Reodica v. CA, G.R. No. 125006, July 8, 1996

Crim Pro - Rule 110

Facts:

On the evening of October 17, 1987, while Isabelita Reodica was driving her van in Paranaque, Metro Manila, her van hit the car of Norberto Bonsol. As a result, Bonsol sustained physical injuries and the damage to his car amounted to P8,542. On Oct. 20, 1987, Bonsol filed an Affidavit of Complaint against Reodica with the Fiscal's Office. Later, on January 13, 1988, an information was filed before the RTC of Makati charging Reodica with "Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Slight Physical Injury. Reodica pleaded not guilty to the charge against her, so, trial ensued.

            On January 31, 1991, the RTC rendered a decision convicting Reodica of the "quasi offense of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with slight physical injuries" and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment for 6 months and pay Bonsol P13,542. Reodica contends that damage to property and slight physical injuries are light offenses which cannot be complexed. Further, since the two are light offenses, the RTC do not have jurisdiction over such offenses, and even if does, the penalty imposed on her is excessive. Being light offenses, adding up the imposable penalties of the mentioned light offenses only sum up to 60 days of imprisonment and not 6 months as imposed on her by the lower court. Moreover, she also argues that "the offense of slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence, being punishable only by arresto menor, is a light offense; as such, it prescribes in two months". The information was only filed on January 13, 1988 or almost 3 months from the date of the vehicular collision, thus, the offense had already prescribed.

            The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) agrees with the petitioner that the penalty should have been arresto menor in its maximum period, pursuant to Art.365 of the RPC. But, it contends that it was proper to "complex" reckless imprudence with slight physical injuries and damage to property "because what the law seeks to penalize is the single act of reckless imprudence, not the results thereof; hence, there was no need for two separate informations". Further, the OSG argues that although it is the MTC which has jurisdiction over cases of slight physical injuries, the RTC "properly took cognizance of this case because it had the jurisdiction to impose the higher penalty for the damage to property, which was a fine equal to thrice the value of P8,542".

Issue: 1. Whether or not the two light offenses - damage to property and slight physical injuries can be complexed, and even if it can be complexed, was the 6 months imprisonment sentenced to Reodica proper?

2. Whether or not the crime has already prescribed.

Held:  1. The two offenses cannot be complexed, they should have been filed separately.

2. No. The Supreme Court used Art. 91 of the RPC for resolving the issue on prescription of the offense. 

ART. 91.  Computation of prescription of offenses.  -The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped by any reason not imputable to him. 

Thus, the filing of the complaint with the fiscal's office three days after the vehicular mishap interrupted the run of the offense's prescription.