JEFFREY RESO DAYAP, G.R. No.

177960
Petitioner,
Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
*

- versus - CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
CHICO-NAZARIO,** JJ.
PRETZY-LOU SENDIONG,
GENESA SENDIONG, ELVIE Promulgated:
SY and DEXIE DURAN,
Respondents. January 29, 2009
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
Before us is a petition for review[1] on certiorari of the Decision[2] dated 17
August 2006 and Resolution[3] dated 25 April 2007 by the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 01179 entitled, Pretzy-Lou P. Sendiong, Genesa R.
Sendiong, Elvie H. Sy and Dexie Duran v. Hon. Judge Cresencio Tan and
Jeffrey Reso Dayap.
The case had its origins in the filing of an Information [4] on 29 December
2004 by the Provincial Prosecutors Office, Sibulan, Negros Oriental,
charging herein petitioner Jeffrey Reso Dayap with the crime of Reckless
Imprudence resulting to Homicide, Less Serious Physical Injuries, and
Damage to Property. The pertinent portion of the information reads:
That at about 11:55 oclock in the evening of 28 December
2004 at Brgy. Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously drive in a reckless
and imprudent manner a 10-wheeler cargo truck with plate number ULP955, color blue, fully loaded with sacks of coconut shell, registered in the
name of Ruben Villabeto of Sta. Agueda Pamplona, Negros Oriental,
thereby hitting an automobile, a Colt Galant with plate number NLD-379
driven by Lou Gene R. Sendiong who was with two female passengers,
namely: Dexie Duran and Elvie Sy, thus causing the instantaneous death
of said Lou Gene R. Sendiong, less serious physical injuries on the
bodies of Dexie Duran and Elvie Sy and extensive damage to the abovementioned Colt Galant which is registered in the name of Cristina P.
Weyer of 115 Dr. V. Locsin St., Dumaguete City, to the damage of the

heirs of the same Lou Gene R. Sendiong and the other two offended
parties above-mentioned.
An act defined and penalized by Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.

On 10 January 2005, before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sibulan,

Negros Oriental, petitioner was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to the
charge.[5]
On 17 January 2005, respondents Pretzy-Lou P. Sendiong, Genesa Sendiong
and Dexie Duran filed a motion for leave of court to file an amended
information.[6] They sought to add the allegation of abandonment of the
victims by petitioner, thus: The driver of the 10-wheeler cargo truck
abandoned the victims, at a time when said [Lou-Gene] R. Sendiong was
still alive inside the car; he was only extracted from the car by the bystanders.[7]
On 21 January 2005, however, the Provincial Prosecutor filed an Omnibus
Motion praying that the motion to amend the information be considered
withdrawn.[8] On 21 January 2003, the MTC granted the withdrawal and the
motion to amend was considered withdrawn.[9]
Pre-trial and trial of the case proceeded. Respondents testified for the
prosecution. After the prosecution had rested its case, petitioner sought leave
to file a demurrer to evidence which was granted.Petitioner filed his
Demurrer to Evidence[10] dated 15 April 2005 grounded on the prosecutions
failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is criminally liable for
reckless imprudence, to which respondents filed a Comment [11] dated 25
April 2005.
In the Order[12] dated 16 May 2005, the MTC granted the demurrer
and acquitted petitioner of the crime of reckless imprudence. The MTC
found that the evidence presented by respondents failed to establish the
allegations in the Information. Pertinent portions of the order state:
An examination of the allegations in the information and comparing the
same with the evidence presented by the prosecution would reveal that
the evidence presented has not established said allegations. The facts and
circumstances constituting the allegations charged have not been

