Title
Paman vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 210129
Decision Date
Jul 5, 2017
A military driver, Paman, convicted of reckless imprudence after a collision with Arambala, overturned on appeal, then reinstated by higher courts due to traffic violations and negligence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 210129)

Factual Background

On October 14, 2004, Ursicio Arambala, while riding his motorcycle on Roxas Street in Pagadian City, collided with a multicab driven by S/Sgt. Cornelio Paman. Arambala was thrown from his motorcycle, suffering serious injuries that required medical attention at multiple hospitals. A case for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries was filed against Paman, who pleaded not guilty.

Initial Court Proceedings

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) found Paman guilty of the charges and sentenced him to imprisonment. However, on appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) overturned this conviction, concluding that Arambala was at fault for the accident, as he had the opportunity to avoid the collision.

Certiorari Petition by the Prosecution

Dissatisfied with the RTC's decision, the City Prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Subsequently, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a petition for certiorari, alleging that the RTC judge had committed grave abuse of discretion in exonerating Paman.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On July 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals (CA) granted the OSG's petition, reinstating Paman's conviction and adjusting the penalty. The CA asserted that the RTC had erred in finding Arambala at fault and emphasized that the collision primarily resulted from Paman driving on the wrong side of the road.

Petition for Review by Paman

Paman sought a reconsideration of the CA’s ruling, disputing the appropriateness of the certiorari petition against his acquittal. He argued that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient and reiterated that Arambala was responsible for the accident.

Supreme Court's Position on Certiorari

The Supreme Court rejected Paman's assertions and affirmed that a certiorari petition is indeed the appropriate legal remedy in cases of acquittal. This court underscored the finality-of-acquittal doctrine while noting that exceptions can be made under specific circumstances revealing grave abuse of discretion as warranted by the evidence of the case.

Findings of the Supreme Court

The court determined that the RTC had gravely abused its discretion by ignoring substantial evidence that indicated Paman's liability. The CA had correctly established that Paman was at fault for violating traffic regulations and driving recklessly.

Determination of Liability

The Supreme Court found that Paman failed to uphold his duty to drive with due diligence and care. It

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.