Dayap vs. Sendiong

When an acquittal based on a granted demurrer to evidence includes a categorical finding that the act or omission from which civil liability may arise did not exist and that the accused did not commit the acts imputed to him, the civil liability is extinguished and no remand for civil proceedings is warranted. Jurisdiction over a complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, less serious physical injuries, and damage to property — where the imposable penalty does not exceed six years — belongs to the first-level courts under R.A. No. 7691, irrespective of the amount of fine or the value of property damaged.

Petitioner Jeffrey Reso Dayap was the driver of a 10-wheeler cargo truck registered in the name of Ruben Villabeto. Respondents Pretzy-Lou Sendiong, Genesa Sendiong, Elvie Sy, and Dexie Duran are the heirs and victims of a vehicular collision involving the cargo truck and a Colt Galant driven by the late Lou Gene R. Sendiong, who was killed in the incident. The dispute centers on the criminal liability of petitioner for the collision and the consequent civil liability, as well as the question of which court — the MTC or the RTC — had jurisdiction over the offense charged.

On December 29, 2004, the Provincial Prosecutor's Office of Sibulan, Negros Oriental, filed an Information charging Jeffrey Reso Dayap with the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, less serious physical injuries, and damage to property. The Information alleged that at about 11:55 in the evening of December 28, 2004, at Barangay Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, petitioner drove a 10-wheeler cargo truck in a reckless and imprudent manner, hitting a Colt Galant driven by Lou Gene R. Sendiong, who had two female passengers, Dexie Duran and Elvie Sy. The collision caused the instantaneous death of Sendiong, less serious physical injuries to Duran and Sy, and extensive damage to the Colt Galant. The offense was defined and penalized under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.

On January 10, 2005, petitioner was arraigned before the Municipal Trial Court of Sibulan and pleaded not guilty. A week later, respondents filed a motion for leave of court to file an amended information, seeking to add the allegation that petitioner had abandoned the victims while Sendiong was still alive inside the car. However, on January 21, 2005, the Provincial Prosecutor filed an Omnibus Motion praying that the motion to amend be considered withdrawn, and the MTC granted the withdrawal. The information thus remained unamended, and petitioner was charged only with the original offense without any aggravating circumstance.

Trial proceeded with respondents testifying for the prosecution. After the prosecution rested its case, petitioner sought and was granted leave to file a demurrer to evidence, which he filed on April 15, 2005, grounding it on the prosecution's failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt his criminal liability for reckless imprudence. On May 16, 2005, the MTC granted the demurrer and acquitted petitioner. The MTC found that the prosecution's evidence failed to establish the allegations in the Information: no witness identified petitioner as the driver of the truck, no death certificate was offered for the death of Sendiong, no medical certificates were presented for the injuries to Duran and Sy, and no evidence was adduced on the damage to the Colt Galant. The MTC further found that the proximate cause of the accident was the swerving of the Colt Galant into the lane of the cargo truck, not any negligent act of petitioner.

Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the RTC, alleging that the MTC dismissed the case without considering the prosecution's evidence and failed to rule on civil liability. The RTC affirmed the acquittal but remanded the case to the MTC for further proceedings on the civil aspect. Both parties' motions for reconsideration were denied. Respondents thereafter filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals under Rule 42. The appellate court ruled that, there being no proof of the total value of the properties damaged, the case fell under the jurisdiction of the RTC and the MTC proceedings were null and void, relying on the rule that jurisdiction in complex crimes involving reckless imprudence is determined by the fine imposable for damage to property. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the RTC for proper disposition.

• Jurisdiction under R.A. No. 7691: Petitioner argued that the MTC had jurisdiction to hear the criminal case for reckless imprudence, owing to the enactment of R.A. No. 7691, which confers jurisdiction on first-level courts over offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence and over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years irrespective of the amount of fine.
• Invalid Amended Information: Petitioner asserted that the RTC could not have acquired jurisdiction on the basis of a legally unfiled and officially withdrawn amended information alleging abandonment, since the MTC had approved the Provincial Prosecutor's motion to withdraw the motion to amend.
• Improper Remedy: Petitioner faulted respondents for challenging the MTC's order of acquittal through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 in lieu of an ordinary appeal under Rule 42.