proven. It is elementary in the rules of evidence that a party must prove

his own affirmative allegations.
xxxx
Nowhere in the evidence of the prosecution can this Court find that it
was the accused who committed the crime as charged. Its witnesses have
never identified the accused as the one who has committed the crime.The
prosecution never bothered to establish if indeed it was the accused who
committed the crime or asked questions which would have proved the
elements of the crime. The prosecution did not even establish if indeed it
was the accused who was driving the truck at the time of the
incident. The Court simply cannot find any evidence which would prove
that a crime has been committed and that the accused is the person
responsible for it. There was no evidence on the allegation of the death
of Lou Gene R. Sendiong as there was no death certificate that was
offered in evidence. The alleged less serious physical injuries on the
bodies of Dexie Duran and Elvie Sy were not also proven as no medical
certificate was presented to state the same nor was a doctor presented to
establish such injuries. The alleged damage to the [C]olt [G]alant was
also not established in any manner as no witness ever testified on this
aspect and no documentary evidence was also presented to state the
damage. The prosecution therefore failed to establish if indeed it was the
accused who was responsible for the death of Lou Gene R. Sendiong and
the injuries to Dexie Duran and Elvie Sy, including the damage to the
Colt Galant. The mother of the victim testified only on the expenses she
incurred and the shock she and her family have suffered as a result of the
incident. But sad to say, she could not also pinpoint if it was the accused
who committed the crime and be held responsible for it. This Court
could only say that the prosecution has practically bungled this case from
its inception.
xxxx
The defense furthermore argued that on the contrary, the
prosecutions [evidence] conclusively show that the swerving of vehicle 1
[the Colt Galant] to the lane of vehicle 2 [the cargo truck] is the
proximate cause of the accident. The court again is inclined to agree with
this argument of the defense. It has looked carefully into the sketch of
the accident as indicated in the police blotter and can only conclude that
the logical explanation of the accident is that vehicle 1 swerved into the
lane of vehicle 2, thus hitting the latters inner fender and tires. Exhibit 7
which is a picture of vehicle 2 shows the extent of its damage which was
the effect of vehicle 1s ramming into the rear left portion of vehicle 2
causing the differential guide of vehicle 2 to be cut, its tires busted and
pulled out together with their axle. The cutting of the differential guide
cause[d] the entire housing connecting the tires to the truck body to
collapse, thus causing vehicle 2 to tilt to its left side and swerve towards
the lane of vehicle 1. It was this accident that caused the swerving, not of
[sic] any negligent act of the accused.
xxxx
Every criminal conviction requires of the prosecution to prove
two thingsthe fact of the crime, i.e., the presence of all the elements of
the crime for which the accused stands charged, and the fact that the
accused is the perpetrator of the crime. Sad to say, the prosecution has

miserably failed to prove these two things. When the prosecution fails to
discharge its burden of establishing the guilt of the accused, an accused
need not even offer evidence in his behalf.
xxxx

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the demurrer is granted and the

accused JEFFREY RESO DAYAP is hereby acquitted for insufficiency
of evidence. The bail bond posted for his temporary liberty is also hereby
cancelled and ordered released to the accused or his duly authorized
representative.
SO ORDERED.[13]

Respondents thereafter filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65,

alleging that the MTCs dismissal of the case was done without
considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution.Respondents added
that the MTC failed to observe the manner the trial of the case should
proceed as provided in Sec. 11, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court as well as
failed to rule on the civil liability of the accused in spite of the evidence
presented. The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros
Oriental, Br. 32.
[14]

In the order[15] dated 23 August 2005, the RTC affirmed the acquittal
of petitioner but ordered the remand of the case to the MTC for further
proceedings on the civil aspect of the case. The RTC ruled that the MTCs
recital of every fact in arriving at its conclusions disproved the allegation
that it failed to consider the evidence presented by the prosecution. The
records also demonstrated that the MTC conducted the trial of the case in the
manner dictated by Sec. 11, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, except that the
defense no longer presented its evidence after the MTC gave due course to
the accuseds demurrer to evidence, the filing of which is allowed under Sec.
23, Rule 119. The RTC however agreed that the MTC failed to rule on the
accuseds civil liability, especially since the judgment of acquittal did not
include a declaration that the facts from which the civil liability might arise
did not exist. Thus, the RTC declared that the aspect of civil liability was not
passed upon and resolved to remand the issue to the MTC. The dispositive
portion of the decision states:

WHEREFORE, the questioned order of the Municipal Trial Court

of Sibulan on accuseds acquittal is AFFIRMED. The case is
REMANDED to the court of origin or its successor for further
proceedings on the civil aspect of the case. No costs.
SO ORDERED.[16]

