Does People v. Cristobal prove that Reckless Driving is NOT a crime?
* AI ("Artificial Intelligence") subtitles on Tagalog.com are generated using "Whisper" by OpenAI (the same company that created ChatGPT and DallE2). Results and accuracy may vary.
* The subtitles do include errors occasionally and should only be used as a tool to help with your listening practice.
* You can request this website to create a transcript for a video if one doesn't already exist by clicking the "Request AI Subtitles" button below a video. Transcribing usually takes 30-40% of the length of a video to complete if there are no other videos in
the queue. For example, a 21 minute video will take 7-8 minutes to transcribe.
* Running a super fast cloud GPU server to do these transcriptions does cost money. If you have the desire and financial ability, consider
becoming a patron
to support these video transcriptions, and the other tools and apps built by Tagalog.com
00:00.0
Now, let's go to another topic. I am talking about the case of Pippol v. Marlon Cristobal, GR No. 234-207, dated June 10, 2019.
00:13.0
The question is, does this case of Pippol v. Marlon Cristobal prove that reckless driving is not a crime?
00:22.0
Let us first go through the facts of the case.
00:28.0
Cristobal was charged for illegal possession of dangerous drugs in the Regional Trial Court.
00:35.0
According to the police, Cristobal was plugged down at a checkpoint for not wearing a helmet.
00:41.0
He also failed to show the Certificate of Registration and the OR of the motorcycle he was riding or driving.
00:50.0
While the police officer was preparing the traffic citation ticket, Cristobal allegedly ran away but the other police officers were able to apprehend him.
01:01.0
He was brought back to the checkpoint where he was searched for deadly weapons but nothing was found.
01:08.0
However, the police noticed that Cristobal's pocket was bulging and ordered him to remove the object from his pocket which was a small plastic bag.
01:19.0
When the police opened the same, they found seven plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance which turned out to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or more popularly known as Shabu.
01:35.0
The RTC convicted him of the charge.
01:39.0
According to the RTC, the search made on Cristobal was justified under this TAP and FISC rule.
01:47.0
On appeal in the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Cristobal.
01:57.0
On appeal in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, however, acquitted Cristobal.
02:03.0
The reasons cited by the Supreme Court in acquitting Cristobal are as follows.
02:11.0
First, there was no valid search incidental to a lawful arrest.
02:16.0
There was no arrest to speak of because the violations committed by Cristobal are both punishable only by a fine.
02:25.0
Take note that the fine under RA 10054 otherwise known as the Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009 is in the nature of a criminal penalty while the fine under LTO Department Order No. 2008-39 is in the nature of an administrative penalty.
02:47.0
There being no lawful arrest, the sachets of Shabu were discovered through an unlawful search and thereby inadmissible in evidence against Cristobal.
03:02.0
Now, the Supreme Court further said that the case of Cristobal is strikingly similar to the case of Luz v. Pipol.
03:11.0
In the said case, the Supreme Court likewise acquitted the petitioner because the failure to wear a helmet under a city ordinance or penalized under a city ordinance is punishable only by a fine.
03:26.0
Now, under the rules of court, a warrant of arrest need not be issued if the information or charge was filed for an offense penalized by a fine only.
03:38.0
It may be stated as a corollary that neither can a warrantless arrest be made for such an offense.
03:46.0
Now, the SC also stated that neither could the search on Cristobal be justified as a valid stop-and-frisk search.
03:56.0
However, we will no longer discuss it here because it has no bearing to the question of whether or not reckless driving is a crime.
04:05.0
Now, does the Cristobal case prove that reckless driving is not a crime?
04:13.0
The answer is no.
04:17.0
First, the case is about the illegal search made on Cristobal that led to his acquittal of the drug charges.
04:28.0
It does not talk about reckless driving and whether or not reckless driving is a crime.
04:34.0
Second, there was no lawful arrest to speak of, not because Section 7 of RA 10054 is not a crime, but because the violation imposes only a criminal penalty or fine.
04:51.0
To reiterate what the SC said in Cristobal, a warrant of arrest need not be issued in the case of a person who violates a penal law that imposes only a penalty or fine.
05:07.0
Neither can a warrantless arrest be made for such an offense.
05:13.0
Third, it is wrong to say that it is not a crime when the law imposes only a penalty or fine.
05:22.0
In criminal law, it is basic knowledge that punishment for a crime can be either a fine or imprisonment, or both such imprisonment and fine.
05:35.0
And fourth, nothing in the Cristobal case states that a traffic violation is not a crime.
05:42.0
To reiterate, violations of traffic laws, rules, and regulations are categorized as criminal cases governed by the rules on expedited procedures in the first-level courts.
05:56.0
This was approved by the Supreme Court and Bank on March 1, 2022, and which took effect only recently, on April 11, 2022.
06:09.0
The assertion, therefore, that the Cristobal case proves that reckless driving is not a crime or that a traffic violation is not a crime is highly erroneous.
