G.R. No. 178145 - Mariano vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 178145)

Charge and Information

The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan charged the petitioner with frustrated murder. The information alleged that petitioner, using his motor vehicle with evident premeditation, treachery, and abuse of superior strength, hit and ran over Ferdinand de Leon, inflicting injuries that would ordinarily cause death but which did not produce death due to timely medical assistance.

Factual Background (as found by the CA)

On the evening of September 12, 1999, Ferdinand was driving his jeep with family members after a baptismal party. Petitioner overtook Ferdinand’s vehicle and an altercation of words allegedly ensued. Ferdinand later parked at his mother’s house; while alighting from the jeep he was struck, thrown four meters, and rendered unconscious. Witnesses identified the moving vehicle as petitioner’s red pick-up. Petitioner’s account was that he overtook Ferdinand’s jeep, Ferdinand suddenly alighted and lost his balance, and the pick-up sideswiped him; petitioner did not stop immediately out of fear and later surrendered at Camp Alejo S. Santos.

Injuries, Medical Treatment, and Expenses

Ferdinand sustained multiple facial injuries, fracture of the inferior part of the right orbital wall, and subdural hemorrhage secondary to severe head trauma. He was treated first at Sto. Niño Hospital (two and a half days; expenses P17,800.00) and later at St. Luke’s Medical Center (September 15–25, 1999; expenses P66,243.25), plus additional medicine, scanning, doctor’s fees and caregiver/masseur services totaling further expenses. Ferdinand allegedly could not attend to his store for approximately three months due to temporary amnesia. The petitioner gave Ferdinand P50,000.00 as financial assistance (receipt dated September 15, 1999).

RTC Decision

The Regional Trial Court (Branch 81, Malolos) convicted petitioner of the lesser offense of frustrated homicide and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty range corresponding to prision correccional (minimum) to prision mayor (maximum). The RTC also ordered payment of actual and moral damages, deducting the P50,000.00 already given.

CA Decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the RTC judgment and held petitioner guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries. The CA imposed an indeterminate penalty of two months and one day of arresto mayor (minimum) to one year, seven months and eleven days of prision correccional (maximum), and awarded actual damages of P58,402.75 and moral damages of P10,000.00.

Issues Raised on Further Appeal

Petitioner argued that: (1) his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the incident was a mere accident; (2) he lacked criminal intent and was not negligent; and (3) voluntary surrender should have been appreciated as mitigating.

Supreme Court: Liability — Reckless Imprudence Affirmed

The Supreme Court affirmed petitioner’s conviction for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries. It relied on the CA’s factual findings that petitioner was driving at a fast speed when overtaking Ferdinand’s jeep, as evidenced by the victim’s body being thrown four meters. The Court applied settled principles: a motorist must exercise ordinary care and reasonable speed; speeding is indicative of imprudence; and a person may be held responsible for foreseeable consequences of his acts. The Court found that petitioner, who admitted familiarity with the victim and the locality, should have foreseen the possibility that Ferdinand would alight near his store. The Court reiterated the definition of reckless imprudence: a voluntary, non-malicious act or omission producing material damage because of an inexcusable lack of precaution, considering the circumstances.

Elements of Reckless Imprudence and Causation

The Court noted that to convict for reckless driving the act must be more than mere negligence; there must be willful and wanton disregard of probable consequences. The prosecution must show a direct causal connection between the negligence and the injuries. The factual findings of the trial courts — specially when affirmed by the CA — are binding on the Supreme Court in appellate review absent grave abuse of discretion.

Penalty Analysis — CA’s Penalty Corrected

While agreeing with the conviction, the Supreme Court found the CA erred in the penalty range imposed. Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes penalties for reckless imprudence according to the gravity of the injury had the act been intentional. The Court analyzed Article 263 (serious physical injuries) and its subdivisions, and concluded Ferdinand’s injuries corresponded to subdivision (3) — incapacity to perform habitual work for more than ninety days — which, if inten

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 178145)

Case Citation and Panel

738 Phil. 448, First Division, G.R. No. 178145, July 07, 2014.
Decision per BERSAMIN, J.
Concurrence: Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-De Castro, Villarama, Jr., and Mendoza, JJ.
Note: Vice Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes was on wellness leave per Special Order No. 1715 dated July 1, 2014.

Nature of the Case and Charge

Criminal case arising from an incident on or about September 12, 1999, in Angat, Bulacan.
Original information filed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 81, Malolos, Bulacan.
Petitioner Reynaldo S. Mariano was charged with frustrated murder, alleged to have hit, bumped and run over Ferdinand de Leon with a motor vehicle, performing all acts of execution for murder but not producing death due to timely medical assistance.

