People v Alavez

CA GR No. 43868
Petition for Review
Page1

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, C.A. G.R. No. 43868

Plaintiff-Respondent,

-versus- -for-

RANULFO ALAVEZ Y RTC Lipa Batangas

VILLAFLOR, Branch 13 Criminal Case
No. 08-0829-2018
Accused-Petitioner.
MTC Cuenca Batangas
X-----------------------X
Criminal Case No. 1675-15

PETITION FOR REVIEW

Petitioner, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court of Appeals most
respectfully alleges, that:

NATURE OF THE PETITION

1. This is a petition for review under Rule 42 (and Section 3 (b), Rule
22 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure) is a mode of appeal
from the decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction;

2. Final judgment or order of the Regional Trial Court in an appeal

from the final judgment or order of a Metropolitan Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court, may be appealed to the Court of Appeals through
Petition for Review under this rule, whether the appeal involves question
of fact, of law or mixed question of fact and law;

THE PARTIES

3. Petitioner (accused in the court a quo) of legal age, married and

resident of Brgy Gulod, Calatagan, Batangas, represented in this case by
his counsel of records, Atty. Benjamin V. Escolano Jr., with office
address at One Central Ave., New Era, Quezon City 1107;

4. Private Respondent Estanislao Driz (private complainant in the

court a quo) is likewise of legal age, resident of Tinga, Labac, Batangas,
represented in this case by Provincial Prosecutor of Batangas with office
address at Hall of Justice, Pallocan West, Batangas City 4200;
 People v Alavez
CA GR No. 43868
Petition for Review
Page2

5. Parties have the capacity to sue and be sued and may be served
with processes at aforementioned address and through counsels of
records;

MATERIAL DATES SHOWING TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

6. This originated from a decision of the Municipal Trial Court of

Cuenca Batangas declaring the accused guilty on its decision dated
December 5, 2017 (hereto attached as Annex A);

7. The Accused-Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration dated

December 18, 2017 (hereto attached as Annex B), however, it was
denied in its Order dated January 16, 2018 (hereto attached as Annex C);

8. On July 11, 2019, Accused-Petitioner received a copy of the

Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lipa Batangas Branch 13 dated
June 3, 2019 (hereto attached as Annex D);

9. Subsequently filed his Motion for Reconsideration on July 26,

2019 (hereto attached as Annex E). He received on August 23, 2019
denying his Motion for Reconsideration (hereto attached as Annex F).
He had until September 9, 2019, Monday to file a Petition for Review.
The reason is that September 7 (15th day from August 23, 2019) is a
Saturday. The Undersigned counsel filed on September 9, 2019 by
personal service his seasonable Motion for Extension of Time to File
Petition for Review praying for additional fifteen (15) days from
September 9, 2019 or up to September 24, 2019 within which to file
their intended Petition for Review (hereto attached as Annex G). He
paid the requisite docket fees and other fees on September 9, 2019
evidenced in the Official Receipt with No. 10050722 (hereto attached
also as Annex G);

10. The fifteen (15) day period shall expire on September 24, 2019
but without waiting for the said expiry date, he now filed this instant
Petition;

11. This petition was not filed for delay. It is one which raises
substantial issues and thus, is worthy of consideration, the Regional Trial
Court having rendered the assailed decision in a way that is not in accord
with facts, law and applicable decisions of the Supreme Court;

12. The Honorable Regional Trial Court did not discuss the merits of
these evidences on records or did it resolve the serious errors and
 People v Alavez
CA GR No. 43868
Petition for Review
Page3

assigned issues which are quite serious and must deserve better
treatment;

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT PLEADINGS, ANNEXES AND

EXHIBITS

ANNEX A - Decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Cuenca Batangas

dated December 5, 2017.

ANNEX B - Motion for Reconsideration on the Decision of Municipal

Trial Court of Cuenca Batangas dated December 18, 2017.

ANNEX C - Order of the Municipal Trial Court of Cuenca Batangas

denying the Motion for Reconsideration dated January 16,
2018.

ANNEX D - Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City Batangas

Branch 13 dated June 3, 2019.

ANNEX E - Motion for Reconsideration on the Decision of the

Regional Trial Court Lipa City Batangas Branch 13 dated
July 26, 2019.

ANNEX F - Order of the Regional Trial Court Lipa City Branch 13

denying the Motion for Reconsideration dated August 23,
2019.

ANNEX G - Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review

dated September 9, 2019 with Official Receipt No.
10050722 as an evidence for full payment of Appeal
Docket fee.

