THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 221981, November 04, 2020 ]

RAUL OFRACIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply when only one of the parties was negligent. For the
doctrine to apply, it must be shown that both parties were negligent but the negligent act of one was
appreciably later in time than that of the other. It may also apply when it is impossible to determine
who caused the resulting harm, thus, the one who had the last opportunity to avoid the impending
harm and failed to do so will be held liable.1

This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari2 assailing the Court of Appeals Decision3 which
affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision4 convicting Raul Ofracio (Ofracio) of Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Homicide with Damage to Property.

On May 29, 2002, Ofracio was driving a tricycle loaded with lumber when it collided with the tricycle
being driven by Roy Ramirez (Ramirez). Ramirez was hit by the lumber, causing his instantaneous
death. Ramirez's tricycle was also damaged in the collision.5

On June 25, 2002, a complaint for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide with damage to
property was filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Sorsogon City against Ofracio.
The Municipal Trial Court in Cities found probable cause and issued a warrant for Ofracio's arrest.6

On August 7, 2002, Ofracio entered a plea of not guilty to the charge against him.7

The parties admitted the following during the pre-trial conference:

(T)he place, date[,] and time of the incident subject of the case; identity of the parties; that there was
a vehicular accident involving two tricycles one of which was driven by accused Raul Ofracio; an
investigation was conducted by the police authorities; and the competence of Dra. Myrna Listanco,
who issued the Certificate of Death of the victim, Roy Ramirez.8

The prosecution presented the following as their witnesses: (a) SPO2 Camelo Murillo (SPO2 Murillo)
(b) Carlos Dayao (Dayao); (c) Rosario Ramirez (Rosario); and (d) Dr. Larry Garrido (Dr. Garrido).

SPO2 Murillo testified that he was on duty at the Police Sub-Station 2 when a tricycle driver reported
an accident in Bibincahan, Sorsogon City. When he arrived at the scene of the accident, he saw
Ramirez lying face down on the road. He then asked a barangay tanod to bring Ramirez to the
hospital. At the accident scene, he observed that some of the lumber atop Ofracio's tricycle had
pierced the windshield of Ramirez's tricycle.9
Dayao testified that he was conversing with some friends at around 11:00 p.m. when he heard a
loud thud and cries for help. He and his friends ran towards the noise and found Ramirez bloodied
and lying on the ground, face down. Dayao admitted that he did not see the actual collision of the
tricycles.10

Rosario was the deceased's mother and she testified on the expenses she incurred in burying her
son and filing a case against Ofracio.11

Dr. Garrido, an expert witness who testified on the post-mortem examination report conducted by Dr.
Myrna Jasmin-Listanco, concluded that the cause of Ramirez's death appeared to be "cerebral
hemorrhage secondary to skull fracture secondary to vehicular accident."12

The defense presented two witnesses: (a) Ofracio and (b) Reyden Despuig (Despuig).

Ofracio testified that on May 29, 2002, past 11:00 p.m., he was transporting forty-six (46) pieces of
lumber in a tricycle with Despuig as his passenger.13

Ofracio claimed that he was slowly and carefully driving because of his heavy cargo. As he was
driving, he suddenly saw a bright light 4 to 5 meters in front of him. The collision occurred in
Ofracio's lane, with his tricycle hitting Ramirez's sidecar. He admitted fleeing the scene of the
accident but the following day, when he went to the hospital for his own injuries, he voluntarily
surrendered to the police when he found out that they knew about his involvement in the collision.14

Despuig corroborated Ofracio's testimony. 15

On June 1, 2011, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2 of Sorsogon City found Ofracio guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and sentenced
him to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor as minimum, to
four (4) years, nine (9) months and ten (10) days of prision correccional as maximum. Ofracio was
also ordered to compensate the heirs of Ramirez in the amounts of ₱60,950.00 as actual damages,
₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and ₱30,000.00 as moral damages.16

Ofracio appealed, but the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52 of Sorsogon City affirmed the ruling of the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities. The Regional Trial Court also denied his motion for
reconsideration.17

Ofracio elevated the Regional Trial Court's ruling to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the Regional
Trial Court erred in holding him liable under the doctrine of last clear chance.18 However, the Court
of Appeals19 upheld the findings of both the Municipal Trial Court in Cities and the Regional Trial
Court.20

