Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Art.

365 – Quasi-offenses and 1 day to 2 months and pay the costs of the
GR No. L-30269 suit.
Buerano v. CA 5. May 2, CFI affirmed MC’s decision but modified the
Relova, J. 1962 sentence to 4 months of Arresto Mayor and pay
(CFI/RTC) the costs of the suit.
6. CFI/RTC While the abovementioned facts were happening,
Summarized by Lulu Querido Asst. Provincial Fiscal of Rizal charged him with
damage to property through reckless
Buerano hits truck with his car, which results in damages to the truck and imprudence with CFI.
injuries to the truck’s occupants. He was tried and convicted of less serious
physical injuries thru reckless imprudence, but the Asst. Provincial Buerano tried to quash the suit because of double
Prosecutor wanted him to tried for damages to property thru reckless jeopardy  he was already convicted of the
offense charged (MC decision)
imprudence as well. Court ruled that there was double jeopardy.
Provincial Fiscal opposed the motion because the
IMPORTANT PEOPLE crime he was convicted of in MC and RTC is
Epitacio Buerano: petitioner different from the crime he’s being charged with. He
Hipolito Vismonte, Bonifacio, Sy Tian: injured victims of the car crash cited People v. Estipona where the Court stated
that those 2 crimes are different because it’s
FACTS punishable under 2 different provisions and more
evidence is needed to prove injuries than damages.
Date What happened
1. September Epitacio Buerano, driver of a LTB bus (with plate # CFI denied the motion to quash and found him
20, 1957 22-900), hit right front side of the Mabuhay Bakery guilty.
delivery panel (with plate # T-13016), owned by 7. CA Buerano appealed to CA.
Chu Yu in Tanay, Rizal.
2. The accident caused the physical injuries on the CA affirmed CFI’s decision and ordered him to pay
different parts of the body of the driver and helpers  P4, 387 (twice the amount of the damages
of the truck: suffered by the truck) with subsidiary
 Hipolito Vismonte (driver): 5 days imprisonment in case of insolvency
 Bonifacio Virtudazo (helper #1): 10 days  P2, 193.50 to the owner
 Sy Tian alias Martin (helper #2): 30 days.  Costs of the suit.
3. December The Chief of Police of Tanay charged Buerano of CA ruled that there was no double jeopardy
3, 1957 slight and serious physical injuries through because
reckless imprudence with the Municipal Judge.  He wasn’t convicted or acquitted of damage
4. February 6, MTC found him guilty of slight and less serious to property thru reckless imprudence nor
1958 (MC) physical injuries through reckless imprudence was the case was dismissed/terminated
and sentenced him with imprisonment of 1 month

1
when he was being tried for injuries thru to determine the penalty; it does not qualify the substance of the
reckless imprudence. offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the injurious
 MC1 had no jurisdiction to try damage to result should affect one person or several persons, the offense
said offense involving P2, 193.50 because (criminal negligence) remains one and the same, and cannot be
the penalty may be thrice the aforesaid
split into different crimes and prosecutions.”
amount.
 Buerano can’t validly plead before MC to
said offense. The Court agreed with Sol-Gen Felix Makasiar when he argued
 The offense of said offense is not by analogy that if there is double jeopardy in reckless imprudence
necessarily included in the prosecution of that results in homicide and physical injuries, then it should apply
slight and less serious physical injuries thru to the reckless act which results in both damage to property and
reckless imprudence. physical injuries.
 Buerano was never tried of said offense in
MC of Tanay.
He went on to say that “the value of a human life lost as a result
of a vehicular collision cannot be equated with any amount of
damages caused to a motors vehicle arising from the same
ISSUE with HOLDING
mishap.”
1. WON there is double jeopardy in being tried for damage to
property thru reckless imprudence after being convicted of less
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence – YES
Set aside Buerano’s conviction of damage to property thru reckless
imprudence and acquit him.
CA relied in the pre-war case (decided on November 14, 1940)
of People v. Estipona (check fact #6 for ruling). However, this has
DOCTRINE
been overturned by People v. Buan2 (decided on March 29,
If the reckless act results in damage and physical injuries, it can only be tried
1968), wherein Justice J.B.L. Reyes held that:
in one case. Otherwise, there will be double jeopardy.
“…once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless
In Art. 365, what is punished is the negligent act. Only look at the gravity of
imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for that
the consequence to determine the penalty.
same act. For the essence of the quasi offense of criminal
negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal
Code…penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result
thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account

1CA kept using “JP Court” to refer to MC but I don’t know what that 2 In this case Jose Buan was convicted of slight physical injuries thru
means and it was never used by SC. reckless imprudence, but someone wanted to try him for serious
physical injuries thru reckless imprudence.
2

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi