A.M. No. RTJ-03-1808 - Sy vs. Fineza

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-03-1808)

Applicable Law and Legal Standards

This case is governed by the 1935 Philippine Constitution and the Revised Penal Code provisions relevant to reckless imprudence and homicide as the decision was rendered prior to the 1987 Constitution. The primary issues involve the application of standards for negligence and imprudence, particularly the "emergency rule," which provides that a person confronted with a sudden and unexpected danger requiring immediate action should not be held criminally liable if the response was reasonable under the circumstances.

Court of Appeals’ Findings and Errors Assigned by Petitioner

The Court of Appeals held that the petitioner was guilty of Homicide through Simple Imprudence, reasoning that she should have immediately applied brakes or reduced speed while swerving to avoid hitting the pedestrian and the parked jeepney. The appellate court concluded that her failure to do so resulted in the death of the pedestrian. The petitioner challenged this holding on three grounds: (1) that she was not required to step on the brakes or reduce speed when faced with the oncoming vehicle; (2) that she was wrongly convicted of Homicide through Simple Imprudence; and (3) that the indemnity awarded was unjustified.

Legal Tests on Negligence and Application of the Emergency Rule

The Supreme Court emphasized the test for negligence being whether a prudent person in the same situation would have foreseen harm as a reasonable consequence and taken preventive measures. Furthermore, it reaffirmed the emergency rule: when a person suddenly finds themselves in imminent danger without time to deliberate on the best alternative to avoid harm, such person is not criminally negligent if their immediate reaction causes injury, except when the emergency is self-induced through prior negligence.

Analysis of Petitioner’s Conduct and Circumstances of Incident

Upon thorough review, the Supreme Court determined that the petitioner was confronted with an immediate and unforeseeable danger caused by the reckless overtaking maneuver of another vehicle that illegally encroached her lane. Evidence failed to establish that petitioner had sufficient time to consider or implement alternative measures, such as braking before swerving. The petitioner’s own statement to the police, uncontradicted by the prosecution, admitted that she swerved to avoid the overtaking car but could not prevent contact with the pedestrian due to the suddenness of the situation.

The Court observed that the appellate court’s requirement that petitioner should have both swerved and immediately applied brakes presupposed ample time for reflection, which was unsupported by the evidentiary record. The dangerous condition demanded instantaneous action under extreme pressure, activating the natural instinct of self-preservation rather than calm and calculated judgment.

Application of the Emergency Rule and Final Ruling on Criminal Liability

Given these circumstances, the Supreme Court applied the emergency rule and concluded that petitioner’s actions di

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-03-1808)

Facts of the Case

Petitioner Hedy Gan was driving a Toyota car along North Bay Boulevard, Tondo, Manila on the morning of July 4, 1972, approximately 8:00 a.m.
At the scene, two vehicles—a truck and a jeepney—were parked on one side of the road, spaced about two to three meters apart.
An oncoming vehicle was followed closely by another vehicle that attempted to overtake, encroaching upon the lane occupied by petitioner.
To avoid a head-on collision with the oncoming vehicle, petitioner swerved her car to the right.
The car’s front bumper struck an elderly pedestrian, Isidoro Casino, who was crossing the boulevard from south to north.
The impact pinned the victim against the rear of the parked jeepney, causing the jeepney to move forward and hit the truck, which bore scratches on its rear wooden portion.
The victim was brought immediately to Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.
The Toyota car had damage on its front, and the jeepney suffered damages on both rear and front parts.

Procedural History

An information for Homicide through Reckless Imprudence was filed against petitioner in Criminal Case No. 10201 before the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXII, presided by Judge Federico C. Alikpala.
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty; a re-investigation was requested and granted by the City Fiscal.
The trial Fiscal moved to dismiss the case citing lack of interest by the complaining witness and absence of eyewitnesses; however, this motion was never resolved.
Prosecution presented evidence despite the dismissal motion.
The trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide through Reckless Imprudence and sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty ranging from four months and one day of arresto mayor to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, with an indemnity award of P12,000.00 to the victim’s heirs.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which modified the conviction to Homicide through Simple Imprudence, reduced the penalty to three months and eleven days of arresto mayor, maintained the indemnity award of P12,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment, and imposed costs.
Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the judgment.

Issues on Appeal

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in hold