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

Despavellador versus People

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Federico Despavellador y Dulot, a criminal case for damage to property through reckless negligence under the Revised Penal Code. The accused was the driver of a passenger bus that sideswiped a passenger jeepney on Azcarraga street in Manila. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold on to. First, it is a due process case: an accused may be convicted only of the crime charged in the information, and a conviction for damage to property not alleged there is a fatal infirmity. Second, it teaches how the penalty is fixed when the value of the damage is not proven, because the law itself supplies a floor.

Procedural History

The accused was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with damage to property through reckless negligence, and he entered a plea of guilty. After trial, that court found him guilty, with contributory negligence on the part of the jeepney driver mitigating his civil liability, and sentenced him to a fine of one hundred pesos, to indemnify Librada Manalo in the same amount, and to indemnify Flaviana Enriquez in the sum of eighty five pesos for her destroyed cargo of fish.

The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court held that the value of the damage sustained by the jeepney had not been properly established, and that this basis was essential because the imposable penalty under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code depends on the amount of the damage. It also held that the extent of the contributory negligence of the jeepney driver should be ascertained further. It therefore set aside the decision and remanded the record for further proceedings on those two questions, on the condition that the evidence already adduced would not be received anew, and directed the lower court to render another decision as the law and the evidence warrant.

On remand, the government witnesses failed to appear despite several postponements granted on motion of the prosecution. The case was deemed resubmitted for decision. The lower court then rendered a second decision convicting the accused of damage to property through reckless imprudence in the amount of eighty five pesos, representing the value of the wares of the passenger Flaviana Enriquez, and sentenced him to pay a fine of eighty five pesos and to indemnify her in the same amount. From this second decision the accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising only questions of law.

Facts

On the early morning of the twenty seventh of July, 1955, a passenger jeepney driven by Jose Perez was travelling eastward on Azcarraga street in Manila. On board were passengers, among them Flaviana Enriquez, who was carrying a cargo of fish valued at eighty five pesos which she was taking to San Juan for sale.

Upon reaching the portion of Azcarraga street in front of the University of the East, the jeepney was overtaken and sideswiped on the right side by a speeding passenger bus driven by the accused, Federico Despavellador, which came from behind and was going in the same direction. The impact forced the jeepney to swerve to the center of the street, where it struck and collided against a post. The jeepney suffered damages in the amount of two hundred pesos, and the cargo of fish was totally destroyed. There was evidence that the bus was racing with two other buses moments before the accident.

The trial court was convinced that there was a collision between the two vehicles, that both were speeding, and that the accused was guilty of damage to property through reckless imprudence, with contributory negligence on the part of the other driver. The information, however, charged damage to the jeepney belonging to Librada Manalo in the amount of two hundred pesos. It said nothing about the wares of the passenger.

Issues

• Whether or not the second decision of the lower court is fatally defective because it convicts the accused of a crime not alleged in the information, namely damage through reckless imprudence to the wares of a passenger rather than to the jeepney of its owner.
• Whether or not the failure of the prosecution to establish specifically the value of the damage sustained by the jeepney prevents the imposition of the corresponding penalty.

Applicable Provisions

The third paragraph of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

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.

This is the provision that fixes the penalty for damage to property through reckless negligence, and it ties the fine to the value of the damage while setting a floor below which the fine may not fall.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled for the accused. The information charged damage, through reckless negligence, to the jeep belonging to Librada Manalo, to her prejudice in the sum of two hundred pesos. The decision appealed from, however, found the accused guilty of damage, through reckless imprudence, not to the jeep, but to the wares of a passenger named Flaviana Enriquez. The Court agreed with the defense that this crime is not charged in the information, and neither includes the fact alleged therein nor is included in it. The decision therefore punished the accused for a crime of which he had not been legally informed, and hence denied him the due process of law.

On the second issue, the Court held that the failure of the prosecution to establish specifically the value of the damage sustained by the jeep of Librada Manalo is not an insurmountable obstacle to the imposition of the corresponding penalty. The third paragraph of Article 365 supplies the answer, because the fine may in no case be less than twenty five pesos. Hence the value of the damage in this case should be deemed to be at least twenty five pesos. The Court relied on its earlier rulings in the Rodriguez case decided in April 1954 and the Narvas case.

Doctrine

First, the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation means he may be convicted only of the offense charged in the information, or of an offense necessarily included in it. A conviction for damage to property not alleged in the information is a denial of due process and a fatal infirmity.

Second, under the third paragraph of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, when the value of the damage is not specifically proven, it is deemed to be at least twenty five pesos, because the law fixes that amount as the minimum fine. The penalty may therefore still be imposed, and the accused convicted of damage in that minimum amount.

Disposition

The decision appealed from was modified: the accused was convicted of damage through reckless negligence to the jeep of Librada Manalo in the amount of twenty five pesos, sentenced to pay a fine of twenty five pesos, and ordered to indemnify her in the same sum, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, apart from the costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: no conviction for a crime not alleged in the information, and where the value of the damage is unproven, the damage is deemed at least twenty five pesos under Article 365. Examiners use this case on the constitutional right to be informed of the accusation, and on the computation of the penalty for damage to property through reckless imprudence.