On November 7,  1953,  a  collision  took  place between a bus belonging to the Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines  and a  car  driven  by  Manuel Aricheta  causing injuries to some passengers and damage to  both cars and two electric posts.  As a result two separate  charges for damage to property through  reckless  imprudence  and  another for "multiple  serious  and  slight injuries  through  reckless imprudence" were filed against Aricheta before the Justice of the Peace Court of Mabalacat, Pampanga.

On September 13, 1954, Aricheta was served with an order of the justice  of the peace court directing  him to appear before it on October 2, 1954 for trial of the three cases  on  the  merits.,  Aricheta  filed  separately  three motions to quash on the ground that said justice of the peace court  does  not have jurisdiction to try the cases on the merits because, considering their nature, they come within  the jurisdiction of the court of  first instance.  On November 3, 1954, the court overruled the  motions  and instead enjoined Aricheta to appear for the required  preliminary investigation on  November 18, 1954.  Aricheta gave notice of his  desire to  waive  said  investigation, whereupon the court set  anew  the three cases  for trial on  the merits.  And considering that  said court,  on one hand, has no  jurisdiction  to try  said  cases  and,  on the other, acted merely  upon order of the court of first instance, Aricheta has come before this Court by  way of certiorari contending that both the court of first instance as well  as the Justice of the Peace Court  of  Mabalacat, Pampanga, have acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

It appears that Aricheta was charged before  the Justice of the Peace Court  of Mabalacat, Pampanga,  with  three crimes: two with damage to  property through reckless imprudence and one with multiple serious and slight physical injuries through reckless  imprudence.  In the  first charge for damage  to property,  the damage involved is Pl,484,40 while in the second, P250; whereas in the charge for physical injuries, several  persons are involved: Rufina Mangilit who,  it  is  alleged, suffered  injuries which required medical attendance for more  than 120 days, and which might cause on her permanent incapacity  and deformity; Potenciana  Duque  who suffered  injuries which required medical attendance for a period of 7 days; Purificacion Duque who  suffered contusions which  required medical  attendance  for  a  period  of  3  days; Apolonio Gacusan who  suffered contusion which required  medical attendance for a  period of 3 days; Severino Capuno who suffered abrasion which required  medical attendance for a period of 3 days;  and Feliciano de los Reyes who suffered injuries  which required  medical  attendance for a period of  3 days.

With regard' to the charges  of damage to property through reckless imprudence, considering the value of the damage involved, our opinion  is that they do not come with in the jurisdiction of a justice of the  peace court for the reason that said court acquires jurisdiction to try criminal cases only when the penalty involved  is imprisonment of not more than six months or a fine of  not more than P200 (section 87  [6].  The Judiciary Act  of  1948,  Republic Act No. 296), and because of our ruling that  such  crime is not deemed included in the crime of malicious mischief over which a justice of the peace court has  original jurisdiction.  Thus,  in Francisco Quizon  vs.  The Honorable Justice of the Peace  of Bacolor, Pampanga,  et al., 97 Phil. 342, this Court said: 

"The question, therefore,  is whether the justice  of  the  peace court has concurrent jurisdiction  with the Court of First Instance when the crime charged is  damage to property through  reckless negligence or. imprudence if the  amount of the  damage is P125. "We believe that the  answer should be in the  negative.  To hold that  the Justice  of  the Peace Court has jurisdiction to try cases of damage  to property through reckless  negligence, because  it has jurisdiction  over cases  of malicious mischief,  is to assume that  the  former  offense  is  but  a variant  of  the  latter.  This assumption  is not  legally  warranted."

A different situation  obtains with regard to the crime of multiple serious  and slight physical  injuries.  This crime comes under Article 365 of the Revised  Penal Code which provides in part that "Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, *  * *  would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum  and medium periods shall be  imposed."  Article 9 of the  same  Code provides that  "less  grave felonies are  those which the law  punishes  with  penalties  which  in  their  maximum period  are  correctional  * * *", and  under Article  263, paragraphs 3 and 4, the penalty of prision  correctional is provided  for when  the physical  injuries  inflicted  have produced deformity  or incapacity for the performance of the  work  in which the  victim was  habitually engaged, or when they  shall  have caused the  illness or incapacity for  labor for more than 30  days.

It  therefore  appears  that the  crime  charged,  had  it been intentional,  would only  constitute a less grave felony, for  which the law imposes the penalty of  arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods (Article 365), which shows that the same comes within the jurisdiction of  a justice of the peace court.  The contention therefore of Aricheta with regard to  this particular crime is untenable.

With regard  to the  question  whether these  charges, having arisen from a  single  act, should be  included in only one information, the same cannot now be considered, petitioner not having raised the  issue in the court below.

Wherefore,  the petition is  granted with regard  to the two charges of  damage to property  through reckless imprudence, which should be forwarded to the court of first instance  for trial on the merits.  The petition  is  denied with regard to  the charge  of multiple serious and slight physical  injuries  through reckless imprudence.   No  pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J.,  Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.  B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.