Factual Background (as found in the records and summarized by the Court of Appeals)

On September 12, 1999 at about 6:30 PM, Ferdinand de Leon was driving his owner-type jeep in Barangay Engkanto, Angat, Bulacan, accompanied by his wife Urbanita and their two-year-old son; they had come from a baptismal party.
Luis de Leon, Ferdinand’s uncle, was also present driving his owner-type jeep from the same party.
Reynaldo Mariano was driving a red Toyota pick-up with his wife Rebecca and helper Rowena Alos as passengers, coming from a worship service in Barangay Engkanto.
The Toyota pick-up overtook Ferdinand’s jeep and allegedly almost bumped it; an altercation ensued, with Ferdinand alighting from his jeep and approaching Reynaldo.
Witness accounts diverged: Reynaldo claimed he remained inside his pick-up and Ferdinand hurled invectives; Urbanita and others described Ferdinand approaching and later being struck by a moving vehicle.
Ferdinand parked in front of his mother’s house in San Roque, Alight and was then bumped by a moving vehicle, thrown approximately four (4) meters, and lost consciousness.
Bystanders, including Urbanita, identified the red Toyota pick-up driven by Reynaldo as the vehicle that hit Ferdinand.
Reynaldo’s account: he stopped five to six meters behind Ferdinand’s jeep to allow an oncoming vehicle to pass, signaled and overtook the jeep, and claimed Ferdinand suddenly alighted, lost his balance and was sideswiped; Reynaldo left without stopping due to fear of bystanders, later surrendering at Camp Alejo S. Santos in Malolos.
Ferdinand’s medical course and expenses:
- Brought to Sto. Niño Hospital in Bustos, Bulacan: stayed two and a half days, incurred P17,800.00.
- Transferred to St. Luke’s Medical Center (Quezon City) on September 15, 1999: stayed until September 25, 1999, incurred P66,243.25.
- Additional expenses: P909.50 for medicines, P2,900.00 for scanning, P8,000.00 for doctor’s fee, and P12,550.00 for caregivers and masseur (from September 12 to October 31, 1999).
- Total receipts presented by the Prosecution: P108,402.75.
- Urbanita received P50,000.00 from Reynaldo as financial assistance, evidenced by a receipt dated September 15, 1999.
Medical findings (St. Luke’s Medical Center, Dr. Hernando L. Cruz, Jr.):
- Multiple facial injuries.
- Fracture of the inferior part of the right orbital wall.
- Subdural hemorrhage secondary to severe head trauma.
- Ferdinand became stuporous and disoriented as to time, place and person, and testified he could not attend to his general merchandise store for three months due to temporary amnesia; required caregivers and a masseur until October 31, 1999.

RTC Proceedings and Judgment

RTC, after trial and under decision rendered May 26, 2003, convicted petitioner of the lesser offense of frustrated homicide (Article 249 in relation to Article 50, Revised Penal Code).
RTC sentence (as rendered): Indeterminate penalty of three (3) years and four (4) months of Prision Correccional (minimum) to six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor (maximum); directed to pay Ferdinand P196,043.25 less P50,000.00, plus P100,000.00 moral damages, and costs.

Court of Appeals Decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated decision on June 29, 2006.
The CA modified the conviction from frustrated homicide to reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.
CA sentence: Indeterminate penalty of two (2) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor as minimum to one (1) year, seven (7) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as maximum.
CA award of damages: indemnify Ferdinand P58,402.75 as actual damages and P10,000.00 as moral damages.

Issues Presented on Appeal to the Supreme Court

Whether petitioner’s guilt for any crime was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether Ferdinandas injuries resulted from mere accident or from criminal intent/negligence on petitioner’s part.
Whether petitioner lacked criminal intent and was not negligent in driving his pick-up.
Whether voluntary surrender should be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance in favor of petitioner.
Whether the CA correctly imposed the penalty for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.

Petitioner's Contentions (as summarized by the Court)

Petition asserts that guilt for any crime was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the incident was a mere accident.
Petitioner maintains absence of criminal intent and lack of negligence in the operation of his pick-up.
Petitioner claims the trial court and/or appellate court should have appreciated voluntary surrender as mitigating.

Supreme Court Ruling — Overview

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of petitioner for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.
The Court held the CA’s factual findings were controlling and persuasive, particularly regarding speed and foreseeability.
The Court corrected the penalty imposed by the CA and reduced it to the proper straight penalty appl