G.R. No.

L-10563 March 2, 1916

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ANTONIO BONIFACIO, defendant-appellant.

Facts: Appellant Bonifacio was convicted by the lower court with homicide committed with
reckless negligence for running over a person while conducting the freight train.

It was alleged that the victim was a deaf-mute named Elegio Castillo who suddenly
crossed the railroad track. The defendant saw the victim about 175 meters, and the train was
allegedly running at 35mph, the maximum speed permitted, in spite of whistle warnings and
was run over by the train conducted by the defendant. No other evidence showing the actual
speed of the train aside from the oral testimony of the defendant himself. He tried to slow down
the train but to no avail, the victim was still run over.

The trial judge inferred that the train must have been running at more than 35 miles an
hour at that moment that is to say at a speed in excess of that allowed under the railroad
regulations.

Trial court convicted defendant for violating Art 568.

”Any person who, while violating any regulation, shall, by any act of imprudence or
negligence not amounting to reckless imprudence, commit an offense, shall suffer the penalty of
arresto mayor in its medium and maximum degrees.”

Issue: W/N the accused is guilty under Article 568 of the Criminal code for negligence resulting
to homicide granting true that he has violated the speed limit regulation of heavy train,
considering that he have exerted effort to whistle warning the victim and slowing down the
train, but to no avail the victim was still hit.

Held: No, defendant cannot be held liable under Article 568 of the Criminal code. Granting
that there is a violation of the speed limit, the slight excess of the speed of the train had no
possible causal relation to the accident. That even if the speed had on the other hand been
slightly under the limit prescribed by regulation, the accident must still have taken place
because of the negligence of the deceased.

True that Article 568 need only slight negligence, if accompanied by a violation of
regulation, but the relation of cause and effect must exist between the negligence or
imprudence of the accused and the injury inflicted. If it appears that the injury has not
 resulted from the violation of the regulations, or the negligent conduct of the accused, he
incurs no criminal liability under the provisions of this article.

Article 568 doesn’t mean that in every case wherein someone accidentally injures or
kills another he is criminally liable therefor, if at the moment he is guilty of a violation of some
petty regulation. The injury or death must have resulted from some “imprudence or negligence”
on his part.

Trial court inferred that train may have reached the speed more than the limit prescribed by the
regulation. The only evidence regarding the speed of the train was the testimony of the accused himself
stating that the train was running at 35Mph.
“Mere conjecture, and inferences unsupported by satisfactory evidence, are not sufficient to establish a
material finding of fact upon which a finding of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, can be sustained.”