G.R. No. L-14191; April 27, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ENRIQUE NARVAS, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The defendant, Enrique Narvas, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Rizal with “damage to property thru reckless imprudence” for a vehicular incident on July 27, 1957, in Pasig, Rizal. The information alleged that while driving a passenger truck recklessly, he hit a carabao, swerved, and damaged two stores and a house, causing total damages of P2,449.00. Prior to this case, Narvas had already been tried, convicted, and sentenced to fifteen days of imprisonment under a separate information for “multiple slight and serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence” arising from the same vehicular incident. That prior information described the same reckless operation, the same actions of hitting a carabao, grazing stores, and bumping a house, which resulted in physical injuries to several passengers. The trial court, presided by Judge Cecilia Muñoz-Palma, sustained Narvas’s plea of double jeopardy, barring the second prosecution. The People appealed this order.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction for “multiple slight and serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence” bars a subsequent prosecution for “damage to property thru reckless imprudence” based on the same act, under the principle of double jeopardy.

RULING

Yes, the subsequent prosecution is barred by double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order. Applying Section 9, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, the Court held that the offense of “damage to property thru reckless imprudence” charged in the first information (the subject of the appeal) is necessarily included in the offense of “multiple slight and serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence” charged and proven in the second information (the prior conviction). The test applied was whether some of the essential elements or ingredients of the latter offense, as alleged in the information itself, constitute the former. The essential elements of the prior information for physical injuries included: (a) the date and place of the accident; (b) the accused’s reckless management of the truck; and (c) the act of causing the truck to hit a carabao and damage stores and a house. These same elements constitute the offense of damage to property thru reckless imprudence. The Court noted that the prior information, by alleging the failure to take precaution to prevent damage to properties and describing the violent impacts, implicitly alleged damage to property, the value of which could be assessed at the minimum penalized by law. Therefore, in the prior prosecution for physical injuries, the accused was in danger of being convicted of the property damage offense as it was necessarily included. The Court distinguished the cited case of People vs. Estipona, as it did not involve a single information describing both resulting offenses. The plea of double jeopardy was correctly sustained.