In his Petition for Review on Certiorari21 before this Court, petitioner posits that the Court of Appeals
failed to take judicial notice of the laws of physics which find application in any vehicular
accident.22 Petitioner presents computations to show that contrary to the lower courts' findings,
perceiving the imminent collision at a distance of only 4 or 5 meters, was not enough to avoid the
collision, since the total stopping distance was 5.39m.23

Furthermore, petitioner maintains that he was slowly driving because his tricycle was weighed down
by the 46 pieces of lumber it was transporting.24 He states that the lumber on top of his tricycle were
still in their original position even after the collision, supporting his testimony that he was not driving
at high speed.25
Petitioner likewise claims that transporting lumber on top of a tricycle is a common practice in
Sorsogon City and cannot be considered as imprudence and negligence per se, as long as the
necessary precautions are taken to secure the lumber to the tricycle.26

In its Comment,27 respondent People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor
General, states that the factual issues raised in the Petition are beyond the ambit of a petition for
review on certiorari.28 Respondent also posits that the lower courts did not err when they
unanimously found that even if Ramirez was driving his tricycle in a zigzagging motion, petitioner still
had the last clear chance to avoid the collision.29

Petitioner was directed to submit a reply to respondent's Comment but he manifested that he was
waiving his right to do so.30

The only issue raised for this Court's resolution is whether or not petitioner should be held liable
under the doctrine of last clear chance.

The Petition is meritorious.

Pascual v. Burgos31 instructs that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review
on certiorari and that factual findings of the Court of Appeals bind this Court. While there are
exceptions to this rule, these exceptions must be alleged, substantiated, and proved by the
parties.32

Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr.33 lists 10 recognized exceptions to the rule:

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2)
When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave
abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the
findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond
the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7)
The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of
fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the
facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by
the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record.34 (Citations omitted)

The first exception where "the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
conjectures" is present here, thus placing this case well-within the exception to the general rule that
only questions of law may be brought to this Court in a Rule 45 petition.

In the case at bar, the lower courts found both parties negligent but that petitioner could have
avoided the accident had he only acted with prudence. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities held:

(T)he accused himself testified, he saw the victim Roy Ramirez' tricycle approaching him in a
zigzagging manner. At this point, the prudent driver seeing the possibility of a collision should have
stopped immediately upon seeing the danger which was clearly approaching. But alas, the accused
did otherwise or proceeded to confront the peril looming closer.

This account cannot absolve the victim, Roy Ramirez from any negligence, as by accounts, he was
driving in a zigzagging manner.

Considering that both drivers were negligent, the doctrine of Last Clear Chance finds application.35

The Court of Appeals then stated:

The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of
one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or
negligence caused the loss, the one who had the clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do
so is chargeable with the loss.

In the case at bar, assuming that the deceased Roy Ramirez was indeed driving his tricycle in a
"zigzagging" and fast manner as claimed by Petitioner Raul Ofracio, the latter cannot be exonerated
from his culpability for the death of Roy Ramirez, as he, himself, admitted that he already saw "a
very bright light" / the incoming vehicle "about four (4) or five (5) meters away." In fact, in his
testimony before the trial court, he stated:

....

To our mind, considering that Petitioner was aware of the incoming tricycle as far away as 4 or 5
meters because of the bright headlight of the tricycle, he could have taken precautionary measures
to avoid the collision with the other tricycle. He could have slowed down, parked at the side of the
road, or applied his breaks and stopped on his tracks.

To make matters worse, records show that Petitioner had in his tricycle 46 pieces of lumber[,] some
of which even protruded from his tricycle. The absence of any evidence showing that Petitioner
(awÞhi(

made efforts to secure the said pieces of wood to his tricycle further evinces his imprudence and
negligence.36

The lower courts surmised that petitioner's failure to avoid the collision when he had every
opportunity to do so made him liable under the doctrine of last clear chance.

The lower courts are mistaken.

The doctrine of last clear chance contemplates two (2) possible scenarios. First is when both parties
are negligent but the negligent act of one party happens later in time than the negligent act of the
other party. Second is when it is impossible to determine which party caused the accident. When
either of the two (2) scenarios are present, the doctrine of last clear chance holds liable for
negligence the party who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the resulting harm or accident but
failed to do so.37 Bustamante v. Court of Appeals38 further explains:

The practical import of the doctrine is that a negligent defendant is held liable to a negligent plaintiff,
or even to a plaintiff who has been grossly negligent in placing himself in peril, if he, aware of the
plaintiff's peril, or according to some authorities, should have been aware of it in the reasonable
exercise of due care, had in fact an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident.39

From every indication, it was Ramirez's act of driving his tricycle in a speedy and unpredictable
manner (i.e. zigzagging) which caused the accident However, the lower courts also ascribed
negligence to petitioner because he supposedly had enough time to either steer clear of Ramirez or
stop his tricycle altogether to prevent the collision.

