G.R. No. 240337 , January 4, 2022
FRANCIS O. MORALES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This is a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Justice Perlas-Bernabe in the case where petitioner Francis O. Morales was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Slight Physical Injuries and Damage to Property under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The ponencia (main decision) upheld the ruling in Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro that reckless imprudence is a crime in itself and not a mere modality, and therefore should not be complexed under Article 48 of the RPC. It also abandoned the ruling in People v. De los Santos which allowed reckless imprudence to be “complexed” with its multiple resulting consequences. However, the ponencia imposed an additional penalty of a fine in the amount of P150,000.00 against the petitioner, applying paragraph 3 of Article 365 of the RPC, on the basis that the reckless imprudence resulted in both damage to property and acts (physical injuries) which would have been deemed felonies if intentional.

ISSUE

The primary issue in this opinion is whether the additional penalty of a fine under paragraph 3, Article 365 of the RPC should be imposed when the reckless imprudence results in both damage to property and other acts (e.g., physical injuries) that would constitute felonies if intentional, or whether paragraph 3 applies only when the reckless imprudence results in damage to property only.

RULING

Justice Perlas-Bernabe concurs with the ponencia in finding the petitioner guilty of Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Slight Physical Injuries and Damage to Property and in its characterization of reckless imprudence as a crime itself. However, she dissents from the imposition of the additional penalty of a P150,000.00 fine.
The opinion holds that paragraph 3, Article 365 of the RPC applies only when the execution of the act “shall have only resulted in damage to the property of another.” The wording is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity; therefore, it must be given its literal meaning. It does not apply when the reckless imprudence also results in an act which would have been deemed a felony had it been intentional.
The opinion cites the cardinal rule of statutory construction that penal laws must be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused. To impose an additional fine in cases beyond damage to property only would enlarge the field of crime, contrary to this principle. The restrictive application of paragraph 3 is congruent with this rule.
The opinion clarifies that this restrictive reading does not contradict the concept from Ivler that reckless imprudence is a crime in itself. The imposition of penalties must conform to the statute. The rationale is that the lawmakers intended to forego punishing the damage to property aspect separately when it is accompanied by other felonious results; the greater punishment for the negligent acts resulting in a felony subsumes the penalty for the damage to property. The other resulting effects (e.g., physical injuries) remain penalized.
Thus, in this case, since the reckless imprudence resulted not only in damage to property but also in three counts of slight physical injuries, paragraph 1 of Article 365 applies. The penalties to be imposed should correspond only to the three counts of slight physical injuries (public censure for each). The additional penalty of a fine should be deleted. The accused remains civilly liable for the damage to property and must pay temperate damages to the affected parties, but a fine, as a criminal penalty payable to the State, is not warranted under paragraph 3.
Accordingly, the opinion states that the petitioner should be found GUILTY but should only be SENTENCED to public censure for each of the resulting slight physical injuries. The additional P150,000.00 fine should be DELETED. The petitioner should be ORDERED to pay temperate damages to the private complainants with legal interest.