Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro

G.R. No.
172716 November 17, 2010
JASON IVLER y AGUILAR, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, Judge of the Metropolitan

Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City, and EVANGELINE PONCE, Respondents.
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.
Petitioner posted bail for his temporary release in both cases.
On 2004, petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge on the first delict and was meted
out the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, 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 MeTC refused quashal, finding no identity of offenses in the two cases. Ivler
elevated the case to the RTC in a petition for certiorari and sought the suspension
of proceedings in criminal case from MeTC, including his arraignment as a
prejudicial question.
The MeTC did not act on the motion and proceeded with the arraignment; because
of Ivler’s absence, it cancelled his bail and ordered his arrest. Seven days later,
MeTC issued a resolution denying petitioner’s motion to suspend proceedings and
postponing his arraignment until after his arrest.
ISSUES:
1. WON petitioner forfeited his standing to seek relief from his petition
for certiorari when the MeTC ordered his arrest following his non-
appearance at the arraignment in Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Slight Physical Injuries for injuries sustained by respondent
2. WON petitioner’s constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy

Clause bars further proceedings in Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Homicide and Damage to Property for the death of respondent
Ponce’s husband
HELD:
NO.
Dismissals of appeals grounded on the appellant’s escape from custody or violation

of the terms of his bail bond are governed by the second paragraph of Section 8,
Rule 124,[8] in relation to Section 1, Rule 125, of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure authorizing this Court or the Court of Appeals to “also, upon motion of
the appellee or motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from
prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency
of the appeal.” The “appeal” contemplated in Section 8 of Rule 124 is a suit to
review judgments of convictions.
Under Section 21, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
defendant’s absence merely renders his bondsman potentially liable on its bond
(subject to cancellation should the bondsman fail to produce the accused within 30
days); the defendant retains his standing and, should he fail to surrender, will be
tried in absentia and could be convicted or acquitted. Indeed, the 30-day period
granted to the bondsman to produce the accused underscores the fact that mere
non-appearance does not ipso facto convert the accused’s status to that of a
fugitive without standing.
Double Jeopardy. The accused’s negative constitutional right not to be "twice put
in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense" protects him from, among others,
post-conviction prosecution for the same offense, with the prior verdict rendered by
a court of competent jurisdiction upon a valid information.
The two charges against petitioner, arising from the same facts, were prosecuted
under the same provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, namely, Article
365 defining and penalizing quasi-offenses.
The doctrine that reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by
itself and not merely a means to commit other crimes such that conviction or
acquittal of such quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-
offense, regardless of its various resulting acts, undergirded this Court’s unbroken
chain of jurisprudence on double jeopardy as applied to Article 365.
Petition is hereby GRANTED. The orders of RTC Branch 157, Pasig City are
REVERSED and the second Information pending MeTC Branch 71 Pasig is
DISMISSED on the ground of double jeopardy.

Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

172716 November 17, 2010

JASON IVLER y AGUILAR, Petitioner,

HON. MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, Judge of the Metropolitan

Petitioner posted bail for his temporary release in both cases.

2. WON petitioner’s constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy

Dismissals of appeals grounded on the appellant’s escape from custody or violation

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.