Law School Noob: [CASE DIGEST] Lamera v. CA (G.R. No. 93475)

Monday, October 4, 2021

[CASE DIGEST] Lamera v. CA (G.R. No. 93475)

June 5, 1991

FACTS:

On March 14, 1985, an owner-type jeep, then driven by Antonio A. Lamera, allegedly "hit and bumped" a tricycle then driven by Ernesto Reyes resulting in damage to the tricycle and injuries to Ernesto Reyes and Paulino Gonzal.

Lamera was charged with two criminal cases for (a) reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple physical injuries under Article 365 of the RPC, which was filed before RTC of Pasig; and (b) violation of paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the Revised Penal Code on Abandonment of one's victim, which was filed before MTC of Pasig.

In 1987, the MTC of Pasig found Lamera guilty of vthe crime of Abandonment of one's victim as defined and penalized under paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the RPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for a period of six (6) months of arresto mayor and to pay the costs. Lamera filed an appeal before the RTC of Pasig.

Pending said appeal, Lamera was arraigned in the criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple physical injuries under Article 365 of the RPC. He pleaded not guilty.

In 1989, the RTC of Pasig, acting on Lamera's appeal, modified the penalty in his prior conviction from imprisonment of six (6) months to just two (2) months.

Lamera filed an appeal before the CA, contending that he couldn't be held guilty for violating Art. 275(b) of RPC because the crime of abandonment is already within the scope of reckless imprudence under Art. 365. Lamera argued that being tried in 2 criminal cases for a single act constituted double jeopardy.

ISSUE:

Whether the filing of two cases against Lamera for a single act constitutes double jeopardy. -- NO.

HELD:

The SC held that the two informations filed against Lamera were clearly for separate offenses. The protection against double jeopardy is only for the same offense. A simple act may be an offense against two different provisions of law and if one provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under one does not bar prosecution under the other.

Since the informations were for separate offenses — the first against a person and the second against public peace and order — one cannot be pleaded as a bar to the other under the rule on double jeopardy.

The first, Criminal Case No. 64294, for reckless imprudence (Article 365), falls under the sole chapter (Criminal Negligence) of Title Fourteen (Quasi Offenses) of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. The second, Criminal Case No. 2793, for Abandonment of one's victim (par. 2, Art. 275), falls under Chapter Two (Crimes Against Security) of Title Nine (Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security) of Book Two of the same Code.

Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered, and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.

It is a cardinal rule that the protection against double jeopardy may be invoked only for the same offense or identical offenses. A simple act may offend against two (or more) entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law, and if one provision requires proof of an additional fact or element which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction or a dismissal of the information under one does not bar prosecution under the other. Phrased elsewhere, where two different laws (or articles of the same code) defines two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other, although both offenses arise from the same facts, if each crime involves some important act which is not an essential element of the
other.

LAW SCHOOL LIFE

The real score on law school and alcohol

Law school is so demanding an endeavor, no decent law student would want to deliberately skip clat asses for a tall glass of beer, no matter how deliciously ice cold such beverage is. It just isn't done. At all [. . .]

Should law students take a leave of absence until the COVID-19 pandemic ends?

For many, the abrupt shift to digital learning due to the pandemic is a novel concept that is particularly difficult to adjust to. This is more pronounced among law students, where daily physical interactions with classmates and professors are necessary in fostering a robust academic experience [. . .]

So you took the Bar Exams and failed. Now what?

Failing the Bar constitutes an abysmal point in any law graduate's life. It can trigger a lot of negative things, which is why it is very important that Bar examinees should have a support system to cling on to in the event of failure [. . .]

Bar review season pitfalls and tips to make reviewing for the Bar Exams less stressful

The Bar Exam review season is when reviewees try to conjur everything they have learned in law school and condense everything into neat mental folders easily retrievable when needed. Doing so requires focus, concentration, determination, and wise use of resources, particularly time and money [. . .]

The lowdown on law school entrance exams: Top 3 law schools in the Philippines

The top three law schools in the Philippines by reputation, quality of their alumni, and passing rate in the Bar exams are the College of Law of the University of the Philippines in Quezon City, the Ateneo School of Law in Makati, and the College of Law of the San Beda University in Manila. Each year these schools manage to attract graduates from all over the Philippines. As such, competition for slots in any of these schools is intense [. . .]

The Filipino law student's guide to scoring law textbooks on the cheap

Law books are often thick and heavy tomes of specialized legal information, mostly annotations of laws or statutes with a discussion of existing jurisprudence. They can be very intimidating. Even worse, they are bound to punch a gaping hole in your wallet [. . .]

To digest or not to digest -- that's the question

Relying on digests spares one the trouble of having to go through the case itself, identifying relevant facts, determining key issues, and analyzing the court's rationale in coming up with its decision [. . .]