G.R. No. 232455 - People vs. Ansano y Calleja

Case Summary (G.R. No. 232455)

Procedural posture and disposition below

The respondent was prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Manila for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence and was originally sentenced to three months’ arresto mayor, accessory penalties, and costs. On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the factual record and the legal characterization of the respondent’s conduct; the appealed judgment was modified by the Supreme Court.

Facts as found by the trial court and recited on appeal

On April 10, 1920, street car No. 203 had stopped to receive passengers. Two sons of Hugo Borromeo boarded the car. Borromeo, attempting to board, grasped the iron bars at the entrance with both hands and placed his right foot on the running board. At that moment the conductor (the respondent) gave the signal to start. The car started with a sudden jerk; Borromeo’s left hand slipped, his right hand became pinioned between an iron bar and woodwork and he was dragged along for a short distance. He later fell, and his left foot was run over by the rear wheels, resulting in crushing injuries that required medical attention, prevented work for more than ninety days, and ultimately led to the amputation (loss) of the left foot.

Defense account and trial-court consideration of conflicting testimony

The defense sought to show that Borromeo had run after the car while it was already in motion, missed the running board, and fell so that the wheel caught his foot. Witness testimony that could be read to support the “running after” version was evaluated in context: the court found that those witnesses likely were describing the event from the impression created by seeing Borromeo dragged while the car was moving, rather than observing him sprint to catch a moving car. The trial record supported that the car was stopped when the sons boarded, that Borromeo already had a foot on the platform and hands on the holding bars, and that the car started upon the conductor’s signal immediately thereafter.

Legal issue presented

Whether the respondent acted with reckless imprudence (rash or gross negligence) as charged in the information, or with mere simple imprudence (ordinary negligence) when he signaled the car to start while Borromeo had hands on the holding devices and a foot on the running board, resulting in Borromeo’s injury and loss of the foot.

Legal standard applied (distinction between reckless and simple imprudence)

The Court relied on established authorities (including U.S. v. Gomez) explaining that the degree of care required depends on the obviousness and immediacy of the risk. Where conduct exposes human life or limb to an obvious, immediate danger that the actor consciously appreciates or should appreciate, a high degree of care is required; failure to exercise such care may constitute reckless imprudence (rash or gross negligence). Simple imprudence, by contrast, involves a lesser failure of foresight where harm is not immediate or the danger is not openly visible. The Court quoted definitions and prior decisions that equate “rash imprudence” with gross negligence and distinguish it from mere lack of foresight (simple imprudence).

Application of law to the facts

The Court accepted that a high degree of care is required of those operating vehicles or devices (such as street cars) that can cause immediate bodily injury. It also accepted that the conductor should have observed and accounted for passengers boarding. Nevertheless, on the record the Court concluded the respondent’s act—giving the start signal when the last passenger had hands on the holding devices and a foot on the running board—constituted carelessness or negligence, but not the grave fault necessary to characterize the conduct as reckless imprudence. The Court reasoned that it was not improbable that the conductor believed the passenger had completely boarded and that, given the circumstances, the failure was a lack of foresight or ordinary negligence rather than a wan

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 232455)

Citation and Court

Reported at 42 Phil. 107.
G. R. No. 17218.
Decision date: September 08, 1921.
Opinion authored by Justice Villamor.
Justices Johnson, Araullo, Street, and Avancena concurred.

Offense Charged and Original Sentence

The appellant was prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the crime of serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence.
The trial court sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for three months of arresto mayor, imposed the corresponding accessory penalties, and ordered payment of costs.

Complaint Allegations (as pleaded in the Information)

On or about April 10, 1920, in the city of Manila, while street car No. 203 of the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co. was receiving passengers at the intersection of M. H. del Pilar and Isaac Peral Streets, the accused, then conductor in charge of the car, did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously and with reckless imprudence signal the motorman to go ahead.
The complaint alleges the conductor signaled without minding or taking into account that Hugo Borromeo was at that very moment about to board the car with one foot on the running board.
As alleged, the jerk of the moving car threw Hugo Borromeo down and his foot was overrun by the rear wheels of car No. 203 upon falling, resulting in crushing and injury to his left foot requiring medical attendance and preventing him from engaging in his habitual work for more than ninety days.
The complaint further alleges that as a consequence of the accident Hugo Borromeo lost his left foot which had to be amputated.

Stipulated and Adduced Facts (Factual Narrative from Record)

On April 10, 1920, two sons of Hugo Borromeo boarded street car No. 203 which had stopped at the stated intersection.
Hugo Borromeo attempted to board the same car immediately thereafter.
While attempting to board, Hugo took hold with his right hand of the iron bar on the right side of the only entrance door and with his left hand the iron bar in the middle of the entrance.
When his right foot was on the platform/running board, the conductor (the accused) gave the signal to start.
The car suddenly moved forward with a jerk; Hugo's left hand slipped off, and his right hand became pinioned between the iron bar and the woodwork to which it was fixed.
Because his right hand was pinioned and due to the speed of the car, Hugo was unable to withdraw it immediately and was momentarily dragged along.
When his knees touched the ground he felt his left foot had grown numb and, unaware at first that his foot had been overrun by the wheel, he was on the ground about 10 meters, more or less, from the place where the car had started.
The result, as recorded, was that his left foot was crushed and ultimately had to be amputated.

Defense Version and Witness Testimony

The defense attempted to prove that the offended party was running after the street car while it was in motion and attempted to board it, missed the running board, fell, and one of his feet was caught by the wheels.
Witness testimony that seemed to support the defense referred to the fact, related by the aggrieved party himself, that he was for a time dragged by the car.
The record contains testimony by a witness named Lawson, who observed the facts from some distance behind the car and whose testimony may have created the impression that the offended party was running after the car when he fell.

Trial Court and Appellate Court Factual Findings

The court determined it was not necessary for the offended party to have run after the car because the car was stopped when his two sons entered, with Hugo immediately behind them holding the bars and placing his right foot on the running board.
The court found it more probable that, because of the abrupt motion of the car, Hugo’s left hand slipped and his right hand became caught between the iron bar and woodwork, causing loss of equilibrium and subsequent dragging until the left foot was caught by the wheels.
The