The records showed that Ramirez's tricycle hit petitioner's tricycle while the latter was within its lane,
thereby substantiating petitioner's testimony that Ramirez was driving in a zigzag manner. This also
demonstrated that petitioner stayed within his lane the entire time prior to the accident.

Petitioner likewise testified that he was slowly driving prior to the accident, and this was corroborated
by his passenger.40 Additionally, he had 46 pieces of lumber strapped on top of his tricycle, which
made it impossible for him to drive his tricycle at top speed. This was apparent during his cross-
examination:
COURT INTERPRETER:

[Ofracio] A. I was still p[l]ying my route that day because of my purpose also to augment the family
income.

[Atty. Labitag] Q. And because you were then performing something illegal you were driving your
motorized tricycle in a very fast speed?

A. No Sir, at the time I cannot drive my tricycle fast or as fast as I wanted to because the fact is I had
lumber in the tricycle and I cannot make the tricycle run as fast.

Q. You wanted to run the tricycle fast at that time?

A. No Sir.

Q. You cannot run fast because your motorized tricycle was laden with lumber, 46 pieces in all
according to the police report, do you agree with me Mr. witness?

A. I was so careful in driving at that time because I was aware that I had so much lumber in my
tricycle and it was heavy.41

Also, the fact that only two (2) pieces of lumber were dislodged from the roof of petitioner's tricycle
even after the collision supports his testimony that he was slowly driving and that the pieces of
lumber were secured to his tricycle.42

The lower courts concluded that petitioner had ample time to avoid Ramirez as he became aware of
the oncoming tricycle when it was about 4-5 meters away, thus, he should have taken precautionary
measures like slowing down, parking at the side of the road, or even stopping altogether.43

The lower courts erred on this point.

A tricycle, traveling within the speed limit, can easily cover four (4) to five (5) meters (or 13-16.5 feet)
in a few seconds. A speeding tricycle would traverse the same distance even faster. Hence, from the
moment petitioner saw the approaching tricycle, which was barreling towards his lane in an erratic
and unpredictable manner, no appreciable time had elapsed which would have afforded him the last
clear opportunity to avoid the collision.

Even petitioner's act of transporting lumber on top of his tricycle cannot be said to be a negligent act
per se. This Court takes judicial notice44 that the use of tricycles to transport heavy objects such as
appliances and furniture is a common practice in the Philippines, particularly in rural areas, as
tricycles are readily available and a more affordable way of transporting items, especially for those
who cannot afford to rent a truck or jeepney.

Clearly, the doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable here since the prosecution failed to show
beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner negligently acted or that he could have avoided the accident
if he had acted with more prudence.

In the same manner, the prosecution failed to prove that petitioner was guilty of reckless imprudence
as punished in Article 36545 of the Revised Penal Code. Reckless imprudence "consists in
voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material damage results by
reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform
such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time[,] and place."46 It has the following
elements:
(1) that the offender does or fails to do an act; (2) that the doing or the failure to do that act is
voluntary; (3) that it be without malice; (4) that material damage results from the reckless
imprudence; and (5) that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking
into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and
other circumstances regarding persons, time[,] and place.47

Gonzaga v. People48 instructs that the prosecution must show the "direct causal connection
between such negligence and the injuries or damages complained of"49 to establish a motorist's
liability for negligence. Gonzaga likewise stressed that mere negligence is not enough to constitute
reckless driving, rather, the prosecution must prove that the motorist acted in utter disregard of the
consequence of his or her action, as it is the "inexcusable lack of precaution or conscious
indifference to the consequences of the conduct which supplies the criminal intent and brings an act
of mere negligence and imprudence under the operation of the penal law."50

Here, petitioner was slowly driving his lumber-laden tricycle on the lane where he was supposed to
be, when Ramirez's tricycle appeared from the opposite direction, moving at great speed and in an
erratic manner, before it crashed into his tricycle. Clearly, there was no imprudent or negligent act on
petitioner's part which led to or contributed to the collision or to Ramirez's death.

