Case Digest (G.R. No. 145209)
Facts:
Lydio Alvero v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 145209, June 08, 2006, the Supreme Court First Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Lydio Alvero, a jeepney driver, was charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surallah, South Cotabato, with Homicide with Double Physical Injuries and Damage to Properties Through Reckless Imprudence for an accident on September 9, 1991 in Brgy. Liwanay, Banga. The information alleged that the jeepney driven by petitioner bumped a motorcycle, resulting in the death of Paulino Rondina and serious injuries to Wilfredo Alferez and Nestor Villa, plus property damage.
Petitioner pleaded not guilty on July 27, 1992. At trial the prosecution presented Investigating Officer SPO3 Luvimin Servanez (investigation report, photographs and sketch), eyewitness Alex Bacolor, and victim Nestor Villa. Their testimony placed the jeepney following and then bumping the motorcycle on the highway; the prosecution offered exhibits identifying the jeepney and showing the location and post‑impact position of the motorcycle.
The defense presented the testimony of petitioner and the jeepney conductor Armando Fanela. Petitioner testified that he was attempting to overtake the motorcycle, reduced speed, blew the horn, and that the motorcycle suddenly swerved left, making evasion impossible; he also described low speeds (30–40 kph) and immediate circumstances that, in his view, negated negligence. The conductor corroborated that the impact occurred suddenly.
On January 4, 1994, the RTC found petitioner guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in death and injury and imposed imprisonment and indemnities (P20,000 to Rondina’s heirs except his widow; P700 to Nestor Villa). Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On March 15, 2000, the CA affirmed the RTC judgment (CA‑G.R. CR No. 21118), and on August 23, 2000 it denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, contending that the CA erred by failing to base its decision on prosecution evidence and instead assailed defense weaknesses, that the prosecution failed to prove gross negligence beyond reasonable doubt, and that the CA improperly assessed and rejected petitioner’s ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err procedurally by failing to discuss and reason from the prosecution evidence and instead assailing the defense evidence?
- Did the prosecution prove petitioner’s negligence (reckless imprudence) beyond reasonable doubt?
- Was the Court of Appeals' rejection of petitioner’s defense — including reliance on admissions and d...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)