G.R. No. 145209 - Alvero vs. People

Title: Alvero vs. People

Case: G.R. No. 145209

Decision Date: Jun 8, 2006

A jeepney driver convicted of reckless imprudence after colliding with a motorcycle, causing death, injuries, and property damage; SC affirmed lower courts' rulings.

Font Size:

Dark Mode

Case Digest (G.R. No. 145209)
Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Incident and Charge

On or about September 9, 1991, along the National Highway in Brgy. Liwanay, Municipality of Banga, South Cotabato, petitioner Lydio Alvero, driving a jeepney (Jeepney Type: Jumbo 747, Plate Number LVK-365, owned by Yellow Bus Line, Inc.), was allegedly involved in a vehicular accident.

The incident occurred when the jeepney, while overtaking, bumped a motorcycle (HONDA 155 TMX, Plate Number MC LE-5013) operated by Liberato Filizarta. The collision resulted in:

The death of Paulino Rondina, a passenger of the motorcycle.

Serious physical injuries to Nestor Villa and other passengers.

Destruction of personal properties of the victims and damage to additional property, the value of which was to be determined in a separate civil complaint.

An information was filed charging petitioner with Homicide with Double Physical Injuries and Damage to Properties Through Reckless Imprudence.

Pretrial and Evidentiary Proceedings

Prior to trial, petitioner had been informed of his rights, including the right to remain silent and not to be compelled as a witness against himself. Notably, any waiver of such rights makes his subsequent statements admissible.

On July 27, 1992, petitioner entered a plea of "Not Guilty."

During trial, the prosecution presented evidence that included:

Testimony of SPO3 Luvimin ServaAez, the investigating officer who prepared a sketch and submitted various exhibits (photographic evidence of the jeep’s front portion, the motorcycle at the scene, alleged tire marks, and scene sketches).

Eyewitness testimonies of Alex Bacolor and victim Nestor Villa, who attested to the proximity of the jeepney and the sequence of events before, during, and after the collision.

Physical evidence such as a detailed sketch plan indicating distances from the point of impact, including a noted eight-meter displacement (contrary to the six meters alleged later by petitioner) with a directional component of approximately 45 degrees.

Defense Presentation and Trial Court Findings

The defense primarily rested on the testimonies of the accused, Lydio Alvero, and the jeep conductor, Armando Fanela.

Petitioner admitted to the act by explaining that he was attempting to overtake a motorcycle when the latter suddenly swerved left, prompting him to brake and steer right; however, the jeepney still collided with the motorcycle.

He described the proximity of the vehicles at the moment of impact (approximately two to three meters apart) and maintained that the motorcycle’s sudden movement was unforeseen.

Testimonies indicated that despite the low speeds (stated speeds of 30-40 km/h), the dynamics of overtaking imposed heightened responsibility.

The RTC (Regional Trial Court) found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, injury, and property damage.

The RTC imposed a penalty ranging from a minimum of two years, four months and one day to a maximum of four years, two months and one day of prision correccional.

The court further ordered petitioner to indemnify the heirs of the deceased victim Paulino Rondina and Nestor Villa for actual damages.

Subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeals (CA) resulted in the affirmation of the RTC decision, with the CA resolving the petition on the grounds that there were no reversible errors in the factual findings.

Appellate Issues Raised by the Petitioner

Petitioner challenged the CA’s decision on multiple grounds:

Argued that the CA failed to adequately assess the prosecution’s evidence and improperly relied on the defense’s testimonies.

Contended that the finding of negligence was based solely on his own vague or irrelevant statements rather than on compelling prosecution evidence.

Criticized the interpretation of physical evidence such as the distance the motorcycle was thrown (six or eight meters) and the relative speeds implied by witness testimonies.

Additional contentions included:

Allegations that his own statements (made to the police and in court) had been used against him after waiving his right to remain silent.

Assertions that the court misapprehended his testimony regarding the location (i.e., “Crossing Andam”) during the overtake maneuver.

Issue:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by:

Failing to assess the prosecution evidence on its merits and instead focusing on alleged weaknesses in the defense evidence.

Relying, at least in part, on statements or admissions made by the accused that subsequently were used against him.

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the accused’s gross negligence beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in the context of vehicular overtaking and the ensuing accident.

Whether the factual findings of the trial court, which were confirmed by the Court of Appeals, were erroneously based on defense evidence rather than on a balanced consideration of all evidence, including physical evidence such as the investigative report and sketch plan.

Whether the determination of the distances involved (six meters vs. eight meters with a directional impact) and the consequent evaluation of the relative speeds of the vehicles were rightly inferred from the available evidence.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

END