JEFFREY
RESO DAYAP, G.R.
No. 177960
Petitioner,
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J.,
Chairperson,
-
versus -
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,
and
CHICO-NAZARIO,** JJ.
PRETZY-LOU
SENDIONG,
GENESA SENDIONG, ELVIE Promulgated:
SY and DEXIE DURAN,
Respondents. January 29, 2009
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------x
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
That at about
An
act defined and penalized by Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
On
On
On
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
In the Order[12]
dated
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.
x x x
x
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.
x x x x
The defense furthermore argued that on the contrary,
the prosecution’s [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 latter’s 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 1’s 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.
x x x x
Every criminal conviction requires of the prosecution
to prove two things—the 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.
x x x
x
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,[14]
alleging that the MTC’s 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.
In the order[15]
dated
WHEREFORE, the questioned order of the Municipal Trial
Court of Sibulan on accused’s 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
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 RTC’s jurisdiction. The
dispositive portion of the Decision dated
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 RTC’s jurisdiction over the case. However, the Court of Appeals denied the
motion for reconsideration for lack of merit in the Resolution dated
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 MTC’s 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
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
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
petitioner’s 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 MTC’s 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 MTC’s 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,
petitioner’s 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 petitioner’s acquittal has extinguished his
civil liability.
WHEREFORE, the petition is
GRANTED. The Court of Appeals’ Decision
dated
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
RENATO C. CORONA CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
*Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. per Special Order No. 558.
[2]
[3]
[22]Entitled “An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts, Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Otherwise Known as
the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980,” which took effect on
[24]People v. de los Santos, 407 Phil. 724, 744 (2001, citing Reodica v. Court of Appeals, 292 SCRA 87, 102 (1998).
[26]Venancio
Figueroa y Cervantes v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 147406,
[28]People
v. Sandiganbayan, 488 Phil. 293, 310 (2004), citing People v. City of
Silay, No. L-43790,