G.R. No. 141344 - Tapdasan, Jr. vs. People

On December 5, 1992, at about 6:30 in the evening, two boys—twelve-year-old Salmero Payla and nine-year-old Loue Boy Borja—were walking along the side of the national highway in Taguibo, Iligan City.
A red sakbayan (a type of vehicle) was observed moving at high speed while attempting to overtake a large truck.
Before completing the overtaking maneuver, the vehicle swerved abruptly to avoid a collision with an oncoming cargo truck, thereby moving toward the right shoulder where the boys were walking.
In the process of swerving, the sakbayan struck Loue Boy Borja, hurling him approximately six meters from the point of impact.

Salmero immediately rushed to Loue Boy, finding him severely injured and bleeding profusely.
The sakbayan’s occupants—a man and a woman holding a child—briefly exited the vehicle, observed the scene, then reboarded before the vehicle accelerated away after reversing to within about five meters of the scene.
Despite the brief opportunity, Salmero was able to capture sufficient details of the driver’s face and note the vehicle’s plate number, aided by the headlights of passing vehicles.

The witness, Salmero, later identified the driver of the red sakbayan as Temistocles Tapdasan, Jr.
An Information was subsequently filed before the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City charging petitioner Tapdasan, Jr. with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
The accusatory portion of the Information detailed that the accused operated the vehicle in a negligent, careless, and reckless manner without due regard for traffic laws, ultimately causing the fatal injuries to Loue Boy Borja.

In Criminal Case No. 4453, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty, supported by defenses of denial and alibi.
Petitioner claimed that on December 5, 1992, he was at his family-owned gasoline station in Lugait, Misamis Oriental from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
The prosecution’s principal witness was Salmero Payla, who testified in detail regarding the accident, identification of the vehicle, and the sequence of events following the collision.

On January 31, 1994, the Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, imposing an indeterminate sentence ranging, as determined, from a minimum period of four years, two months and one day to a maximum of seven years, four months and one day.
In addition to imprisonment, the petitioner was ordered to pay various amounts for the life indemnity of the deceased, actual compensatory damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, prompting petitioner Tapdasan, Jr. to file a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Whether the prosecution’s reliance on the identification made by a 12- (later 13-) year-old witness without a police lineup was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle.
Whether the circumstances at the scene—in particular, the use of headlights for illumination—provided adequate conditions for reliable identification.

Whether the alleged selective amnesia and possible coaching of Salmero Payla undermined the credibility of his testimony.
Whether the fact that the witness did not recall certain minor details (such as the date of the police investigation or clothing details) impacted the overall veracity of his account.

Whether petitioner’s alibi, asserting his presence at a distant gasoline station in Lugait during the time of the accident, could sufficiently rebut the prosecution’s evidence.
Whether the inconsistencies in petitioner’s timeline regarding his travel between Lugait and Iligan City could warrant the dismissal of his alibi.

Whether the trial court correctly identified and applied the appropriate penalty given that petitioner failed to provide immediate assistance to the injured victim.
Whether the imposition of an indeterminate sentence mixing elements of prision correccional and prision mayor properly reflected the gravity of the offense under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.