G.R. No. 172778 - Dumayag vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 172778)

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution
Revised Penal Code, Article 365 (reckless imprudence)
Republic Act No. 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code), specifically Section 37 (right side driving), Section 41 (restrictions on overtaking), and Section 35 (speed limitations).

Facts of the Case

On July 6, 1995, petitioner was driving a passenger bus headed for Dalaguete, Cebu, along a national highway with two blind curves. A tricycle driven by Genayas, overloaded with eight passengers and traveling from the opposite direction, was overtaking a Mitsubishi pick-up truck near a blind curve. The tricycle suddenly swerved into petitioner’s lane and was hit by the bus, resulting in the death of four tricycle passengers and injuries to five others. The bus driver maintained that he was driving on his proper lane at a moderate speed and that the accident was caused by the tricycle driver's reckless overtaking near the curve.

Trial Court Findings and Decisions

The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide, highlighting the 60-feet skid marks as evidence of excessive speed and negligence. The court imposed prison time and civil liabilities to the petitioner.

Upon appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties and awarded damages, including attorney’s fees and exemplary damages.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC ruling, holding petitioner and the tricycle driver equally negligent. It reasoned that petitioner failed to exercise due caution in an area known for blind curves and should have anticipated potential hazards, despite driving on the right side of the road.

Issues Raised by the Petitioner

Whether negligence, recklessness, and imprudence were correctly attributed to petitioner.
Whether petitioner’s alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the accident.
Whether petitioner’s conviction violated his constitutional rights to due process and presumption of innocence.

Supreme Court Analysis of Facts and Law

The Supreme Court recognized the general rule that trial court findings affirmed by the CA are final and binding, but acknowledged exceptions such as manifest error, grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension of facts, or when findings are based on speculation.

Upon review, the Court found several exceptions in this case warranting departure from the general rule. The evidence pointed to the tricycle driver’s reckless and illegal overtaking near a blind curve as the immediate and proximate cause of the accident. The tricycle was overloaded in violation of traffic regulations and operated on a national highway contrary to franchise conditions.

The Court emphasized the definition of reckless imprudence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code: the act must involve a voluntary lack of precaution causing material damage, requiring more than mere negligence but a willful and wanton disregard of consequences.

The Court also underscored that proximate cause is the primary cause producing an injury without any efficient intervening cause. Here, the tricycle driver’s abrupt and illegal maneuver constituted such cause.

Evaluation of Petitioner's Conduct

While petitioner was driving on his proper lane, his conduct showed contributory negligence by failing to exercise necessary caution when approaching two blind curves he was familiar with. The presence of 60-foot skid marks indicated he attempted to brake suddenly upon the tricycle’s illegal entry into his lane.

However, the Court ruled that petitioner’s fault was not reckless nor criminally negligent but merely contributory. The evidence did not sufficiently establish that petitioner was driving at an unlawful or excessive speed. Testimony regarding the bus’s speed was inconclusive and lacked probative value.

Precedential Comparison and Legal Principles

The Court cited Vallacar Transit, Inc. v. Catubig, a similar case where the proximate cause was an overtaking maneuver by the other party, not the bus’s speed or recklessness. It reiterated the high degree of care required for overtaking and the prohibition against attempting such dangerous maneuvers near blind curves or obstructed views.

Civil Liability and Damage Awards

Because petitioner was acquitted of criminal liability, the Court nonetheless recognized his civil liability based on quasi-delict arising from contributory negligence. Considering that the primary cause was the tricycle driver’s recklessness, the Court deemed it just to mitigate petitioner’s civil liability by 50%. Accordingly, petitioner’s paymen

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 172778)

Case Background and Procedural History

This case arises from a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) decisions dated November 26, 2004, and May 10, 2006, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) June 24, 2002 decision.
The RTC, with modification, upheld the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) decision that found petitioner Sabiniano Dumayag guilty of the complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries.
Dumayag was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay civil liabilities for the deaths and injuries caused during a vehicular accident on July 6, 1995.
Petitioner challenged the characterization of negligence, recklessness, and proximate cause, asserting constitutional violations and improper attribution of fault.

Facts of the Case

On July 6, 1995, around 11:30 AM, a passenger bus driven by petitioner collided with a tricycle along the national highway in Magtalisay, Sangat, San Fernando, Cebu.
The collision resulted in the death of four persons (including the tricycle driver, Genayas) and injuries to five other passengers on the tricycle.
The passenger bus was traveling to Dalaguete, Cebu, and the tricycle was moving towards Cebu City after attempting to overtake a Mitsubishi pick-up truck.
Witness testimonies indicated that the tricycle was overtaking the vehicle on a blind curve when it collided with the bus.
Police officers at the scene measured a skid mark approximately sixty feet long, indicating the bus driver had applied brakes prior to impact.
The petitioner testified he was a professional driver with 26 years experience and that he was driving within his lane at moderate speed; the tricycle driver acted recklessly by overtaking near a blind curve.

Charges and Trial Court Findings

Petitioner was charged before the MTC with reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide (deaths of Genayas, Alfanta, Israel, and Amante) and serious physical injuries to five others, as well as damage to property.
The MTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide, citing the lengthy skid marks and road conditions (two blind curves) as indications of negligence on the part of the bus driver.
Petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment from two years and one day up to three years, six months, and twenty days.
Civil liabilities awarded included indemnity, funeral expenses, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and exemplary damages to the victims' heirs and the tricycle owner.

Appellate Decisions

The RTC affirmed the MTC judgment with modifications to the penalties and civil liabilities:
- Modified the penalty to an indeterminate term of two years and four months to six years imprisonment.
- Imposed public censure for slight injuries to the complainants.
- Adjusted monetary awards, including amounts for death indemnity, funeral expenses, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and compensatory damages to the tricycle owner.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decisions in toto, holding both the bus driver and the tricycle driver equally negligent.
The CA emphasized the petitioner’s failure to observe precaution at blind curves and stated that driving on the right side did not absolve the bus driver from exercising due care.
The petitioner’