ANNEX H - Information/Criminal Complaint dated September 29,

2015

ANNEX I Appeal Memorandum submitted by the Accused-Appellant

dated October 12, 2018

ANNEX J OR/CR of the elf truck driven by the Private Complainant

ANNEX K Pictures of the collision taken by the Prosecution witnesses

ANNEX L Pictures of the collision taken by the Accused-Petitioner

 People v Alavez
CA GR No. 43868
Petition for Review
Page4

ANNEX M Transcript Stenographic Notes taken on June 7, 2016

ANNEX N Transcript Stenographic Notes taken on August 23, 2016

ANNEX O Transcript Stenographic Notes taken on August 22, 2017

ANNEX P Transcript Stenographic Notes taken on September 19,

2017

ANNEX Q Excerpt from the Transportation Office of the United

Kingdom transportoffice.gov.uk/crt/repository/CONT067324

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASES

13. This case was stemmed from a vehicular accident involving a

Toyota Fortuner with Plate No. WIO 825 driven by herein accused-
petitioner Ranulfo Alavez and a Fuso Elf Truck with Plate No. RFM 400
registered in the name of Fred Tividad and driven by herein complainant
Estanislao Driz, on September 12, 2015 around 1:00 o’clock in the
afternoon at the National Highway Zigzag Road, Barangay Ibabao,
Cuenca, Batangas. As a result of the mishap, said complainant as well as
the wife and sister of the accused-petitioner suffered injuries while both
vehicles sustained heavy damages.1

14. Ranulfo Alavez was then accused of causing serious physical

injuries to one Estanislao Driz (driver of the truck) and causing damage
to his vehicle driven by the latter in an Information/Criminal
Complaint(hereto attached as ANNEX H) which reads as follows:

“That on the 12th day of September, 2015 at around 1:00 in

the afternoon at National Hi-way, Zigzag Road, Brgy
Ibabao, Municipality of Cuenca, Province of Batangas,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court the above named, being the driver and person-in-
charge of Toyota Fortuner, with plate number WIO 825
registered to the name of Dolores M. Pamiloza with
address at 254 Del Rosario St., Mayapyap Sur,
Cabanatuan Nueva Ecija, without exercising due care and
precaution to avoid accident did then and there recklessly,
carelessly and imprudently drive the same and hit and
bumped a Fuso elf truck with plate number RFM 400
registered to Fred Trividad y Ticumin with address (at)
Brgy. Kumintang Ilaya, Batangas City and being driven by
the victim identified as Estanislao Driz y Driz, 56 years old,

1
Annex D Decision Regional Trial Court pg. 1 par. 2
 People v Alavez
CA GR No. 43868
Petition for Review
Page5

married and resident of Tinga, Labak, Batangas City who

suffered injuries on the different parts of his body which
required medical attendance for a period of three (3) to six
(6) months or incapacitated him to perform his customary
work for the same period of time. While his driven truck
incurred extensive damage with an estimated amount of
one hundred ninety seven thousand pesos (P197,000.00).

Contrary to law.”

15. Appellant was arraigned on October 20, 2015 and pleaded not
guilty. During the pre-trial on November 24, 2015, he admitted his
identity and that the crime charged was committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of this court. Both mediation and JDR proceedings failed
hence, trial proceeded.2

16. During the trial, the prosecution thru the testimony of Estanislao
Driz said, in brief, that in the afternoon of September 12, 2015, he was
driving an Elf truck on his way to Manila to deliver 100 sacks of cassava.
While cruising along Barangay Ibabao, Cuenca, Batangas, a white
Fortuner in the opposite direction suddenly overtook a car in front of it.
He said that he stepped on his brakes and alleged that the Fortuner hit
the left side of the elf. As a result, he suffered a fracture on his left foot
which needed to be cemented while the truck sustained extensive
damage. He incurred hospitalization and medical expenses. The elf truck
also had to be repaired. The weather was clear at the time of the
incident, there was no traffic, and he was driving at around 40 kph.3

