[Criminal Law 2]

2nd semester, A.Y.

2014-2015

Lamera v CA
G.R. No.: 93475
Ponente: J. Davide Jr.
Date: June 5, 1991
Petitioner: Antonio Lamera
Respondent: Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines
Relief: Petition for review from a decision of the CA
FACTS:

At around 8:30pm of March 14, 1985, along Urbano St, Pasig, an owner-type jeep,
then driven by the petitioner, allegedly hit and bumped a tricycle then driven by
Ernesto Reyes and Paulino Gonzal.
2 informations were filed against petitioner: (1) reckless imprudence resulting in
damage to property with multiple physical injuries under Art 365 of RPC, and
(2) violation of Art 275 Par 2 of RPC on abandonment of ones victim for petitioners
failure to help or render assistance Reyes and Gonzal, without justifiable reason.
MetTC of Pasig found the petitioner guilty of the crime of abandonment of ones victim and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for a period
of 6 mos arresto mayor and to pay the cost.
Upon appeal, RTC of Pasig affirmed said decision with modification consisted merely
in the reduction of the penalty of imprisonment from 6 to 2 mos. Still unsatisfied with
the new verdict, petitioner filed with CA a petition for review, arguing that Art 275 Par 2of RPC does not apply to him since the evidence
allegedly shows that it was Reyes
who negligently caused the accident.
CA dismissed the petition and the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioner
Filed the instant petition with the Court, raising the sole issue of:

ISSUE1:
WON prosecution for negligence under Art 365 of RPC is a bar to prosecution for abandonment under Art 275 of the same code NO
HELD/RATIO1:
The petitioner is actually invoking his right against double jeopardy. He, however, failed to directly and categorically start it in his petition or deliberately
obscured it behind a suggestion of possible resultant absurdity of the 2 informations. He forgot to raise squarely that issue in the 3 courts below. In any
case, to do so would be a futile exercise. Among the conditions for double jeopardy to attach is that the accused must have been arraigned in the
previous case. When he was arraigned, tried and convicted in the MetTC of Pasig, he was not yet arraigned before the RTC of Pasig.
The 2 informations filed against petitioner are clearly for separate offenses. The first case for reckless imprudence (Art 365) falls under the sole chapter
(criminal negligence) of title 14 (quasi offenses) of book 2 of RPC. The 2 nd case for abandonment of ones victim (Art 275 Par 2) falls under chapter 2
(crimes against security) of title 9 (crimes against personal liberty and security) of book 2 of the same code. Quasi offenses under Art 365 are committed
by means of culpa while crimes against security are committed by means of dolo.
Moreover, in Art 365, failure to lend help to ones victim is neither an offense by itself nor an element of offense therein penalized. Its presence merely
increases the penalty by 1 degree. On the other hand, failure to help or render assistance to another whom one has accidentally wounded or injured is
an offense under Art 275 of the same code which imposes the penalty of arresto mayor. Undoubtedly then, no constitutional, statutory, or procedural
obstacle barred the filing of the 2 informations against petitioner.
DISPOSITIVE:
Wherefore, for lack of merit, the petition is denied, without pronouncement as to cost.
DOCTRINE:
Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered, and (e)
the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without express consent of the accused. (People v. Bocar)

Batac, Endaya, Lingat, Santos, Saturnino, Villafuerte, Yee

[Criminal Law 2]
2nd semester, A.Y.
2014-2015

It is a cardinal rule that the protection against double jeopardy may be invoked only for the same offense or identical offenses. A simple act may offend
against 2 or more entirely distinct and unrelated provision of law, and if 1 provision requires proof of an additional fact or element which the other does
not, an acquittal or conviction or a dismissal of the information under one does not bar prosecution under the other.

Batac, Endaya, Lingat, Santos, Saturnino, Villafuerte, Yee