It seems as if the lower courts construed petitioner's flight after the accident as an absolute
manifestation of guilt51 and ignored the other pieces of evidence which pointed to his lack of
negligence. While leaving the severely injured Ramirez after the collision might have been a badge
of guilt, this remains disputable and is not the willful and inexcusable negligence required to uphold a
finding of guilt for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide and damage to property.

For a successful conviction in a criminal case, the prosecution must prove the elements of the crime
charged beyond reasonable doubt or with moral certainty. Rule 133, Section 2 of the Revised Rules
on Evidence defines moral certainty as "that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind."

The Constitution requires the prosecution to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt
in recognition of the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the accused. People v.
Ganguso52 expounds:

An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees.
Unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted. This reasonable doubt
standard is demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution which protects the accused
from conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the
crime with which he is charged. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and unless it discharges
that burden the accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf, and he would be entitled to an
acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not, of course, mean such degree of proof as
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The conscience must be
satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense charged.53

With the prosecution's failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide or that petitioner was liable under the doctrine of last clear chance,
petitioner must consequently be acquitted.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated November 27, 2015
in CA-G.R. CR No. 35640 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Raul Ofracio is hereby ACQUITTED for
failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED.
Hernando, Inting, Delos Santos, and Rosario, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 LBC Air Cargo, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 311 Phil 717, 722-723 (1995) [Per J. Vitug, Third
Division] (citation omitted)

2 Rollo, pp. 8-25.

3 Id. at 27-34. The November 27, 2015 Decision docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 35640 was
penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in by Associate Justices
Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy of the Special Sixth Division, Court of
Appeals, Manila.

4 Id. at 27. The January 8, 2013 Decision was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2012-8402
and promulgated by Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Sorsogon City.

5 Id. at 28.

6 Id.

7 Id.

8 Id.

9 Id. at 29.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Id. at 29-30.

13 Id. at 30.

14 Id.

15 Id.

16 Id. at 30-31.

17 Id. at 31.

18 Id.

19 Id. at 27-34.

20 Id. at 32-34.
21 Id. at 8-25.

22 Id. at 13-22.

23 Id. at 19-21.

24 Id. at 16.

25 Id. at 18.

26 Id. at 22.

27 Id. at 55-70.

28 Id. at 61.

29 Id. at 64-66.

30 Id. at 94-96.

31 776 Phil. 167 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

32 Id. at 184.

33 269 Phil. 225 (1990) [Per J. Bidin, Third Division].

34 Id. at 232.

35 Rollo, pp. 31-32.

36 Id. at 32-34.

37 Philippine National Railways Corporation v. Vizcara, 682 Phil. 343, 358 (2012) [Per J.
Reyes, Second Division].

38 271 Phil 633 (1991) [Per J. Medialdea, First Division].

39 Id. at 642.

40 Rollo, p. 30.

41 Id. at 17.

42 Id. at 18 and 22.

43 Id. at 33.

44 RULES OF COURT, Rule 129, sec. 2 provides:

SECTION 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take judicial notice
of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable
demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
45 REV. PEN. CODE, art. 365 provides:

ARTICLE 365. Imprudence and Negligence. — Any person who, by reckless

imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a
grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prision correccional in its medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave
felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be
imposed.

Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which
would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in
its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious felony,
the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed.

When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in
damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging
from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value, but
which shall in no case be less than 25 pesos.

A fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who,
by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done
maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.

In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion,
without regard to the rules prescribed in article 62.

The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:

1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those
provided in the first two paragraphs of this article, in which case the court
shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be
imposed, in the period which they may deem proper to apply.

2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile

Law, the death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendant
shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods.

Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do

an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking
into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place. Simple
imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the
damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.

46 REV. PEN. CODE, art. 365.

47 Cabugao v. People, 740 Phil. 9, 21-22 (2014) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].

48 751 Phil. 218 (2015) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].

49 Gonzaga v. People, 751 Phil. 218, 227 (2015) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
50 Id. at 228.

51 Rollo, pp. 33-34.

52 320 Phil. 324 (1995) [Per J. Davide, Jr., First Division].

53 Id. at 335.
G.R. No. 195671, January 21, 2015
Jul 2, 2020
—
by
ASG Law Partners
in Jurisprudence
visit https://batas.org for your complete legal research needs.

