Case Summary (G.R. No. 172778)
Summary of Facts
On July 6, 1995 at about 11:30 a.m., a passenger bus driven by petitioner collided with a tricycle that was overtaking a pickup on a two‑lane national highway with two blind curves. The collision caused the deaths of four tricycle passengers and injuries to five others. The tricycle was reportedly overloaded with eight passengers. The tricycle had been overtaking a Mitsubishi pickup when it suddenly occupied the bus’s lane and was struck. Police measurements at the scene included a point of impact one foot across the centerline and a sixty‑foot skid mark attributed to the bus.
Procedural History
Petitioner was charged in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) with reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries, and with damage to property. The MTC convicted him of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the conviction with modifications to the penalty and the civil awards. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court.
Evidence at Trial
Prosecution witnesses included an eyewitness (Cagakit) who placed a fast moving vehicle as the cause of the collision, investigating police officers who prepared a sketch and measured skid marks, and several injured passengers and family members giving factual accounts and claims for damages. The defense (petitioner) testified to 26 years’ professional driving experience, familiarity with the road’s blind curves, that he slowed for the first curve, accelerated when his lane appeared clear on the second curve, and that the tricycle suddenly occupied his lane while overtaking.
MTC Rationale and Judgment
The MTC found petitioner guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide, reasoning that the sixty‑foot skid mark evidenced negligent operation and excessive speed given the blind curves and road conditions. The MTC concluded that, had the bus driver exercised reasonable care and reduced speed commensurate with road conditions, the accident may have been avoided or damage would have been minor.
RTC Decision and Modifications
The RTC affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and the quantum of civil liabilities. It imposed an indeterminate sentence for the complex crime and adjusted indemnities, funeral expenses, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and awarded compensatory damages to the tricycle owner for the damaged vehicle.
CA Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, concluding that both the bus driver and the tricycle driver were negligent—the tricycle driver for illegally overtaking approaching a blind curve, and the bus driver for failing to exercise adequate precaution when approaching a known blind curve. The CA emphasized that driving on the correct side of the road does not relieve a driver from the duty to prevent collisions.
Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court
Petitioner argued (1) that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and the mishap was a pure accident; (2) that the proximate cause was the tricycle driver’s unlawful overtaking and overloading of the tricycle; (3) that the tricycle was operating in violation of its franchise and RA 4136; and (4) that his conviction violated due process and the presumption of innocence.
Governing Legal Standards
Reckless imprudence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code requires a voluntary act or omission without malice that results in material damage due to inexcusable lack of precaution, considering the actor’s occupation, intelligence, physical condition and circumstances. Criminal liability for driving requires a direct causal connection between negligent operation and the resulting injuries or deaths; reckless imprudence in vehicular cases requires more than mere negligence—a willful or wanton disregard of consequences. Proximate cause entails the first cause in a natural and continuous sequence producing the injury, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause.
Supreme Court’s Review Framework
The Court acknowledged the general binding effect of trial court fact‑findings, especially when affirmed by the CA, but noted well‑recognized exceptions permitting review: manifestly mistaken inferences, grave abuse of discretion, findings based on speculation or contradicted by record evidence, material overlooking of undisputed facts, and similar grounds. The Court found several exceptions applicable in this case.
Supreme Court’s Analysis of Causation and Negligence
After reviewing the record, the Supreme Court concluded that the proximate cause of the collision was the tricycle driver’s reckless overtaking while approaching a blind curve in violation of RA 4136, Section 41. The bus was cruising on its rightful lane when the tricycle suddenly swerved into that lane; the collision would not have occurred had the tricycle driver remained in his lane. Thus, the initial and efficient cause of the harm was the tricycle driver’s conduct.
Evaluation of Evidence Relating to Bus Speed
The Court rejected the lower courts’ reliance on the sixty‑foot skid mark and the eyewitness’s characterization of a “fast moving vehicle” as proof that petitioner was driving with criminal recklessness. The testimony that the bus was “fast” lacked quantification and was not probative that the bus exceeded allowable speed limits under RA 4136, Section 35. The Court found insufficient evidence to sustain a determination that petitioner’s speed amounted to reckless imprudence.
Application of Precedent
The Court cited Vallacar Transit, Inc. v. Catubig and similar authority where the immediate and proximate cause was held to be the other driver who overtook while approaching a curve. Consistent with those precedents, when the other vehicle’s imprudence is the proximate cause, the driver of the larger vehicle should be acquitted of criminal responsibility, though civil liability may remain under quasi‑delic
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 172778)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) November 26, 2004 Decision and May 10, 2006 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 26513.
- CA had affirmed the June 24, 2002 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21, Cebu City, which itself upheld with modification the March 18, 1999 Decision of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Fernando, Cebu (Cebu City).
- MTC found petitioner Sabiniano Dumayag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries and damage to property.
- RTC affirmed the MTC decision with modifications to penalties and civil liabilities.
- CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto, finding petitioner and the tricycle driver equally guilty of negligence.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration at the CA was denied (Resolution dated May 10, 2006), prompting the instant Supreme Court petition raising issues on negligence, proximate cause, and alleged violations of due process and presumption of innocence.
Case Facts — Accident Circumstances
- Date and time: July 6, 1995, at around 11:30 o’clock in the morning.
- Location: Along the national highway in Magtalisay, Sangat, San Fernando, Cebu, involving a passenger bus of Petrus Bus Liner and a tricycle.