Both parties filed their motions for reconsideration of the RTC order,
but these were denied for lack of merit in the order [17] dated 12 September
2005.
Respondents then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals under
Rule 42, docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 01179. The appellate court
subsequently rendered the assailed decision and resolution. The Court of
Appeals ruled that there being no proof of the total value of the properties
damaged, the criminal case falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC and the
proceedings before the MTC are

null and void. In so ruling, the appellate court cited Tulor v. Garcia (correct
title of the case is Cuyos v. Garcia)[18] which ruled that in complex crimes
involving reckless imprudence resulting in homicide or physical injuries and
damage to property, the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance of the
case is determined by the fine imposable for the damage to property
resulting from the reckless imprudence, not by the corresponding penalty for
the physical injuries charged. It also found support in Sec. 36 of the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 and the 1991 Rule 8 on Summary
Procedure, which govern the summary procedure in first-level courts in
offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence where
the imposable fine does not exceed P10,000.00. As there was no proof of the
total value of the property damaged and respondents were claiming the
amount of P1,500,000.00 as civil damages, the case falls within the RTCs
jurisdiction. The dispositive portion of the Decision dated 17 August
2006 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered by Us
REMANDING the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Judicial
Region, Branch 32, Negros Oriental for proper disposition of the merits
of the case.
SO ORDERED.[19]

Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision,

[20]
arguing that jurisdiction over the case is determined by the allegations in
the information, and that neither the 1991 Rule on Summary Procedure nor
Sec. 36 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 can be the basis of the
RTCs jurisdiction over the case. However, the Court of Appeals denied the
motion for reconsideration for lack of merit in the Resolution dated 25 April
2007.[21] It reiterated that it is the RTC that has proper jurisdiction
considering that the information alleged a willful, unlawful, felonious killing
as well as abandonment of the victims.
In the present petition for review, petitioner argues that the MTC had
jurisdiction to hear the criminal case for reckless imprudence, owing to the
enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7691, [22]which confers jurisdiction to
first-level courts on offenses involving damage to property through criminal
negligence. He asserts that the RTC could not have acquired jurisdiction on
the basis of a legally unfiled and officially withdrawn amended information
alleging abandonment. Respondents are also faulted for challenging the
MTCs order acquitting petitioner through a special civil action for certiorari
under Rule 65 in lieu of an ordinary appeal under Rule 42.
The petition has merit. It should be granted.
The first issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that
jurisdiction over the offense charged pertained to the RTC.
Both the MTC and the RTC proceeded with the case on the basis of
the Information dated 29 December 2004 charging petitioner only with the
complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide, less serious
physical injuries and damage to property. The Court of Appeals however
declared in its decision that petitioner should have been charged with the
same offense but aggravated by the circumstance of abandonment of the
victims. It appears from the records however that respondents attempt to
amend the information by charging the aggravated offense was unsuccessful
as the MTC had approved the Provincial Prosecutors motion to withdraw
their motion to amend the information. The information filed before the trial
court had remained unamended.[23] Thus, petitioner is deemed to have been
charged only with the offense alleged in the original Information without
any aggravating circumstance.

Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code punishes any person who, by reckless
imprudence, commits any act which, had it been intentional, would
constitute a grave felony, with the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its medium period. When such reckless
imprudence the use of a motor vehicle, resulting in the death of a person
attended the same article imposes upon the defendant the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
The offense with which petitioner was charged is reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide, less serious physical injuries and damage to property,
a complex crime. Where a reckless, imprudent, or negligent act results in
two or more grave or less grave felonies, a complex crime is committed.
[24]
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that when the single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious
crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. Since
Article 48 speaks of felonies, it is applicable to crimes through negligence in
view of the definition of felonies in Article 3 as acts or omissions punishable
by law committed either by means of deceit (dolo) or fault (culpa).[25] Thus,
the penalty imposable upon petitioner, were he to be found guilty, is prision
correccional in its medium period (2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years)
and maximum period (4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years).
Applicable as well is the familiar rule that the jurisdiction of the court
to hear and decide a case is conferred by the law in force at the time of the
institution of the action, unless such statute provides for a retroactive
application thereof.[26] When this case was filed on 29 December 2004,
Section 32(2) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 had already been amended by
R.A. No. 7691. R.A. No. 7691 extended the jurisdiction of the first-level
courts over criminal cases to include all offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount of fine,
and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties including
those
for
civil
liability. It
explicitly states
that in offenses involving damage to property
through criminal negligence, they shallhave exclusive original
jurisdiction thereof. It follows that criminal cases for reckless
imprudence punishable with prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods should fall within the jurisdiction of the MTC and not the

