FACTS: 

Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler was charged before
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City (MeTC), with two separate offenses: (1) reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline
L. Ponce; and (2) reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property for the
death of respondent Ponce’s husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponce’s
vehicle.

Crimes charged: 1) reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries; and 2) reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property

On September 7, 2004, Ivler pleaded guilty to the charge in reckless imprudence resulting in
slight physical injuries and was meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking this
conviction, Ivler moved to quash the Information of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
and damage to property for placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense
of reckless imprudence.

MeTC: denied the motion to quash

RTC: denied Ivler’s Petition for Certiorari in dismissing his Motion to Quash

ISSUE: Whether or not Ivler’s constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further
proceedings in the information charging him with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
and damage to property (YES)

Defense: Ivler argues that his constitutional right not to be placed twice in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense bars his prosecution in reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide and damage to property having been previously convicted in reckless imprudence
resulting in slight physical injuries for injuries for the same offense. Ivler submits that the
multiple consequences of such crime are material only to determine his penalty

HELD: The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the RTC. Petitioner’s conviction in the case of
reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries bars his prosecution in criminal
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property

1) Reckless Imprudence is a Single Crime; its Consequences 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,” unlike willful offenses which
punish the intentional criminal act. These structural and conceptual features of quasi-offenses
set them apart from the mass of intentional crimes.

2) Prior Conviction or Acquittal of Reckless Imprudence Bars Subsequent Prosecution for the
Same Quasi-offense

Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for that same act. For the essence of the quasi-offense of criminal negligence
under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent
act that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the
negligent or careless act, not the result thereof.

The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty, it does not
qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the injurious
result should affect one person or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence) remains
one and the same, and 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

Article 48 is a procedural device allowing single prosecution of multiple felonies falling under
either of two categories: (1) when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies (thus excluding from its operation light felonies); and (2) when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other. The legislature crafted this procedural tool to
benefit the accused who, in lieu of serving multiple penalties, will only serve the maximum of
the penalty for the most serious crime.

In contrast, Article 365 is a substantive rule penalizing not an act defined as a felony but the
mental attitude behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight, a single
mental attitude regardless of the resulting consequences. Thus, Article 365 was crafted as one
quasi-crime resulting in one or more consequences. Article 48 is incongruent to the notion of
quasi-crime resulting in one or more consequences.

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