviana Enriquez,
and for this reason, he is hereby found guilty thereof and sentenced to
pay a fine of eighty-five pesos; (P85.00), to indemnify said Flaviana
Enriquez in the amount of eighty-five pesos, (P85.00), with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay both the fine and the
indemnity, and to pay the costs.”

From this
second decision, the defendant has appealed directly to this Court,
only two (2) questions of law being raised in his brief. In view,
however, of the conclusion we have reached with respect to the first
error assigned in said brief, we deem it unnecessary to consider the
other issue therein raised.

The main question before us is
whether the last decision of the lower court suffers from a fatal
infirmity, namely, that it convicts appellant herein of a crime not
alleged in the information. Indeed, the same charges him with damage,
through reckless negligence, to a jeep belonging to Librada Manalo,
to the prejudice of the latter in the sum of P200.00, whereas the
decision appealed from found appellant guilty of damage, thru reckless
imprudence, not to the jeep, but to the wares not of Librada Manalo the owner of the jeep, but of a passenger thereof named Flaviana Enriquez. We agree with the defense, that the crime of damage through reckless imprudence, to the wares of said passenger is not
charged in the information and neither includes the fact alleged
therein, nor is included in the latter. Thus, said decision punishes
appellant for a crime of which he has not legally informed and, hence,
denied him the due process of law.

The failure of the
prosecution to establish specifically the value of the damage sustained
by the jeep of Librada Manalo is not, however, an insurmountable
obstacle to the imposition of the corresponding penalty, for, the third
paragraph of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code reads:

“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
damage to three times such value but which shall in no case be less than twenty-five pesos.” (Italics ours.)

Hence, the value of the damage in question in the case at bar should be deemed to be, at least, P25.00 (People vs. Rodriguez, L-6300, April 20, 1954; People vs. Narvas, 107 Phil., 737).

Wherefore,
the decision appealed from is hereby modified in the sense that
appellant herein is convicted of the offense of damage, through
reckless negligence, to the jeep of Librada Manalo, in the amount of
P25.00, and is accordingly, sentenced to pay a fine of P25.00, and to
indemnify said Librada Manalo in the aforementioned sum of P25.00, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, apart from the costs. It
is so ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.