You are on page 1of 1

Gan v People (1988) Facts: Heidy Gan was driving her car along North Bay Boulevard.

In her lane there was a truck followed by a jeep parked in front of her. Suddenly, as a car was coming from the opposite direction in the other lane, another car tried to overtake it, thereby encroaching upon her lane. To avoid a head-on collision, Gan swerved to the right and pinned an old man about to cross the street to the rear end of the jeep. He died. She was charged with Homicide with Reckless Imprudence. There were no witnesses, and the complainant (heirs, I think) submitted an affidavit of desistance (release of claim). The RTC still convicted her of the charge, but modified it on appeal to Homicide with Simple Imprudence. CA affirmed. They both ruled that Gan should have stepped on the brakes when she saw the other car encroaching upon her lane. She should not only have swerved the car she was driving to the right but should have also tried to stop or lessen her speed so that she would not bum into the pedestrian. Issue: WoN Gan is liable for the crime. Ruling: NO. Gan is acquitted. A corollary rule to the test (prudent man in his shoes test) for determining whether or not a person is negligent is the emergency

rule. Under this rule, one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the
best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilt of negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which hefinds himself is brought about by his own negligence. The course of action suggested by the lower courts would seem reasonable were it not for the fact that such did not take into account the amount of time afforded petitioner to react to the situation she was in. The suggestion presupposes sufficient time for appellant to analyze the situation confronting her and to ponder on which of the different courses of action would result in the least possible harm to herself and others. She could not be expected to act with all the coolness of a person under normal conditions. She had no opportunity for rational thinking but only enough time to heed the very power of self-preservation. The lower courts also pronounced that she was driving her car within the legal limits. Therefore, the emergency rule applies with full force to the case at bar and consequently absolves Gan from any criminal negligence in connection with the incident under consideration. Also, no damages.