- Bus: Bound for Dalaguete, Cebu; driven by petitioner Sabiniano Dumayag.
- Tricycle: Coming from the opposite direction toward Cebu City; was overtaking a Mitsubishi pick‑up at the time of collision.
- Consequences: Collision resulted in the deaths of four persons (identified in charges were Elsie Genayas [driver], Orlando Alfanta, Grace Israel, and Julius Amante) and serious physical injuries to five passengers of the tricycle (Crispin Cañeda, Jannette Bacalso, Carmela Lariosa, Fediliza Basco, and Nelfe Agad).
Trial Evidence Presented by Prosecution
- Rogelio Cagakit (driver of a Mitsubishi Pajero with tourists):
- Testified he was trailing the tricycle carrying eight passengers.
- Observed the tricycle following a Mitsubishi pick‑up; when the pick‑up slowed at the second blind curve, the tricycle attempted to overtake and was hit by a fast moving vehicle from the opposite direction; two tricycle passengers died on the spot.
- Senior Police Officer 3 Gregorio Patalinghug (SPO3 Patalinghug):
- Responded to the accident with SPO2 Felipe Yap; observed two lifeless bodies and boarded injured victims for hospital transport.
- Inspected scene, measured relative positions of tricycle, Mitsubishi Pajero and passenger bus, and drew a sketch.
- Identified point of impact as one foot from the centerline, crossing into the lane occupied by the passenger bus.
- Noted a skid mark approximately sixty (60) feet long produced by the bus when its driver stepped on the brake pedal.
- Based on scene observations and information from bystanders, concluded tricycle driver was at fault.
- Victims who survived (Cañeda, Agad and Basco) recounted the collision.
- Parents of victims and tricycle owner testified on claims for damages.
- Dr. Rolando Anzano reported findings on injuries sustained.
Defense Evidence — Petitioner’s Testimony
- Petitioner’s background:
- Professional driver for 26 years; worked for five different employers, the fifth being Petrus Bus Liner.
- Routinely drove the Dalaguete–Cebu City route with two round trips daily; had traversed the road for about 20 years and was familiar with its two blind curves.
- Petitioner’s account of the mishap:
- Approaching the first blind curve he slowed by stepping on the brakes.
- While negotiating the second blind curve, he observed his lane clear and accelerated to gain momentum.
- At that moment the tricycle, while overtaking a vehicle ahead of it, suddenly occupied his lane.
- He attempted to avoid the tricycle but could not swerve left due to another vehicle and could not swerve right onto the shoulder because it sloped and had a canal.
- Maintained that the accident would not have occurred if the tricycle driver had not attempted to overtake at the blind curve.
- Petitioner asserted he was driving in his proper lane at a moderate speed.
Charges and MTC Ruling
- Charges filed at the MTC:
- Reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide for the deaths of Genayas, Alfanta, Israel and Amante.
- Reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries to Crispin Cañeda, Jannette Bacalso, Carmela Lariosa, Fediliza Basco and Nelfe Agad.
- Damage to property.
- MTC Decision (March 18, 1999):
- Found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide.
- MTC reasoning emphasized the road conditions (two blind curves) and the sixty (60) foot skid mark as indicia that the bus was driven negligently without due regard to road conditions.
- MTC concluded that if petitioner had exercised reasonable care and driven at speed commensurate with road conditions, the skid mark would not have been that long and the accident might have been avoided or consequences reduced.
- MTC imposed imprisonment (two years and one day minimum to three years, six months and twenty days maximum) and ordered payment of specific civil liabilities for each deceased (P50,000 death indemnity; P50,000 funeral expenses; P20,000 moral damages) plus attorney’s fees and exemplary damages in respect of Grace Israel.
RTC Modification and Rationale
- RTC Decision (June 24, 2002; affirmed with modification on appeal):
- Affirmed MTC but modified penalties and civil awards.
- Sentenced petitioner for the complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide of Alfante, Israel and Amante to an indeterminate penalty: minimum TWO (2) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS (arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum) to maximum SIX (6) YEARS (prision correccional medium and maximum).
- For reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries, imposed PUBLIC CENSURE for each injured private complainant (Cañeda, Bacalso, Lariosa, Basco and Agad).
- Civil liabilities modified:
- For each deceased (Alfante, Amante, Israel): P50,000 death indemnity; P30,000 for wake/funeral/burial; P20,000 moral damages; P10,000 exemplary damages; P20,000 attorney’s fees.
- To owner Beethoven Bernabe: P80,000 compensatory damages for the tricycle (value after salvage and depreciation).
- Costs awarded.
Court of Appeals Decision
- CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
- CA findings:
- Both petitioner and the tricycle driver were equally guilty of negligence: petitioner for failing to observe precautionary measures approaching a blind curve; tricycle driver for overtaking unsuccessfully.
- Emphasized that petitioner should have been more careful given the presence of blind curves and potential oncoming traffic.
- Held that driving on the right side did not relieve petitioner of the obligation to exercise due and ordinary care to prevent collision and avoid injury to persons or property, including others who may be on the wrong side of the road.
Issues Raised in the Supreme Court Petition
- Whether negligence, imprudence and recklessness were correctly attributed to petitioner by the courts below for the vehicular mishap on July 6, 1995.
- If petitioner was negligent, whether such negligence was the proximate