Supreme Court of the Philippines

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 195671, January 21, 2015
ROGELIO J. GONZAGA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the Decision[2] dated September
18, 2009 and the Resolution[3] dated January 26, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. CR No. 00427-MIN, which affirmed the Decision[4] dated July 31, 2006 of
the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, Branch 10 (RTC) in Criminal
Case No. 9832-99, finding petitioner Rogelio J. Gonzaga (Rogelio) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide with
Double Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property under Article 365 in
relation to Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

The Facts
At around 6 o’clock in the morning of June 25, 1997, Dionesio Inguito, Sr. (Dionesio,
Sr.) was driving his motorcycle along Brgy. Kiara, Don Carlos, Bukidnon towards
Brgy. Bocboc[5] of the same municipality, to bring his two (2)minor children, Dionesio
Inguito, Jr. (Dionesio, Jr.) and Cherry Inguito[6] (Cherry), to school.[7] While they were
ascending the curving road going to Bocboc on their proper lane on the right side of
the road, a Toyota Land Cruiser(Land Cruiser) driven by Rogelio was swiftly
descending the same lane from the opposite direction. Dionesio, Sr. blew the horn
of his motorcycle to signal the Land Cruiser to return to its proper lane but the Land
Cruiser remained.[8] In order to avoid collision, Dionesio, Sr.tried to swerve to the left,
but the Land Cruiser suddenly swerved towards the same direction and collided
head-on with the motorcycle.[9]

As a result of the collision, Dionesio, Sr. and his 2 children were thrown off the
motorcycle. Dionesio, Sr. was pinned beneath the Land Cruiser,[10] while Cherry and
Dionesio, Jr. were thrown over the hood of the Land Cruiser and fell on the side of
the road,[11] causing injuriesto their legs. Siblings Rolf, Cherry,[12] and Jenny Ann
Aquino,who were traversing the same road aboard their own motorcycle,stopped to
help and placed the victims together[13] on the rightmost side of the road facing Brgy.
Bocboc,[14] while Rogelio remained inside the Land Cruiser.[15]

Rolf left the scene of the incident to seek further assistance, leaving his two (2)
sisters to cater to the victims.[16] Eventually, he chanced upon Kagawad Nerio
Dadivas (Kgd. Dadivas), who had just opened his store, and informed the latter of
the vehicular accident.After reporting the incident to the police and getting his
vehicle, Kgd. Dadivas proceeded to the site and loaded the victims to his vehicle
with Rolf’s assistance.[17] Meanwhile, Rolf went to Brgy. Kawilihan to inform
Dionesio, Sr.’s wife, Clemencia Inguito (Clemencia), of what had transpired.[18]

Thereafter, the victims were brought to the Emergency Hospital of Maramag where
they were treated.[19] Operations were performed on the legs of Dionesio, Jr. and
Dionesio, Sr., but the latter eventually expired. Cherry’s leg was placed in a cast and
she was confined in the hospital, together with Dionesio, Jr., for more than one (1)
month, or until July 26, 1997.[20] All the expenses were shouldered by Clemencia.[21]

In view of the foregoing mishap, the provincial prosecutor filed an

Information[22] charging Rogelio for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide with
Double Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property “with the aggravating
circumstance that accused failed to lend on the spot to the injured party such help
that was in his hands to give”[23] before the RTC.Upon arraignment,[24] Rogelio
entered a plea of not guilty.[25]

In his defense, Rogelio claimed that he was driving the Land Cruiser on his proper
lane along the descending curving road towards the direction of Kalilangan,
Bukidnon, when,from a distance of about 70 meters away, he saw the motorcycles
driven by Dionesio, Sr.and Rolf racing towards the curve from the opposite direction.
[26]
Dionesio, Sr. was driving his motorcycle in a zigzag manner on the Land Cruiser’s
lane while Rolf was on his proper lane.[27] Undecided which side of the road to take
to avoid collision, Rogelio stopped the Land Cruiser but the motorcycle of Dionesio,
Sr., nonetheless, bumped into it.[28] As a result of the impact, Cherry and Dionesio,
Jr. were thrown over the roof and the hood of the Land Cruiser, respectively, and fell
on the side of the road, while Dionesio, Sr. and the motorcycle were pinned beneath
the land Cruiser.[29] With the use of a jack handle and the assistance of two (2)
persons, i.e., Jose Bacus and Reynaldo Quidato, who arrived at the scene, he was
able to retrieve both Dionesio, Sr. and the motorcycle from beneath the Land
Cruiser. Thereafter, they loaded the victims on board the Land Cruiser so they may
be brought to the hospital, but the vehicle turned out to have defective brakes,so he
asked other persons to secure another vehicle instead.[30]