• Jurisdiction Based on Imposable Fine: Respondents argued before the Court of Appeals that jurisdiction should be determined by the fine imposable for the damage to property, relying on Cuyos vs. Garcia and the 1991 Rule on Summary Procedure, which govern first-level courts in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence where the imposable fine does not exceed ₱10,000.00.
• Claim of Civil Damages: Respondents claimed the amount of ₱1,500,000.00 as civil damages, asserting that since there was no proof of the total value of the property damaged, the case fell within the RTC's jurisdiction.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Respondents alleged before the RTC that the MTC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case, failed to consider the evidence of the prosecution, and failed to follow the proper procedure mandated by the Rules of Court.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that jurisdiction over the offense charged pertained to the RTC rather than the MTC.
• Civil Liability Remand: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the remand of the case for reception of evidence on the civil aspect.

• Jurisdiction: Yes. The MTC had jurisdiction over the offense. Under R.A. No. 7691, first-level courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years irrespective of the amount of fine, and explicitly over offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence. The imposable penalty for the complex crime charged was prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, not exceeding six years.
• Civil Liability Remand: Yes. The Court of Appeals erred in ordering the remand. The MTC's acquittal included a categorical finding that the act or omission from which civil liability could arise did not exist and that petitioner did not commit the acts imputed to him, thereby extinguishing civil liability and precluding any remand for civil proceedings.

• Jurisdiction: The Information dated December 29, 2004 charged petitioner only with the complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, less serious physical injuries, and damage to property, without any aggravating circumstance, because respondents' attempt to amend the information to allege abandonment was unsuccessful — the Provincial Prosecutor's motion to withdraw the motion to amend was approved by the MTC. Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, reckless imprudence resulting in the death of a person attended by the use of a motor vehicle is punishable by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. Since the single reckless act resulted in two or more grave or less grave felonies, a complex crime was committed under Article 48, which imposes the penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum period. The penalty imposable upon petitioner, had he been found guilty, was 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). When the case was filed on December 29, 2004, Section 32(2) of B.P. Blg. 129 had already been amended by R.A. No. 7691, which extended the jurisdiction of first-level courts to all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years irrespective of the amount of fine, and explicitly granted them exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence. The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action. Accordingly, the MTC of Sibulan properly took cognizance of the case, and the RTC did not have original jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals' reliance on the rule that jurisdiction is determined by the fine imposable for damage to property was misplaced, as R.A. No. 7691 explicitly grants first-level courts exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, irrespective of the amount of fine.

• Civil Liability Remand: The acquittal of an accused does not automatically preclude a judgment against him on the civil aspect. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of civil liability where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, or where the court declares that the liability is only civil, or where the civil liability does not arise from the crime of which the accused was acquitted. However, the civil action based on delict is deemed extinguished if the final judgment in the criminal action finds that the act or omission from which civil liability may arise did not exist, or where the accused did not commit the acts or omissions imputed to him. When a demurrer to evidence is granted and the accused is acquitted, the accused has the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect unless the court also declares that the act or omission from which civil liability may arise did not exist. A scrutiny of the MTC's decision revealed that the acquittal was based on findings that no crime had been committed and that petitioner was not the person responsible for it. The MTC categorically stated that it could not find any evidence proving that a crime had been committed or that petitioner was the perpetrator, that the prosecution's witnesses never identified petitioner as the driver of the truck, and that the proximate cause of the accident was the swerving of the Colt Galant into the truck's lane, not any negligent act of petitioner. These findings established that the act or omission from which civil liability could arise did not exist and that petitioner did not commit the acts imputed to him. Consequently, petitioner's civil liability was extinguished by his acquittal, and there was no need to remand the case for civil proceedings.

• Jurisdiction Determined by Law in Force at Filing — The jurisdiction of a court to hear and decide a case is conferred by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, unless the statute provides for retroactive application. Applied to hold that R.A. No. 7691, in effect when the case was filed on December 29, 2004, governed the MTC's jurisdiction.

• R.A. No. 7691 — Expanded Jurisdiction of First-Level Courts — First-level courts have jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years irrespective of the amount of fine, regardless of other imposable accessory penalties, including civil liability. They have exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence. Applied to hold that the MTC, not the RTC, had jurisdiction over the complex crime of reckless imprudence punishable by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.

