Mariano vs. People of the Philippines

In reckless imprudence cases under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty is determined by ascertaining whether the resulting injury would constitute a grave, less grave, or light felony if committed intentionally; if the resulting injury constitutes a less grave felony, the penalty is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, and where the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply, permitting the imposition of a straight penalty.

On the evening of September 12, 1999, in Angat, Bulacan, Ferdinand de Leon was driving his owner-type jeep with his family when Reynaldo Mariano, driving a red Toyota pick-up, overtook him, nearly causing a collision. After an exchange of words mediated by Ferdinand's uncle, the parties separated. Ferdinand proceeded to his mother's house in San Roque, Angat, where he parked and alighted from his vehicle. Mariano's pick-up subsequently struck Ferdinand, throwing him four meters away and causing serious physical injuries including facial fractures and subdural hemorrhage. Mariano did not stop immediately, proceeding instead to a police station to surrender after dropping off his passengers.

The Road Incident: At approximately 6:30 p.m. on September 12, 1999, Ferdinand de Leon was driving his owner-type jeep along Barangay Engkanto, Angat, Bulacan, accompanied by his wife Urbanita and their two-year-old son, returning from a baptismal party. Luis de Leon, Ferdinand's uncle, was driving a separate jeep. Reynaldo Mariano was driving a red Toyota pick-up with his wife Rebecca and helper Rowena Años as passengers, returning from a worship service in the same barangay.

The Altercation: Mariano overtook Ferdinand's jeep, nearly causing a collision. Ferdinand overtook the pick-up in turn and blocked its path. Ferdinand alighted and confronted Mariano, allegedly exchanging invectives while Mariano remained inside his vehicle. Urbanita sought Luis de Leon's assistance, who advised both parties to exercise patience and separate, which they did.

The Collision: Instead of proceeding home, Ferdinand drove to his mother's house in San Roque, Angat, to pick up items. He parked his jeep in front of the house and alighted. Urbanita witnessed a fast-moving vehicle strike Ferdinand, throwing him approximately four meters away and causing him to lose consciousness. She identified the vehicle as the same red Toyota pick-up driven by Mariano.

Defense Version: Mariano claimed he stopped his pick-up five to six meters behind Ferdinand's jeep to allow an oncoming vehicle to pass. After signaling, he overtook the jeep, but Ferdinand suddenly alighted, lost his balance, and was sideswiped by the overtaking pick-up. Mariano proceeded without stopping due to fear of harm from bystanders, later surrendering at Camp Alejo S. Santos in Malolos after dropping off his passengers.

Injuries and Damages: Ferdinand sustained multiple facial injuries, a fracture of the inferior part of the right orbital wall, and subdural hemorrhage secondary to severe head trauma. He was treated at Sto. Niño Hospital in Bustos for two and a half days (₱17,800.00) and later at St. Luke's Medical Center in Quezon City until September 25, 1999 (₱66,243.25). He incurred additional expenses for medicines (₱909.50), scanning (₱2,900.00), doctor's fees (₱8,000.00), and caregiver services (₱12,550.00). He testified to being unable to attend to his general merchandise store for three months due to temporary amnesia. Mariano provided ₱50,000.00 in financial assistance evidenced by a receipt dated September 15, 1999.

Sufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner argued that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, contending that Ferdinand's injuries resulted from a mere accident and that he lacked criminal intent. Absence of Negligence: Petitioner maintained that he was not negligent in driving his pick-up truck, asserting that Ferdinand suddenly alighted and lost balance, rendering the collision unavoidable. Mitigating Circumstance: Petitioner insisted that the Court of Appeals should have appreciated voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance in his favor pursuant to Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code.

Reckless Driving: Respondent argued that driving at a fast speed to overtake the victim's jeep constituted reckless imprudence, as evidenced by Ferdinand being thrown four meters away from the impact. Foreseeability: Respondent countered that Mariano should have foreseen the possibility of Ferdinand alighting from his jeep given their prior altercation and Mariano's knowledge of Ferdinand's family store at that location. Inapplicability of Mitigating Circumstances: Respondent maintained that Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code excludes the application of Article 64's rules on mitigating circumstances, granting courts discretion in penalty imposition without regard to such circumstances.

Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner was guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries. Mitigating Circumstances: Whether voluntary surrender should be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance in offenses penalized under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. Proper Penalty: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly imposed the penalty for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.

