The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that voluntary surrender may mitigate criminal liability in reckless imprudence cases involving homicide through motor vehicles, clarifying when courts may consider mitigating circumstances in imposing penalties.  

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC En Banc partly granted a petition and affirmed a conviction for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, but modified the penalty imposed after recognizing voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance.  

“[T]he Court now holds that Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides for the rules on the application of modifying circumstances, are applicable to the commission of acts covered by Article 365, paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code notwithstanding Article 365, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code,” the Court said.  

The ruling resolved conflicting interpretations on how penalties are imposed in reckless imprudence cases, allowing courts to consider mitigating circumstances under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).  

FACTS AND ISSUE

The case stemmed from a criminal complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide filed against Noli Z. Ilon over a 2003 vehicular collision in Bacolod City that killed a trisikad passenger. Prosecutors alleged that Ilon accelerated near an intersection and struck the trisikad, causing the death of passenger Lea de la Cruz. Ilon later surrendered to authorities.  

Ilon denied acting recklessly, arguing that the trisikad suddenly crossed into his lane and that the collision became unavoidable despite his efforts to avoid it. He also claimed the trisikad driver’s alleged negligence contributed to the incident.  

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities found Ilon guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, a ruling later affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, which modified portions of the damages and penalty. Ilon then elevated the case to the SC.  

Before the SC, the principal issue was whether voluntary surrender may be considered a mitigating circumstance in determining penalties for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365 of the RPC, alongside the validity of the conviction.  

RULING

The SC partly granted the petition, affirming Ilon’s conviction but modifying the penalty after recognizing his voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. The Court held that Ilon failed to exercise the caution required when approaching an intersection.  

The Court rejected Ilon’s defense, ruling that the trisikad driver’s alleged contributory negligence did not absolve him of criminal liability and may only be considered in determining damages.

The SC clarified that Article 64 on mitigating circumstances may apply to reckless imprudence cases involving homicide through motor vehicles, ruling that the limitation under paragraph 5 of Article 365 applies only to cases involving injuries and not death.  

Applying this interpretation, the Court reduced the penalty imposed by the appellate court and sentenced Ilon to an indeterminate prison term ranging from four months and one day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, as maximum. 

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.