17. The Accused-Appellant testified that in the late afternoon of

September 12, 2015, he was driving a Fortuner on his way to Calatagan,
Batangas. With him were his wife son and sister. While passing thru
Brgy. Ibabao, Cuenca, Batangas, the jeepney in front of him stopped and
unloaded a passenger. He waited for about 30 seconds and then decided
to overtake with his warning lights on. While doing so at about 10-
20kph, he heard the sound of brakes and saw a fast approaching truck
which hit the left side of the Fortuner. His wife and sister were brought
to the hospital and incurred expenses for medical treatment. The
Fortuner was heavily damaged. He could not comprehend why the truck
hit them. He took pictures of the accident and these pictures show skid
marks on the front of the truck’s left wheel only. This meant that the
elf’s right brake did not function hence; the truck driver Mr. Driz was
unable to turn and avoid the collision. He (Mr. Alavez) was not at fault
because he tried to avoid the accident. It was the fault of Mr. Driz that
the collision happened because of his defective brake system.4

2
Annex A Decision MTC pg 2 par. 1
3
Annex A Decision MTC pg 2 par. 3
4
Annex A Decision MTC pg. 4 par. 3
 People v Alavez
CA GR No. 43868
Petition for Review
Page6

18. After trial, the Honorable Municipal Trial Court of Cuenca,

Batangas found Ranulfo Alavez criminally and civilly liable in its
Decision dated December 5, 2017:

“The foregoing considered, accused RANULFO ALAVEZ y

VILLAFLOR is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries
and damage to property and is hereby sentenced to suffer a
straight penalty of imprisonment of two months.

Accused is further ordered to pay Estanislao Driz the

amount of P2,595.00 for indemnification of his
hospitalization and medical expenses and P251,440.00
representing the cost of repair of the elf truck.

SO ORDERED”5

19. The lower court found that: “Indeed, the very fact of overtaking
along a curve and in spite of the diagonal yellow lines on the road was
indicative of highly imprudent behavior. As a motorist, Mr. Alavez was
bound to exercise care by making sure that there was no oncoming
traffic at the opposite lane prior to overtaking along a curve as to avoid
injury to others using the highway. Besides, it is elementary in traffic
school that a driver does not overtake where there are yellow lines. To
do so will be put he and others at risk of an accident and plainly shows a
clear disregard not only for the law which prohibits such act but also for
the safety of other motorists. Consequently, the Court finds that Mr.
Alavez acted recklessly and imprudently in overtaking along a curve and
along a no-passing lane, thereby rendering him criminally liable as well as
civilly accountable for the material damages resulting therefrom.6

20. When the case was elevated to the Regional Trial Court Branch 13
of Lipa City Batangas, the Court upheld the decision of the Municipal
Trial Court but with modifications to the Civil Liability because of its
findings that the Private complainant committed a contributory
negligence to the accident. The dispositive portion states:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appeal

partly granted. The Decision of the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC), Cuenca, Batangas dated December 5, 2017, finding
herein accused-appellant Ranulfo Alavez y Villaflor guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Reckless Imprudence Resulting
in Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property under
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing him
to suffer the straight penalty of two (2) months
imprisonment is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION
that the civil liability of said accused-appellant is hereby

5
Annex A Decision MTC pg. 10 par. 2-4
6 Annex A Decision MTC pg. 9 par. 3
 People v Alavez
CA GR No. 43868
Petition for Review
Page7

reduced to sixty (60%) percent of the total amounts

awarded by the court a quo.

Accused-appellant Ranulfo Alavez Y Villaflor is therefore

ordered to pay herein private complainant Estanislao Driz
y Driz the amounts of One Thousand Five Hundred Fifty-
seven Pesos (PhP 1,557.00) for hospitalization and medical
expenses and One hundred Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred
Sixty-four (PhP150,864.00) representing the cost of repair
of the damaged Elf truck.

SO ORDERED.7

ASSIGNMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Lower Court is correct in deciding that the
Accused-Petitioner should be held guilty for the crime of Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to
Property.

ISSUE 2: Whether or not the Lower Courts is correct in NOT appreciating

the pictures presented by both parties as the basis in deciding this
case.

ISSUE 3: Whether or not “Overloading” a serious traffic violation with

dangerous consequences committed by the Private Complainant-
Respondent is considered as a continuing negligence on his part
and the proximate cause of the incident in this case.

DISCUSSION OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

21. The Accused-Petitioner should not be held guilty for the crime of
Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical Injuries and Damage
to Property. Because his negligence does not result to a crime punishable
with imprisonment.

