022. PEOPLE v.

BUAN
G.R. No. L-25366 | March 29, 1968 | En Banc | Direct appeal by accused from an Order of the CFI |
People plaintiff-appellee
Jose Buan accused appellant
Decision by: Reyes, J.B.L., Actg. C.J.
Digest by: KY Bautista

Short version: Buan (bus driver) hit a jeepney, injuring the jeep passengers and damaging the jeep. He was charged with slight
phys inj through reckless imprudence but was acquitted by the Justice of the Peace. An Info for serious phys inj and damage to
property through reckless imprudence was filed with the CFI. Accused moved to quash as he was already acquitted in the Justice
of the Peace. SC agrees with accused saying that once convicted/acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, he may not be
prosecuted again for that same act. The law penalizes the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof.

Facts:
Accused Buan was driving a passenger bus of the La Mallorca Company along MacArthur Highway in Guiguinto, Bulacan.
Allegedly because of his negligence, he struck a passenger jeep.
The jeep turned turtle. Jeep passengers were injured.
o 6 slight phys inj (med attendance 5-9 days)
o 3 serious phys inj (med attention 30-45 days)
o Damaged jeep P1,395
In the Guiguinto Justice of the Peace Court, charge against accused: slight phys inj through reckless imprudence.
He was tried and acquitted.
Prior to this acquittal, Prov Fiscal of Bulacan filed in the CFI the info in the present case: serious phys inj and damage
to property through reckless imprudence.
Accused was arraigned but moved to quash the info: that he had already been acquitted of the same offense.
CFI denied. MR denied.
Accused appealed to the SC.

Issue: W/N the second case placed the appellant (accused) twice in jeopardy -- Yes

Ruling: CFI Bulacan directed to quash and dismiss the charge.

Ratio:
Once convicted/acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, he may not be prosecuted again for that same act.
The essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence under RPC 365 lies in the execution of an imprudent or
negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony.
The law penalizes the negligent or careless act, not the result. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into
account to determine the penalty.
As the careless act is single, the offense (criminal negligence) remains one and the same, and cannot be split into
different crimes and prosecutions.
Ppl v. Silva (1962): where the result of the same vehicular accident one man died, two seriously injured, three suffered
slight physical injuries, the acquittal for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence was a bar to homicide
through reckless imprudence
Ppl v. Diaz (1954): dismissal of reckless driving barred damage to property through reckless imprudence (which was
based on the same negligent act)
Ppl v. Belga (nd): dismissal of info physical inj through reckless imprudence bars damage to property through reckless
imprudence and multiple physical injuries arising from the same collision

But SolGen argues: the charge for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence could not be joined with the accusation for
serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence because RPC 48 allows only the complexing of grave or less grave felonies.

Ppl v. Diaz (1954) already answered this: This may be true. But the prosecution was not obliged to first prosecute for slight phys inj
through reckless imprudence. Having first prosecuted the lesser offense (but accused was acquitted), the prosecuting attorney is not
in a position to press the more serious charge which arose out of the same alleged reckless imprudence.

Voting:
Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, J., took no part.
Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.