RTC. Clearly, therefore, jurisdiction to hear and try the same pertained to the
MTC and the RTC did not have original jurisdiction over the criminal case.
[27]
Consequently, the MTC of Sibulan, Negros Oriental had properly taken
cognizance of the case and the proceedings before it were valid and legal.
As the records show, the MTC granted petitioners demurrer to
evidence and acquitted him of the offense on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence. The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such as the one at bar,
is filed after the prosecution had rested its case, and when the same is
granted, it calls for an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond reasonable
doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the case on the merits, tantamount to an
acquittal of the accused.[28] Such dismissal of a criminal case by the grant of
demurrer to evidence may not be appealed, for to do so would be to place
the accused in double jeopardy.[29] But while the dismissal order consequent
to a demurrer to evidence is not subject to appeal, the same is still
reviewable but only by certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Thus,
in such case, the factual findings of the trial court are conclusive upon the
reviewing court, and the only legal basis to reverse and set aside the order of
dismissal upon demurrer to evidence is by a clear showing that the trial
court, in acquitting the accused, committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or a denial of due process, thus
rendering the assailed judgment void.[30]
Accordingly, respondents filed before the RTC the petition for
certiorari alleging that the MTC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing
the case and failing to consider the evidence of the prosecution in resolving
the same, and in allegedly failing to follow the proper procedure as
mandated by the Rules of Court. The RTC correctly ruled that the MTC did
not abuse its discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint. The MTCs
conclusions were based on facts diligently recited in the order thereby
disproving that the MTC failed to consider the evidence presented by the
prosecution. The records also show that the MTC correctly followed the
procedure set forth in the Rules of Court.
The second issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the
remand of the case of the matter of civil liability for the reception of
evidence.

We disagree with the Court of Appeals on directing the remand of the

case to the RTC for further proceedings on the civil aspect, as well as with
the RTC in directing a similar remand to the MTC.

The acquittal of the accused does not automatically preclude a

judgment against him on the civil aspect of the case. The extinction of the
penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability where:
(a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of
evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is
only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is
not based upon the crime of which the accused is acquitted. [31] However, the
civil action based on delict may be deemed extinguished if there is a finding
on the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from
which the civil liability may arise did not exist [32] or where the accused did
not commit the acts or omission imputed to him.[33]
Thus, if demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted by the court,
the accused has the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect of the case
unless the court also declares that the act or omission from which the civil
liability may arise did not exist. [34] This is because when the accused files a
demurrer to evidence, he has not yet adduced evidence both on the criminal
and civil aspects of the case. The only evidence on record is the evidence for
the prosecution. What the trial court should do is issue an order or partial
judgment granting the demurrer to evidence and acquitting the accused, and
set the case for continuation of trial for the accused to adduce evidence on
the civil aspect of the case and for the private complainant to adduce
evidence by way of rebuttal. Thereafter, the court shall render judgment on
the civil aspect of the case.[35]
A scrutiny of the MTCs decision supports the conclusion that the
acquittal was based on the findings that the act or omission from which the
civil liability may arise did not exist and that petitioner did not commit the
acts or omission imputed to him; hence, petitioners civil liability has been
extinguished by his acquittal. It should be noted that the MTC categorically
stated that it cannot find any evidence which would prove that a crime had
been committed and that accused was the person responsible for it. It added

that the prosecution failed to establish that it was petitioner who committed
the crime as charged since its witnesses never identified petitioner as the one
who was driving the cargo truck at the time of the incident. Furthermore, the
MTC found that the proximate cause of the accident is the damage to the
rear portion of the truck caused by the swerving of the Colt Galant into the
rear left portion of the cargo truck and not the reckless driving of the truck
by petitioner, clearly establishing that petitioner is not guilty of reckless
imprudence. Consequently, there is no more need to remand the case to the
trial court for proceedings on the civil aspect of the case, since petitioners
acquittal has extinguished his civil liability.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals

Decision dated 17 August 2006 and Resolution dated 25 April 2007 in CAG.R. SP. No. 01179 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated 16
May 2005 of the Municipal Trial Court of Sibulan, Negros Oriental in
Criminal Case No. 3016-04 granting the Demurrer to Evidence and
acquitting petitioner Jeffrey Reso Dayap of the offense charged therein is
REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.