22. The violation of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code states that
states that reckless imprudence consists in (1) voluntarily, but without
malice, doing or (2) failing to do an act from which (3) material
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the
part of the person performing such act. Compared to intentional
felonies, such as homicide or murder, what takes the place of the
element of malice or intention to commit a wrong or evil is the failure of
7
Annex D Decision RTC pg. 6 par. 1-3
 People v Alavez
CA GR No. 43868
Petition for Review
Page8

the offender to take precautions due to lack of skill taking into account
his employment, or occupation, degree of intelligence.8 (Emphasis ours)

23. In order to establish a motorist’s liability for the negligent

operation of a vehicle, it must be shown that there was a direct causal
connection between such negligence and the injuries or damages
complained of. To constitute the offense of reckless driving, the act
must be something more than a mere negligence in the operation of a
motor vehicle – a willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is
required. Willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others
within the meaning of reckless driving statutes has been held to involve a
conscious choice of a course of action which injures another, either with
knowledge of serious danger to others involved, or with knowledge of
facts which would disclose the danger to any reasonable
person.9(Emphasis ours)

24. Is there a direct causal connection between the act of the

Accused-Petitioner which is overtaking/crossing a yellow line (a no-
passing or overtaking zone) and the injuries and damages complained of?
There is no direct connection.

25. Examining the pictures presented by the prosecution, specifically

on Exhibits C-3, C-4 and C-510, it shows that that the White Fortuner
(car driven by the Accused-Petitioner) was already in a position returning
to its correct lane.

26. What does this mean? The Accused-Petitioner’s act of negligence

(crossing/overtaking in a no-overtaking zone) has already consummated.
In fact, he is already in the process of reverting back to his proper lane.
Thus, it is worthy to note that there is a doctrine that could be applied in
this case - Doctrine of Last Clear Chance.

27. The doctrine applies only in a situation where the plaintiff was
guilty of prior or antecedent negligence but the defendant, who had the
last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so, is
made liable for all the consequences of the accident notwithstanding the
prior negligence of the plaintiff [Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809 (1918);
Glan People's Lumber and Hardware, et al. v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, Cecilia Alferez Vda. de Calibo, et al., G.R. No. 70493, May 18,
1989]. The subsequent negligence of the defendant (Respondent in
this case) in failing to exercise ordinary care to avoid injury to
plaintiff becomes the immediate or proximate cause of the
accident which intervenes between the accident and the more

8
People v Carmen, G.R. No. 131588, 27 March 2001
9
Dumayag v. People, G.R. No. 172778, November 26, 2012, 686 SCRA 347, 359.
10
Annex K Pictures of the Prosecution 3rd - 6th picture
 People v Alavez
CA GR No. 43868
Petition for Review
Page9

remote negligence of the plaintiff (Petitioner in this case), thus

making the defendant (Respondent in this case) liable to the
plaintiff (Petitioner in this case)[Picart v. Smith, supra].11 (Emphasis
ours)

28. The question is, is the Private Complainant-Respondent fails to

exercise ordinary care to avoid the injury? The answer is yes. Examining
carefully the pictures presented by the Prosecution, particularly Exhibits
C-6, C-7 and C-8 12 it shows that the Elf truck (truck driven by the
Respondent) was in a diagonal position going toward to his left
encroaching the opposite lane.

29. The Respondent in his testimony explains what really happened:

Q: What did you do when you saw that fortuner overtake?

A: I applied break [brake], sir.

Q: Anong ginawa nyo sa manibela?

A: Basta yung diretso kong ganyan, natumbok na po.

Q: You did not steer the wheel to the right?

A: No, sir.

Q: You did not also steer to the left?

A: No sir.13

30. Furthermore, did the Respondent have sufficient time to respond

in order to avoid the injury? Yes he had. Examining carefully the
pictures presented both by the prosecution and the accused, particularly
on Exhibit C-814 and Annex 315, shows long skid marks. This indicates
that from the time he applied the brakes he has considerable amount of
time to steer but he didn’t. Moreover from his own admission that the
distance between the Elf truck and the Fortuner before it start to
overtake is eight (8) meters16

31. Therefore, the act of the Petitioner in overtaking a no-overtaking

zone is a negligent act but not the proximate cause which will make him
liable for reckless imprudence. Not all traffic violations make one liable
11
G.R. Nos. 68102 & 68103 Mckee v. IAC July 6, 1992
12
Annex K Pictures of the Prosecution 7th - 9th picture
13
Annex M TSN June 7, 2016 pg. 6
14
Annex K Pictures of the Prosecution 9th picture
15
Annex L Pictures of the Accused 3rd picture
16
Annex M TSN June 7, 2016 pg. 5
 People v Alavez
CA GR No. 43868
Petition for Review
Page10

for the criminal negligence but only those that are in direct connection
or the proximate cause of the injury. In this case, it proves that it is
NOT the Accused traffic violation the proximate cause, rather, it was the
Respondent’s failure to steer his wheel to the right as any prudent driver
would have done in this situation.

