G.R. No.

172716 November 17, 2010

JASON IVLER y AGUILAR vs. HON. MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO
Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch71, Pasig City, and EVANGELINE PONCE
Facts:Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler
(petitioner) was chargedbefore the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City (MTC), with
two separate offenses: (1) RecklessImprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries
for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L.Ponce (respondent Ponce); and (2)
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage toProperty for
the death of respondent Ponces husband Nestor
C. Ponce and damage to thespouses Ponces vehicle.Petitioner posted bail for his
temporary release in both cases. On 2004, petitioner pleaded guiltyto the charge on
the first delict and was meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking
thisconviction, petitioner moved to quash the Information for the second delict for
placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless
imprudence. The MTC refused quashal, finding no identity of offenses in the two
cases. The petitioner elevated the matter to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig
City (RTC),
in
a petition
forcertiorari while Ivler sought from the MTC the suspension of proceedings in crimin
al case,including the arraignment his arraignment as a prejudicial question.Without
acting on petitioners motion, the MTC proceeded with the arraignment and,
because of petitioners absence, cancelled his bail and ordered his arrest.Seven
days later, the MTC issued a resolution denying petitioners motion to suspend
proceedingsand postponing his arraignment until after his arrest. Petitioner sought
reconsideration but as of the filing of this petition, the motion remained unresolved.
ISSUES: 1. Whether petitioner forfeited his standing to seek relief from his petition
for certiorari when theMTC ordered his arrest following his non-appearance at the
arraignment in Reckless ImprudenceResulting in Slight Physical Injuries for injuries
sustained
by
respondent;
2. Whether petitioners constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars f
urtherproceedings in Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to
Property for the deathof respondent Ponces husband.
HELD:(1) Petitioners non-appearance at the arraignment in Criminal Case No.
82366 did not divest himof personality to maintain the petition in S.C.A. 2803;
and(2) The protection afforded by the Constitution shielding petitioner from
prosecutions placing himin jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense
bars further proceedings in Criminal CaseNo. 82366RATIO:1.The mischief in the
RTCs treatment of petitioners non-appearance at his arraignment inCriminal Case
No. 82366 as proof of his loss of standing becomes evident when one considersthe
Rules of Courts treatment of a defendant who absents himself from post-

arraignmenthearings. Under Section 21,

Rule 11411 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, thedefendants
absence
merely renders his bondsman potentially liable on its bond (subject tocancellation
should the bondsman fail to produce the accused within 30 days); the
defendantretains his standing and, should he fail to surrender, will be tried in
absentia and could beconvicted or acquitted.