The immediate and proximate cause being the reckless and imprudent act of the

accused, petitioner should be acquitted. Nevertheless, he is civilly liable. The

rule is that an "acquittal of the accused, even if based on a finding that he is
not guilty, does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability based on
quasi delict."30

Under the given cir

After perusal of the records, we f

Consequently, the Court finds that

As testified by the investigating officer:

Q: Now, when the ambulance arrived, was the accused still at the place of the
incident?

A: Yes, they also helped in carrying the complainant inside the ambulance.
As enunciated in Chan Lugay v. St. Luke's Hospital, Inc.,
In order that there may be a recovery for an injury, however, it must be shown that
the "injury for which recovery is sought must be the legitimate consequence of the
wrong done; the connection between the negligence and the injury must be a direct
and natural sequence of events, unbroken by intervening efficient causes." In other
words, the negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury. For, "negligence,
no matter in what it consists, cannot create a right of action unless it is the
proximate cause of the injury complained of ." And "the proximate cause of an
injury is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred."

Chan Lugay v. St. Luke's Hospital, Inc. 10 CA Reports 415 [1966]., pp. 427-428

The Court is confronted with contradictory testimonies of the private complainant

and the accused. The prosecu

There is no showing that the driver was not proceeding in lawful manner.

The Court found contradictory testimonies presented by the prosecution and the
defense on this matter. Complainants testified that the accused