• Complex Crime Under Article 48 Applied to Culpa — Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, which speaks of felonies, is applicable to crimes through negligence because Article 3 defines felonies as acts or omissions punishable by law committed either by deceit (dolo) or fault (culpa). Where a reckless, imprudent, or negligent act results in two or more grave or less grave felonies, a complex crime is committed, and the penalty for the most serious crime is imposed in its maximum period.

• Demurrer to Evidence and Acquittal — A demurrer to evidence filed after the prosecution rests its case calls for an appreciation of the prosecution's evidence and its sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubt. When granted, it results in a dismissal on the merits tantamount to an acquittal, which may not be appealed on double jeopardy grounds. The dismissal is reviewable only by certiorari under Rule 65, and the trial court's factual findings are conclusive upon the reviewing court, reversible only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

• Extinction of Civil Liability Upon Acquittal — The extinction of the penal action does not automatically carry with it the extinction of civil liability, except where the acquittal is based on a finding that the act or omission from which civil liability may arise did not exist, or where the accused did not commit the acts or omissions imputed to him. In such cases, the civil action based on delict is deemed extinguished, and no remand for civil proceedings is necessary.

• "It explicitly states 'that in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall have 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." — This passage articulates the Court's application of R.A. No. 7691 to resolve the jurisdictional question, establishing that first-level courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence.

• "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." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for the second issue, applying the doctrine that civil liability is extinguished when the acquittal expressly finds that the act from which it could arise did not exist.

• "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 or where the accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him." — This passage provides the canonical formulation of the exception to the rule that extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of civil liability.

• People vs. de los Santos, 407 Phil. 724 (2001) — Cited for the proposition that Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable to crimes through negligence, since felonies under Article 3 include acts committed by fault (culpa), and that where a reckless or negligent act results in two or more grave or less grave felonies, a complex crime is committed.

• Venancio Figueroa y Cervantes vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 147406, July 14, 2008 — Cited for the rule that jurisdiction of the court is conferred by the law in force at the time of the institution of the action, and for the application of R.A. No. 7691 conferring jurisdiction on first-level courts over offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years.

• Cuyos vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-46934, April 15, 1998 — Cited by the Court of Appeals (misidentified as Tulor vs. Garcia) for the rule that in complex crimes involving reckless imprudence resulting in homicide or physical injuries and damage to property, jurisdiction is determined by the fine imposable for damage to property. The Supreme Court effectively distinguished and did not follow this ruling in light of R.A. No. 7691's explicit grant of jurisdiction to first-level courts.

• People vs. Sandiganbayan, 488 Phil. 293 (2004) — Cited for the definition and effect of a demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, and for the rule that dismissal upon demurrer is tantamount to acquittal and may not be appealed on double jeopardy grounds.

• People vs. Uy, G.R. No. 158157, September 30, 2005 — Cited for the rule that while an order of dismissal upon demurrer to evidence is not subject to appeal, it is reviewable by certiorari under Rule 65, reversible only upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

• Salazar vs. People, 458 Phil. 504 (2003) — Cited for the rule that when demurrer is granted and the accused is acquitted, the accused has the right to adduce evidence on the civil aspect unless the court declares that the act or omission from which civil liability may arise did not exist.

• Article 365, Revised Penal Code — Punishes reckless imprudence resulting in homicide attended by the use of a motor vehicle with prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. Applied to determine the imposable penalty and, consequently, the proper jurisdictional court.

• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Provides that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period. Applied to characterize the offense as a complex crime and to determine the imposable penalty.

• Article 3, Revised Penal Code — Defines felonies as acts or omissions punishable by law committed either by deceit (dolo) or fault (culpa). Applied to establish that Article 48, which speaks of felonies, is applicable to crimes through negligence.

• Section 32(2), Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691 — Extends the jurisdiction of first-level courts to all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years irrespective of the amount of fine, and grants them exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence. Applied to hold that the MTC had jurisdiction over the case.

• Section 23, Rule 119, Rules of Court — Allows the filing of a demurrer to evidence after the prosecution rests its case. Applied to validate the MTC's procedure in granting the demurrer.

• Rule 111, Section 2, Rules of Court — Provides that the civil action based on delict is deemed extinguished if there is a finding in the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. Applied to hold that petitioner's civil liability was extinguished.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing (Acting Chief Justice), Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, and Minita V. Chico-Nazario concurred.