You are on page 1of 1

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SEGUNDO BARIAS, defendant-appellant. G.R. No. L-7567 23 phil.

434 November 12, 1912 Relevant Facts: This is an appeal from a sentence imposed by the Court of First Instance of Mani la, for homicide resulting from reckless negligence. On November 2, 1911, Segundo Barias, a motorman of Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, was driving his vehicle car along Rizal Avenue and stopped in nea r the interserction of Calle Requesen Street, upon stopping, he took some passen gers and looked backward pressumably to ttake not whether all the passengers wer e aboard. At that moment, Fermina Jose, a child about 3 years old, walked or ran in front of the car. She was knocked down and dragged some little distance unde rneath the car, which caused her death. Barias proceeded with his car some dista nce from the place of the accident, and apparently knew nothing of it until his return, when he was informed of what happened. One witness testified that Barias started the car without turning his head over the track immediately in front of the car. Afterwhich, a case was filed against him in the Trial Court of Manila, holding him guilty of Reckless Negligence. Issue: Whether or not the evidence shows such carelessness or want of ordinary care on the part of the defendant as to amount to Reckless Negligence Ruling: The place on which the incident occurred was a public street in a densely popula ted section of the city at about six in the morning, the time when the residents of such streets begins to move about. Under such conditions a motorman of an el ectric street car was clearly charged with a high degree of diligence in the per formance of his duties. Barias did not exercise that degree of diligence requir ed of him. Having brought his car to a standstill it was his bounden duty to kee p his eyes directed to the front. It was his duty to satisfy himself that the t rack was clear, and, for that purpose, to look and to see the track just in fron t of his car. This the defendant did not do, and the result of his negligence wa s the death of the child. Wherefore, the judgment of the lower court convicting and sentencing the appella nt is affirmed. The penalty should be reduced. So ordered.