The RTC Proceedings

In a Decision[31] dated July 31, 2006 (July 31, 2006Decision), the RTC found Rogelio
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Homicide with Double Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property punishable
under Article 365 in relation to Article 263 of the RPC.[32]

It held that Rogelio’s act of driving very fast on the wrong side of the road was the
proximate cause of the collision, resulting to the death of Dionesio, Sr. and serious
physical injuries to Dionesio, Jr. and Cherry. Considering further that Rogelio failed
to offer any help to the victims,[33] the RTC sentenced him to suffer a higher
indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months of prision
correccional maximum, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor medium, as maximum, and ordered him to pay the following civil liabilities: (a)
P50,000.00 as moral damages for the death of Dionesio, Sr.; (b) P30,000.00as
moral damages for the mental anguish suffered by the family; (c) P200,000.00 for
the medical expenses incurred; (d) P25,000.00 for the expenses incurred during the
wake and the burial; (e) P30,000.00 for the damaged motorcycle; (f) P60,000.00 for
the loss of earning capacity; and (g) P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees.[34]

Rogelio filed a motion for reconsideration[35] which was partly granted in a

Resolution[36] dated February 22, 2007, reducing the penalty to four (4) months and
one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional, as maximum, with the same civil liabilities. The RTC
reconsidered its opinion regarding Rogelio’s claim of having extended aid to the
victims, concluding that the jack handle that was used to get the body of Dionesio,
Sr. beneath the Land Cruiser could have been his in the absence of showing who
owned the same.[37] Aggrieved, Rogelio appealed to the CA.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision[38] dated September 18, 2009, however, the CA reinstated the RTC’s
July 31, 2006 Decision, thereby imposing on Rogelio the original indeterminate
penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months of prision correccional maximum, as
minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as maximum,
and the same civil liabilities, [39] hence, this petition.
The Issue Before the Court

The essential issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA correctly
upheld Rogelio’s conviction in accordance with the RTC’s July 31, 2006Decision.

The Court’s Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

Reckless imprudence, as defined in Article 365[40] of the RPC, consists in voluntarily,

but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results
by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or
failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation,
degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding
persons, time and place.

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.
[41]
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. Verily, it is the inexcusable lack of precaution or conscious
indifference to the consequences of the conduct which supplies the criminal
intent and brings an act of mere negligence and imprudence under the
operation of the penal law, without regard to whether the private offended party
may himself be considered likewise at fault.[42]

In the present case, the RTC and the CA uniformly found that Rogelio’s act
of driving very fast on the wrong side of the road was the proximate cause of
the collision, resulting to the death of Dionesio, Sr. and serious physical injuries to
Dionesio, Jr. and Cherry. Notably, the road where the incident occurred was a curve
sloping upwards towards Brgy. Bocboc where the Inguitos were bound and
descending towards the opposite direction where Rogelio was going. Indeed, the
very fact of speeding, under such circumstances, is indicative of imprudent
behavior.As a motorist, Rogelio was bound to exercise ordinary care in such affair
by driving at a reasonable rate of speed commensurate with the conditions
encountered, as this would enable him to keep the vehicle under control and avoid
injury to others using the highway.[43] Moreover, it is elementary in traffic school that
a driver slows down before negotiating a curve as it may be reasonably anticipated
that another vehicle may appear from the opposite direction at any moment. Hence,
excessive speed, combined with other circumstances such as the occurrence of the
accident on or near a curve, as in this case, constitutes negligence.[44]
Consequently, the Court finds that Rogelio acted recklessly and imprudently in
driving at a fast speed on the wrong side of the road while approaching the curve
where the incident happened, thereby rendering him criminally liable, as well as
civilly accountable for the material damages resulting therefrom.