Sufficiency of Evidence: The conviction for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries was affirmed. The fact that Ferdinand's body was thrown four meters away indicated that Mariano was driving at a fast speed when overtaking the jeep. Given his familiarity with Ferdinand and the location, Mariano should have foreseen the possibility of Ferdinand alighting from the vehicle. Speeding constitutes imprudent behavior, and the direct causal connection between his negligence and the injuries was established. Mitigating Circumstances: Voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. Paragraph 5 of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code expressly provides that courts shall exercise sound discretion in imposing penalties without regard to the rules prescribed in Article 64, which governs mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Proper Penalty: The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was erroneous. Under Article 365, the penalty for reckless imprudence is based on the gravity of the resulting injuries had the act been intentional. Ferdinand's injuries—incapacity for work exceeding 90 days but not resulting in insanity, imbecility, impotence, or blindness—constituted a less grave felony under Article 263(3) of the Revised Penal Code, not a grave felony. Consequently, the proper penalty is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods (one to four months). Because the maximum term does not exceed one year, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is inapplicable, and a straight penalty of two months of arresto mayor is imposed.

Reckless Imprudence under Article 365 — Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place. To constitute reckless driving, the act must be something more than mere negligence; a willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is required.

Penalty Determination in Article 365 Cases — The penalty for reckless imprudence is determined by classifying the resulting injury as grave, less grave, or light had the act been intentional. Under Article 9 and 25 of the Revised Penal Code: (a) grave felonies are those to which the law attaches capital punishment or afflictive penalties (reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor); (b) less grave felonies are those punishable by correctional penalties in their maximum period (prision correccional, arresto mayor, suspension, destierro); and (c) light felonies are infractions punishable by arresto menor or fine not exceeding ₱200.00. For serious physical injuries under Article 263, subdivision 3 (incapacity for work exceeding 90 days), the resulting felony is less grave, warranting arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods under Article 365.

Inapplicability of the Indeterminate Sentence Law — The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year. In such cases, the court may impose a straight penalty without minimum and maximum terms.

Exclusion of Article 64 Rules in Quasi-Offenses — In quasi-offenses penalized under Article 365, the carelessness, imprudence or negligence may vary in nature, extent, and resulting consequences. To ensure fair and just application of the penalty, courts must have ample discretion in its imposition without being bound by the mathematical formula in Article 64 regarding mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

• "The courts of law are hereby reminded once again to exercise care in the determination of the proper penalty imposable upon the offenders whom they find and declare to be guilty of the offenses charged or proved. Their correct determination is the essence of due process of law."
• "Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing of failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place."
• "The penalty for the offender guilty of reckless imprudence is based on the gravity of the resulting injuries had his act been intentional."
• "No person should be condemned to suffer a penalty that the law does not prescribe or provide for the offense charged or proved. Verily, anyone judicially declared guilty of any crime must be duly punished in accordance with the law defining the crime and prescribing the punishment. Injustice would always result to the offender should the penalty exceed that allowed by the law. The imposition of the correct penalty on the offender is the essence of due process of law."

People v. Garcia — Cited for the principle that a man must use common sense and exercise due reflection in all his acts, and is responsible for results anyone might foresee.

People v. Medroso, Jr., G.R. No. L-37633, January 31, 1975 — Controlling precedent establishing that Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code grants courts discretion in imposing penalties without regard to Article 64's rules on mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

Manzanares v. People, G.R. Nos. 153760-61, October 16, 2006 — Followed for the rule that driving very fast establishes reckless imprudence when it results in collision and injuries.

Pangonorom v. People, G.R. No. 143380, April 11, 2005 — Followed for the principle that a driver proceeding at high speed without slowing down to avoid hitting a swerving vehicle is criminally negligent.

Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013 — Applied for the rule that damages fixed by final judgment earn interest at 6% per annum from finality until full payment pursuant to BSP Circular No. 799.

Article 365, Revised Penal Code — Defines reckless imprudence and provides the graduated penalties based on whether the resulting damage would constitute a grave, less grave, or light felony if committed intentionally. Paragraph 5 thereof excludes the application of Article 64 rules on mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

Article 263, Revised Penal Code — Defines serious physical injuries and classifies the penalties based on the nature and duration of incapacity. Subdivision 3 (incapacity for work exceeding 90 days) was applied to classify the resulting injury as a less grave felony.

Article 9, Revised Penal Code — Defines grave, less grave, and light felonies based on the penalties attached.

Article 25, Revised Penal Code — Enumerates afflictive, correctional, and light penalties.

Article 64, Revised Penal Code — Rules for application of mitigating and aggravating circumstances; held inapplicable to Article 365 cases.

Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate Sentence Law), Section 2 — Provides exceptions including cases where the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year.

BSP Circular No. 799, Series of 2013 — Prescribes the 6% per annum legal interest rate for forbearance of money.

Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Chief Justice), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Jose Catral Mendoza (per Special Order No. 1715 dated July 1, 2014, vice Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes who was on Wellness Leave).