Case Digest (G.R. No. 131856-57)
Facts:
The case at hand involves the appellant Narciso Vistan y de la Cruz, who served as the conductor of street car No. 203, and the complainant, Hugo Borromeo. The incident occurred on April 10, 1920, in Manila, Philippines, when the streetcar was making a scheduled stop at the intersection of M. H. del Pilar and Isaac Peral Streets to receive passengers. The events unfolded as follows: Hugo Borromeo was attempting to board the streetcar, holding onto two iron bars—one with his right hand and the other with his left. As he was positioning his right foot on the streetcar's platform, the appellant negligently signaled the motorman to start the vehicle. The sudden movement caused Borromeo to lose his grip and balance, resulting in his left foot being caught and crushed by the rear wheels of the streetcar. This injury necessitated the amputation of his foot, leading to a long-term inability to perform his usual work activities.
Following the incident, the appellant was prosecuted i
Case Digest (G.R. No. 131856-57)
Facts:
- Overview of the Incident
- The case involves the People of the Philippine Islands prosecuting Narciso Vistan y de la Cruz for serious physical injuries allegedly caused through reckless imprudence.
- The accused, serving as the conductor in charge of a street car, is charged with giving the signal to start the car at a critical moment, thereby endangering a passenger.
- Detailed Account of the Incident
- Date and Location
- The incident occurred on or about April 10, 1920.
- The event took place in the city of Manila, specifically at the intersection of M. H. del Pilar and Isaac Peral Streets.
- Activities and Roles of the Parties
- Hugo Borromeo, the offended party, was present with his two sons when boarding street car No. 203.
- As Borromeo prepared to board, he held onto the designated iron bars—using his right hand on the bar at the entrance and his left on the central bar.
- The accused, Narciso Vistan y de la Cruz, acting as the conductor, signaled the motorman to start the car.
- Sequence and Nature of Events
- Initiation of Motion
- With Hugo Borromeo having one foot on the running board and hands engaged with the bars, the conductor gave the command to start the car.
- The car jerked abruptly forward immediately upon the signal.
- Consequences of the Abrupt Start
- Due to the sudden movement, Borromeo’s left hand slipped off its holding position.
- His right hand became pinioned between the iron bar and adjacent woodwork, preventing him from immediately extricating it.
- Losing balance, Borromeo was dragged along for a short distance until his left foot was caught under the moving wheels, resulting in severe injury that eventually necessitated amputation.
- Witness Testimonies
- A witness, Lawson, observed the event from a distance, noting that Borromeo appeared to be dragged along.
- Despite the impression by some that Borromeo might have been running after the car, the evidence confirmed he was in the process of boarding when the car started.
- Supplementary Factual Observations
- Defense’s Argument
- The defense contended that Borromeo had been running after the car and, due to his failed attempt to board, his foot was injured against the wheels.
- The factual evidence, including Borromeo’s own statement and the immediate reaction to the conductor’s signal, contradicted the defense’s version.
- Inference on the Conductor’s Conduct
- It is suggested that the conductor assumed Borromeo had safely boarded since his hands were engaged with the holding devices and his foot was on the running board.
- The abrupt starting of the car, however, led to the mishap causing the injuries.
Issues:
- Determination of Negligence
- Whether the act of giving the start signal under the circumstances constituted reckless imprudence (gross negligence) or merely simple negligence.
- If the alleged negligence, resulting in serious injury, reaches the level of rash imprudence punishable under article 568 of the Penal Code or falls under the ambit of simple imprudence as described in article 590.
- Assessment of the Conductor’s Duty of Care
- The issue revolves around whether the conductor, who had direct control over the movement of the street car, exercised the required degree of care given the visible risk to passengers.
- The evaluation included whether the abrupt initiation of the car was a foreseeable hazard that should have been properly mitigated.
- Comparison with Similar Cases
- The case invites examination of precedents such as U. S. vs. Gomez, where reckless imprudence resulting in death was discussed.
- The comparison aimed at delineating the boundaries between gross negligence (or rash imprudence) and a lack of foresight that might be charged as simple imprudence.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)