CRIMINAL LAW 1 | DIGESTS | 1D

Ivler vs. San Pedro <G.R. No. 172716 November 17, 2010>
TOPIC : Complex Crimes in Relation to Quasi - Crimes
Mariacos-Templonuevo, French Vivienne T. chz

FACTS:

 Due to a vehicular collision dated August of 2004, Jason Ivler was charged by Pasig MTC
with the following offenses which are deemed separate;
(1) reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries for the injuries acquiesed by
respondent Evangeline Ponce (respondent);
(2) reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property for the death of Nestor
Ponce (respondent’s spouse) and damage to the respondent’s vehicle;

 Crimes charged were charged were (1) reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical
injuries; and (2) reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property
 Jason Ivler (petitioner) pleaded guilty to the first charge: in reckless imprudence resulting
in slight physical injuries and was meted out the penalty of public censure. He ceded such
plead by invoking his conviction.
 The petitioner eventually raised a motion to quash the information of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide and damage to property for pinning him in jeopardy of second
punishment for the same offense of reckless imprudence. Pasig City, MTC denied the
Motion to Quash

RTC RULING:
RTC denied the Petition for Certiorari in dismissing the petitioner’s Motion to Quash. It
affirmed thhe MTC Ruling on the following charges posed on the accused; (1) reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries; and (2) reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide and damage to property.

ISSUE:

W/N the conviction of the accused in the first offense charged, bars his prosecution
in the second offense

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT:
 By invoking the consitutional limitations
on criminal law (refer to the Double
Jeopardy Clause), Ivler argued that his
constitutional right shall not be pinned
twice in jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense. It bars his prosecution in
reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide and damage to property,
considering that he was previously
convicted in reckless imprudence
resulting in slight physical injuries for
CRIMINAL LAW 1 | DIGESTS | 1D

injuries for the same offense. The

petitioner asserts that the multiple
consequences of such crime are
essentially material ONLY to determine
his penalty.

SC RULING:
Ruling of the lower courts are reversed. The conviction of the petitioner in the case of reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries essentially bars the prosecution of Ivler in
criminal charge of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property.

1) Reckless Imprudence shall be deemed as a Single Crime. Its consequences posed

on Persons and Property are material ONLY to Determine the Penalty

Quasi-offenses penalize “the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous
recklessness, lack of care or foresight, the imprudencia punible xx”. In contrast with the willful
offenses that punish the intention of the criminal act.

2) Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless Imprudence Bars Subsequent Prosecution

for the Same Quasi-offense

The accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act once he becomes either
convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence. Quasi-offense of criminal
negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code anchors in the execution of either an
imprudent or a negligent act that of which, if intentionally executed or done, would be
punishable as a felony. Hence, the law penalizes the negligent or careless act and not the
result thereof. It was stressed by the SC that the gravity of the consequence must only be
taken into account to determine the penalty. Such does not qualify the substance of the
offense itself. As to the the careless act is that must be deemed single, whether the injurious
result affects a single person or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence) remains
one and the same. Thus, such cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions.

3) Article 48 does not apply to acts penalized under Article 365 of the Revised Penal
Code

xx “Article 48 is incongruent to the notion of quasi-crimes under Article 365. It is conceptually

impossible for a quasi-offense to stand for (1) a single act constituting two or more grave or
less grave felonies; or (2) an offense which is a necessary means for committing another.
Prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from a single charge regardless of the number
or severity of the consequences. In imposing penalties, the judge will do no more than apply
the penalties under Article 365 for each consequence alleged and proven. In short, there shall
be no splitting of charges under Article 365, and only one information shall be filed in the
same first level court” xx

ADDITIONAL NOTES

Complex Crime - It is made up of two or more crimes beiong punished in distinct provisions of
the RPC, however alleged in an information either because they were brought about by a
single felonious act or because one offense is a necessary means for committing the other
offense or offenses. As to the penalty for the most serious crime, it shall be imposed in its
CRIMINAL LAW 1 | DIGESTS | 1D

maximum period (Estrada, 2018).

Note: Art. 48 of the RPC does not apply to acts penalized under Art. 365. In contrast as
to the nature of Art. 48 which is anchored on two or more felonies, Art. 365 is a substantuive
rule penalizing not an act defined as a felony but the mental attitudes behind the act (i.e.
dangerous recklessness, lack of care, foresight etc) as a single mental attitude regardles of
the consequences resulting from them. Therefore, Art. 365 was framed as one quasi-crime
resulting in one or more consequences (ibid).

Quasi-crimes - Such crimes are intended to embrace all offenses not crimes or
misdemeanors, but that are in the nature of crimes. They are a class of offenses against the
public that have not been declared ‘crimes’. Quasi-crimes are perpetrated against the general
public in which they are properly punished by penalties or forfeitures. However, quasi crimes
do not embrace indictable offenses. Rather, they encompass forfeitures for a wrong done
action to the public, whether voluntary or involuntary, where a penalty is given, whether
recoverable by criminal or civil process. Quasi-crimes are also acts of doing damage or
evil involuntarily (US Legal, 2018).