Nonetheless, while the CA and the RTC concurred that the proximate cause of the
collision was Rogelio’s reckless driving, the CA Decision made no mention as to the
presence or absence of the limiting element in the last paragraph of Article 365
of the RPC, which imposes the penalty next higher in degree upon the offender who
“fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may be in his
hands to give.” Based on case law, the obligation under this paragraph: (a) is
dependent on the means in the hands of the offender, i.e., the type and degree of
assistance that he/she, at the time and place of the incident, is capable of giving;
and (b) requires adequate proof.[45]

It is well to point out that the RTC’s July 31, 2006Decision found that Rogelio failed
to offer any help to the victims[46] and, thus, imposed on him the penalty next higher
in degree. However, upon Rogelio’s motion, the RTC reconsidered its earlier
conclusion, holding that the jack handle that was used to get the body of Dionesio,
Sr. beneath the Land Cruiser could have been his in the absence of showing who
owned the same and, accordingly, reduced the penalty.[47] Nothing was said on this
point by the CA which affirmed Rogelio’s conviction based on the RTC’s July 31,
2006Decision.

The Court has perused the records and found contradictory testimonies presented
by the prosecution and the defense on this matter. Considering however, that Cherry
herself admitted that the victims were first loaded on the Land Cruiser before they
were transferred to Kgd. Dadivas’s vehicle,[48] the Court is inclined to sustain
Rogelio’s claim that he tried to extend help to the victims, but when he started the
engine with the intention to go to the hospital, he discovered that the vehicle had no
brakes.[49] Hence, in imposing the proper penalty on the accused, the qualifying
circumstance under the last paragraph of Article 365of the RPC should not be
considered.

Here, Rogelio was charged with the offense of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Homicide with Double Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property under
Article 365 in relation to Article 263[50] of the RPC, a complex crime. Article 48 of the
RPC provides that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the
penalty for the most serious crime, in this case, Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Homicide, shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

Under Article 365 of the RPC, when reckless imprudence in the use of a motor
vehicle results in the death of a person, as in this case, the accused shall be
punished with the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods, i.e., two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) years.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[51] the minimum of said penalty should be
taken from arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period, or four (4) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4)
months. Consequently, the Court finds a need to modify the penalty to be imposed
on Rogelio and thus, sentences him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2)
years of prision correccional in its minimum, as minimum, to six years of prision
correccional in its maximum, as maximum.

As a final note, the Court clarifies that the order for the payment of “moral damages”
in the amount of P50,000.00for the death of Dionesio, Sr.should be, properly
speaking, denominated as one for the payment of “civil indemnity” as they were not
awarded under the parameters of the Civil Code relevant thereto,[52] but was one
“given without need of proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and
proof of [the accused’s] responsibility for it.”[53] This is a palpable legal error which
the Court should correct if only for terminological propriety. With the private
complainant not herein impleaded, the rest of the RTC’s July 31, 2006 Decision with
respect to the civil liabilities awarded should remain undisturbed. Note that, in line
with existing jurisprudence, interest at the rate of six percent (6) per annum shall be
imposed on all damages awarded from the date of finality of judgment until fully
paid.[54]

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 18, 2009
and the Resolution dated January 26, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR No. 00427-MIN, finding petitioner Rogelio J. Gonzaga guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide with Double
Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property under Article 365 in relation to
Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code are hereby AFFIRMED with the
following MODIFICATIONS:

(a) Petitioner is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years of prision
correccional in its minimum, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional in
its maximum, as maximum; and
(b) The award of P50,000.00 for the death of Dionesio Inguito, Sr. in favor of his heirs is
denominated as “civil indemnity,”instead of “moral damages.”
(c) All monetary awards for damages shall bear interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Perez, JJ., concur.

