Case Digest (G.R. No. 187246)
Facts:
Edwin Tabao y Perez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 187246, July 20, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Edwin Tabao y Perez and co-accused Leonardo Mendez were charged with reckless imprudence resulting to homicide arising from an incident on the night of January 21, 1993 in Manila. The prosecution’s narrative, supported by eyewitness testimony, was that petitioner’s Toyota Corolla ramped on an island divider at Governor Forbes corner G. Tuazon Street and struck Rochelle Lanete, throwing her onto the roadway; within about a minute a speeding Toyota Corona driven by Mendez ran over Rochelle’s body. Bystanders pursued Mendez’s car; a bystander named Francisco Cielo entered Mendez’s vehicle and later, together with petitioner and Mendez, brought the injured Rochelle to UST Hospital, where she later died of complications from traumatic injuries.
Petitioner presented a different account: he admitted his car ramped on the island and became immobilized, denied that he ran over Rochelle, and claimed he only later saw a body on the road and helped place it in Mendez’s car. Mendez likewise denied running over Rochelle, stating he saw a body fall and that he reversed to assist. The prosecution relied on eyewitness Victor Soriano, who testified he saw petitioner’s car ramp the island and bump a woman, who was then thrown on her back and soon thereafter run over by a fast-moving car; Soriano positively identified petitioner in court as the driver of the car that hit Rochelle.
The Office of the City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed an information. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39, Manila, in a decision dated September 15, 2003, convicted both petitioner and Mendez of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide and imposed an indeterminate term (as minimum, four months and one day arresto mayor; as maximum, two years, ten months and twenty days prision correccional), and ordered payment of actual, civil indemnity and moral damages. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CR No. 28401; the CA, in a decision dated July 27, 2007, affirmed the RTC’s factual findings and conviction but modified the maximum of the indeterminate penalty to four years, nine months and ten days prision correccional. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a March 17, 2009 resolution.
Petitioner sought relief in this Court by a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45), which the Supreme Court declined in a June 8, 2009 Resolution for raisi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the Court grant petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of his Rule 45 petition and exercise its discretionary appellate jurisdiction?
- Were the factual findings of the RTC and the CA—particularly the eyewitness identification and the finding of petitioner’s reckless imprudence causally linked to Rochelle Lanete’s death—palpably unsupported by the evidence?
- Did the courts below err in discounting the defense expert’s opinion and other defense points (absence of dents, alternate mechanics of injury) so as to render the conviction unsafe?
- Did the Court disreg...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)