Case Digest (G.R. No. 137447)
Facts:
Robert Veneracion v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 137447, January 31, 2005, Supreme Court First Division, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner is Robert Veneracion, prosecuted for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property; the respondent is the People of the Philippines.On December 10, 1989, in Kalookan City at the intersection of E. delos Santos Avenue (EDSA) and B. Serrano Street, petitioner, the driver and person in charge of a tractor-trailer (Plate No. CVC-137) owned by Rock Components Philippines, Inc., collided with a two-door Toyota Corolla (Plate No. NME-429) owned and driven by Dr. Conrado Triguero. The Information alleged damage in the amount of P27,080.00. Evidence at trial, including an official receipt for repairs (Exhibit T), showed repair costs of P24,900.00.
At trial, the prosecution presented testimony and photographic exhibits (Exhs. E–M) showing the Toyota ahead of the trailer-truck at the time of impact and scratch marks consistent with the trailer hitting the car from behind. Dr. Triguero testified his car was at full stop and then negotiating a left turn when the trailer bumped the left side. Petitioner testified to a different version but failed to introduce his driver’s license and did not offer documentary exhibits to contradict the prosecution’s evidence.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property (Article 365, third paragraph, Revised Penal Code) and sentenced him to pay a fine of P24,900.00 by Decision dated February 26, 1993. The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. No. 14512 affirmed the RTC in a Decision dated August 31, 1998, and denied petitioner...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in presuming negligence on the part of petitioner and relying on conjecture, surmise, or speculation?
- Did the Court of Appeals fail to resolve reasonable doubt in favor of petitioner?
- Was petitioner properly held liable to pay the fine for damage to property under Article 365 o...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)