Practice question
One proved reckless driving act causes slight injuries to one person and death and property damage to others. A valid final conviction for the slight-injury consequence is entered by a competent court, and all double-jeopardy requisites are present. The prosecution then seeks another case for the known death and damage from the same act. Under Ivler, may it avoid the bar by saying the first consequence was light?
- Yes, light consequences must always be separately prosecuted.
- Yes, each injured person creates a new negligent act.
- No; the single quasi-offense cannot be split into successive prosecutions merely by separating its consequences.
- Yes, Article 48 compels the second prosecution.
- No, because property damage is never criminally relevant.
Legal references
- RA 10951, current amended RPC provisions and monetary thresholds: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2017/ra_10951_2017.html; Section 97, amended Article 365.
- Ivler v Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010, main decision, one quasi-offense and double jeopardy: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_172716_2010.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.