- Petitioner
- People
- Respondent
- Restituro Faller
- Citation
- G.R. No. 45964
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decided
- April 26, 1939
Whether a defendant can be convicted of damage through reckless imprudence when originally charged with willful and malicious damage to property
Summary
Restituto Faller was charged with willfully and maliciously damaging property but was convicted by the trial court of damage through reckless imprudence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. On appeal, he argued he was convicted of a different crime than charged. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that reckless imprudence is merely a different way of committing the same crime of property damage, not a separate offense. The Court clarified that reckless imprudence determines only the degree of criminal liability, and the information's allegation of unlawful and criminal acts encompasses negligent conduct. This case establishes that a defendant can be convicted of a lesser degree of the same crime originally charged.
Focus of dispute
Whether a defendant can be convicted of damage through reckless imprudence when originally charged with willful and malicious damage to property
Legal facts
Restituto Faller was charged with willfully and maliciously damaging another's property. The Court of First Instance of Rizal found the damage was caused through reckless imprudence, not willfully and maliciously. He was sentenced under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code to pay a fine of P38 and indemnify the offended party Ramon Diokno in the same amount, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Faller appealed, arguing he was convicted of a different crime than what he was charged with.
Judgement and reasoning
Court of First Instance of Rizal: Found that the damage was not caused maliciously and willfully, but through reckless imprudence, and sentenced defendant under paragraph 3 of article 365 of the Revised Penal Code as principal in the crime of damage through reckless imprudence.
Supreme Court (SC): Affirmed the conviction, ruling that the court did not commit error. The appellant was convicted of the same crime of damage to property with which he was charged. Reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself but simply a way of committing a crime and merely determines a lower degree of criminal liability. The allegation in the information that appellant acted unlawfully and criminally includes the charge that he acted with negligence.