[1]
Rollo, pp. 8-29.
[2]
Id. at 32-45. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello with Associate
Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Leoncia R. Dimagiba, concurring.
[3]
Id. at 47-49.
[4]
Id. at 50-58. Penned by Judge Josefina Gentiles Bacal.
[5]
“Bokbok” in some parts of the records.
[6]
“Cherry Enguito” in some parts of the records.
[7]
See Information, records, pp. 43-44. See also Transcript of Stenographic Notes
(TSN), September 13, 2000, pp. 6-10.
[8]
Rollo, p. 35.
[9]
TSN, September 13, 2000, pp. 15-16.
[10]
Rollo, p. 35.
[11]
Id. at 60.
[12]
Incorrectly referred to as Rolf’s brother, Jerry, in the CA’s September 18, 2009
Decision; id. at 35. See also the RTC’s July 31, 2006 Decision relating to Rolf’s
testimony that he was with his two younger sisters, Jenny Ann and Cherry, at the
time and place of the incident; id. at 52. See Rolf’s testimony; TSN, September 25,
2000, p. 8.
[13]
Rollo, p. 35.
[14]
See Sketch prepared by Rolf Aquino when he testified on September 25, 2000;
records, p. 69. See also TSN, September 25, 2000, pp. 14-17 and 21-22.
[15]
TSN, September 25, 2000, pp. 24-25.
[16]
See TSN, September 25, 2000, pp. 25-26.
[17]
See TSN, July 25, 2001, pp. 6-12.
[18]
TSN, September 25, 2000, p.31.
[19]
Rollo, p. 36.
[20]
Id. at 52.
[21]
Id. at 36.
[22]
Dated July 28, 1999.(Records, pp. 43-44.)
[23]
Id. at 43. See also rollo, pp. 50-51.
[24]
See Certificate of Arraignment dated November 17, 1999; id. at 51.
[25]
Id. See also rollo, p. 51.
[26]
TSN, March 13, 2003, pp. 6-8.
[27]
Id. at 7-8.
[28]
Rollo, pp. 12-13 and 55.
[29]
TSN, March 13, 2003, p. 9.
[30]
Rollo, p. 55.
[31]
Id. at 50-58.
[32]
Id. at 58.
[33]
Id. at57.
[34]
Id. at 58.
[35]
Dated September 27, 2006.(Records, pp. 193-210.)
[36]
Rollo, pp.59-61.
[37]
Id. at 61.
[38]
Id. at 32-45.
[39]
Id. at 44.
[40]
Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence. — Any person who, by reckless
imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a
grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prision correccional in its medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave
felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be
imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its
maximum period shall be imposed.

Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which
would, otherwise, constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less
serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed.

When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in
damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging
from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value, but
which shall in no case be less than 25 pesos.
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any
person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if
done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.

In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion,
without regard to the rules prescribed in Article 64.

The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:

1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those
provided in the first two paragraphs of this article, in which case the court
shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be
imposed, in the period which they may deem proper to apply.
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the
Automobile Law [Act No. 3992 entitled “An Act to Amend and Compile
the Laws Relative to Motor Vehicles”], the death of a person shall be
caused, in which case the defendant shall be punished by prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods.

Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do

an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking
into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
conditions and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in

which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly
manifest.

The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be
imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties
such help as may be in his hands to give. (Emphases supplied)
[41]
Dumayag v. People, G.R. No. 172778, November 26, 2012, 686 SCRA 347, 359.
[42]
Caminos, Jr. v. People, 605 Phil. 422, 434-435 (2009).
[43]
Id. at 437.
[44]
Gabriel v. CA, 483 Phil. 142, 157-158 (2004).
[45]
Abueva v. People, 438 Phil. 610, 623-624 (2002).
[46]
Rollo, p. 57.
[47]
Id. at 61.
[48]
TSN, October 11, 2000, pp. 15-17.
[49]
TSN, March 13, 2003, p. 15.
[50]
Art. 263. Serious physical injuries. — Any person who shall wound, beat, or
assault another, shall be guilty of the crime of serious physical injuries and shall
suffer:

1. The penalty of prision mayor, if in consequence of the physical injuries

inflicted, the injured person shall become insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum period, if in
consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have
lost the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or shall have lost an
eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg, or shall have lost the use of any such
member, or shall have become incapacitated for the work in which he was
theretofore habitually engaged;
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if in
consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have
become deformed, or shall have lost any other part of his body, or shall have
lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance
of the work in which he as habitually engaged for a period of more than ninety
days;
4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in
its minimum period, if the physical injuries inflicted shall have caused the
illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for more than thirty days.

If the offense shall have been committed against any of the persons enumerated in
Article 246, or with attendance of any of the circumstances mentioned in Article 248,
the case covered by subdivision number 1 of this Article shall be punished
by reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods; the case covered by
subdivision number 2 by prision correccional in its maximum period to prision
mayor in its minimum period; the case covered by subdivision number 3 by prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods; and the case covered by
subdivision number 4 by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not be applicable to a parent who
shall inflict physical injuries upon his child by excessive chastisement.
[51]
Pertinently, Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law which provides:

Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the

Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of
the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said
Code, and the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other
law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the
minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.
[52]
See Articles 2217 to 2220 of the Civil Code.
[53]
People v. Berondo, Jr., 601 Phil. 538, 546 (2009); citing People v.
Whisenhunt, 420 Phil. 677, 701 (2001).
[54]
See People of the Philippines v. Torres, G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014.