Case Digest (G.R. No. 172778)
Facts:
Sabiniano Dumayag v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 172778, November 26, 2012, Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Sabiniano Dumayag (the bus driver) was criminally charged by the People for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide, reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries, and damage to property arising from a road collision on July 6, 1995 in Magtalisay, Sangat, San Fernando, Cebu.On the morning of July 6, 1995, a passenger bus driven by petitioner collided with a tricycle driven by Elsie Genayas, resulting in four deaths and five injured tricycle passengers. Witnesses said the tricycle was overtaking a Mitsubishi pickup upon approaching a blind curve when it was struck by the bus. Responding police officers measured the scene: the point of impact lay about one foot from the centerline crossing into the bus’s lane, and a bus-produced skid mark about sixty feet long was observed. Testimony also established the tricycle was carrying eight passengers and that tricycles were prohibited from using that national highway under the tricycle franchise admitted by its owner.
The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Fernando, Cebu City found petitioner guilty on March 18, 1999 of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and imposed imprisonment and civil damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21, Cebu City affirmed but modified the penalty and the civil awards in a June 24, 2002 decision. The Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR No. 26513, affirmed the RTC in a November 26, 2004 Decision (authored by Associate Justice Arsenio J. Magpale), and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a May 10, 2006 Resolution. Petitioner then filed a petition for review under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court.
The prosecution relied on eyewitnesses including a Mitsubishi Pajero driver and police testimony about skid marks and the point of impact; the defense emphasized petitioner’s long driving experience, that he was in his proper lane and at a moderate speed, and that the immediate cause was the tricycle driver’s illegal and reckless overtaking in a blind curve in violation of R.A. No. 4136...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the attribution of negligence, imprudence and recklessness to petitioner by the trial courts and the Court of Appeals supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt?
- If petitioner was negligent, was that negligence the proximate cause of the accident?
- Did petitioner’s conviction as sustained by the Court of Appeals violate his constitutional rights to due process a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)