32. This fact is what Regional Trial Court fails to take notice. It was
the Respondent who commit the reckless imprudence and not the
Petitioner.

ISSUE 2

33. The Lower Courts should appreciate more on the Pictures

presented, offered and admitted rather than the testimony of the
Prosecution witnesses.

34. In a Supreme Court decision it states, where the physical evidence

on record ran counter to the testimonial evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, we submit that the physical evidence must prevail. 17 In this
case at bar, the physical evidence are pictures taken immediately after the
incident.

35. In the decision of the Regional Trial Court they give credence to
the statement of the Prosecution witness P03 Leo Michael Peteza that
the Fortuner was definitely not on its proper lane 18 However, if we
examine closely to the pictures, particularly on Exhibit C-7 and C-819 it
clearly shows that the Elf Truck too was not on its proper lane and was
in a position going to the opposite lane.

36. It is even clearer on two of the pictures of the accused (Annex

1and Annex 220). However, the Regional Trial Court seems to turn their
eyes away from it.

ISSUE 3

37. The Lower Court was correct in its decision that the Elf Truck
driven by the Respondent was overloaded 21 However, overloading a
serious traffic violation should not only be a contributory negligence in
this case, instead it must be the continuing negligence/offense thus
rendering to be proximate cause of this case.

17
People v. Vasquez, 280 SCRA 160 (1997)
18
Annex D Decision RTC pg. 5 par. 3
19
Annex K Pictures of the Prosecution 8th and 9th picture
20
Annex L Pictures of the Accused 1st and 2nd picture
21
Annex D Decision RTC pg. 5 par. 2
 People v Alavez
CA GR No. 43868
Petition for Review
Page11

38. Please take note that driving an overloaded vehicle is a

continuing traffic violation or a traffic violation from the time he
starts driving and it can only be corrected if he stops driving.
Unlike in the overtaking violation, it is only a violation at the time
when he overtakes and can be corrected if he was able to return to
the proper lane.

39. Is it not that the Petitioner was in the process of completely

returning to its proper lane? Why the Respondent failed to steer clear
away from the accident? It may be because of the fact that the vehicle is
overloaded.

40. According to the Government Transport Office of the United

Kingdom it states the problem with overloaded vehicles. “Vehicles react
differently when the maximum weights which are designed to carry are
exceeded and the consequences can be fatal. Overloading puts massive
strain on vehicle tyres and makes the vehicle less stable, difficult to
steer and take longer to stop.22

NON-FORUM SHOPPING CERTIFICATE

That petitioner have not commenced any other action or proceeding

involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any
tribunal or agency; and that to the best of his knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any
divisions, thereof or any tribunal or agency; and that if he should thereafter
learn that similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any
other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts
and such other tribunal or agency.

PRAYERS

WHEREFORE, premises considered it is most respectfully prayed that

the Municipal Trial Court decision of Cuenca Batangas dated December 5,
2017 (ANNEX A) and the Regional Trial Court Branch 13 of Lipa Batangas
dated June 3, 2019 (ANNEX D) be reversed and set aside and declared that
Accused RANULFO ALAVEZ y VILLAFLOR be declared INNOCENT
of the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries and
Damage to Property and exonerate from the payment of Civil damages due to
the negligence of the Respondent which is the proximate cause of the injury.

22
Annex Q pg 1 par. 1
 People v Alavez
CA GR No. 43868
Petition for Review
Page12

Quezon City for the City of Manila, 23 September 2019.

Copyfurnished:
COURT OF APPEALS (by personal service)
City of Manila

Office of the Honorable Public Prosecutor (by registered mail)

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Hall of Justice, Pallocan West, Batangas City 4200

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (by registered mail)

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City 1229

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Copies of this Petition for Review were furnished the foregoing

recipients by registered mail due to distance and the limited messengerial
facility to effect personal service.

BENJAMIN V. ESCOLANO JR.

One Central Ave., New Era, 1107 Quezon City
Contact Nos. 9814311 loc. 8632-3788; 09503812081
Email: benjescolano@gmail.com
Roll of Attorney’s No. 57545
PTR No. 7807906 on 2/27/19 at QC
IBP Lifetime No. 014583
MCLE No. VI-0008030 at QC 4/24/2018