FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219038. July 6, 2021.]
MARCELINO M. DELA CRUZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND CLAUDIO R. MIRANDA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 6, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 219038 (Marcelino M. Dela Cruz,Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and Claudio R. Miranda,Respondents). — This appeal seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated 30 January 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 36304, which affirmed with modification the Decision 2 dated 11 June 2013 of Branch 84, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balagtas, Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 4427-M-2012. The RTC upheld the Decision 3 dated 09 October 2012 of the Third Judicial Region, Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Balagtas, Bulacan convicting petitioner Marcelino M. Dela Cruz (Marcelino) of Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property in Criminal Case No. 067-2006.
Antecedents
Marcelino was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property in an Information, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 19th of May, 2006, in the municipality of Balagtas, province of Bulacan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the driver and person-in-charge of Tata Paul Transit Bus with Plate No. RBS 431, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously drive and operate the same while passing along the North Luzon Expressway in the said municipality, in a negligent, careless and imprudent manner, without due regard to the traffic laws, rules and regulations and without taking the necessary precautions to prevent accident to person and damage to property, causing by such negligence, carelessness, and imprudence, said Tata Paul Transit Bus with Plate No. RBS 431 driven and operated by him to hit and bump a Mitsubishi Lancer car, model 92 with Plate No. TGD 434 driven by one Claudio Miranda y Rivera, thereby causing damage to his car in the amount of P160,000.00, less serious physical injuries on said driver Claudio Miranda [y] Rivera and instantaneous death to his wife and passenger Azucena Miranda [y] Villareal, to their damage and prejudice.
SO ORDERED. 4
After Marcelino pleaded not guilty, pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued. 5
On 19 May 2006 at about 4:00 P.M., private respondent Claudio R. Miranda (Claudio) was driving his Mitsubishi Lancer, with plate number TGD 434, along the North Luzon Expressway (NLEX) within the area of Balagtas, Bulacan. He was headed to Metro Manila with his wife, Azucena Miranda (Azucena), as his lone passenger seated beside him. Claudio was driving on the third lane from the shoulder when he noticed the Tata Paul Transit bus, with plate number RBS 431, appear behind them. Since the bus was rushing towards them, Claudio accelerated but the bus still caught up with them and rammed their car. Their car spun around and hit the middle concrete barrier of the NLEX, facing the opposite direction. Azucena died on the spot while Claudio suffered physical injuries and was rushed to the hospital. Investigators found that the right rear portion of the car and the left front portion of the bus sustained damage. They also found skid marks measuring thirty-four (34) paces left by the bus on the third lane while they found the Lancer's on the fourth lane. 6
On the other hand, Marcelino admitted that he was the driver of the bus that hit Claudio's car, but gave a different account of the incident. According to Marcelino, he was driving on the second lane from the shoulder. Since the vehicle in front of his bus was moving sluggishly, Marcelino sped up and shifted to the third lane to overtake the former. However, Claudio's car suddenly transferred to his lane at a slower speed, forcing Marcelino to slam on the brakes to decelerate, but his bus still collided with the car. Since the speedometer of the bus was defective at that time, he estimated that he overtook the vehicle in front of him at an estimated speed of ninety (90) kilometres per hour (kph) while the speed of Claudio's car was about fifty to seventy (50-70) kph. The investigation revealed that the right rear side of the car sustained the heaviest damage. 7 CAIHTE
Ruling of the MTC
In a Decision dated 09 October 2012, the MTC found Marcelino guilty of the crime charged, to wit:
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Marcelino dela Cruz [y] Manalo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime as charged in the Information and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Four (4) months of Arresto Mayor as minimum to four (4) years, 2 months of Prision Correccional as Maximum.
Accused Marcelino dela Cruz is hereby likewise ordered (1) to pay the heirs of Azucena Miranda actual damages in the amount of P83,099.00 and P50,000.00 as moral damage[s]; (2) to pay private complainant Claudio Miranda for actual damages for the less serious physical injuries in the amount of P1,966.00; and (3) to pay the damage of the car in the amount of P160,000.00.
Costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED. 8
The MTC held that Marcelino was negligent in the operation of the bus because he failed to foresee the danger of overtaking a slower vehicle with a defective speedometer. It also noted that had Marcelino only exercised due prudence, he would have easily seen Claudio's car ahead of him before executing his passing maneuver, given his higher driving position. It observed that the skid marks left by the bus and the force which caused Claudio's car to spin and smash into the middle concrete barrier also indicated that the bus moving at high speed at the time of impact. The MTC gave no credence to Marcelino's defense that it was Claudio who acted negligently by entering the third lane without warning, finding no evidence to prove his claim other than his own testimony. 9
Marcelino appealed to the RTC. 10
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC affirmed the MTC ruling in its Decision dated 11 June 2013, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed decision of the Court a quo, the same is hereby AFFIRMED and the appeal at bench dismissed.
SO ORDERED. 11
It held that, as the driver of the overtaking bus, Marcelino failed to take the necessary precautions to ensure the safety of all vehicles concerned at the time of the incident. 12 Marcelino moved for reconsideration. 13 The RTC denied the motion, prompting Marcelino to elevate the case to the CA. 14
Ruling of the CA
On 30 January 2015, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision affirming with modification Marcelino's conviction, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated June 11, 2013 and the Order dated December 27, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court are hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the modification of the imprisonment sentence to four (4) months of arresto mayor maximum, as the minimum period, to 2 years, 10 months and 20 days of prision correccional medium, as the maximum period.
SO ORDERED.15
Agreeing with the RTC, the CA held that the proximate cause of the collision was the negligence of Marcelino, who hastily overtook another vehicle in an imprudent and reckless manner. 16
Marcelino filed a Motion for Reconsideration but this was denied in the Resolution dated 15 June 2015. 17 Hence, this Petition. DETACa
Ruling of the Court
Marcelino asserts that even if he was negligent, Claudio's contributory negligence was the proximate cause of the collision. Citing the Investigation Report and the testimony of Accident Investigator Rex Ramos (Ramos), he maintains that the collision occurred because Claudio's car suddenly encroached into his lane from lane four. He points out that even Claudio himself admitted his own negligence when he signed the Investigation Report prepared by Ramos. 18
The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General contends that the petition raises arguments that require the Court to re-examine the parties' documentary and testimonial evidence anew. Rule 45, however, limits the Court's power of review to pure questions of law.
Even granting that the rule admits of exceptions, the findings and conclusions of the lower courts are amply supported by the prosecution's evidence. The People noted that the Sketch of Incident showing Marcelino's bus and its skid marks on the third lane indicated the intense and sudden application of its brakes to avoid colliding with Claudio's car. 19
Issue
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether the CA correctly affirmed Marcelino's conviction for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property.
The Petition is unmeritorious.
To ascertain if Claudio's action was the proximate cause of the collision would require a re-examination of the evidence presented before the trial courts. However, the Court is not a trier of facts and a petition for review on certiorari should cover only questions of law. 20 For a question to be one of law, it must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence adduced by any of the litigants. The resolution of the issue must solely depend on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, as in this case, the question posed is one of fact. 21
Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are entitled to great weight and respect. Particularly, the evaluation of the credibility of witness is "best left to the trial court because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial." 22
We agree that the evidence on record fully supports the uniform finding that the proximate cause of the crash was Marcelino's careless act of hastily overtaking another vehicle.
As defined in Article 365 23 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), 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 condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place. 24
To prove a motorist's liability for the negligent operation of a vehicle, the prosecution must show a direct causal connection between such negligence and the injuries or damages suffered by the parties. To constitute the offense of reckless driving, the act must be something more than mere negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle — a willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is required. Verily, it is the inexcusable lack of precaution or conscious indifference to the consequences of the conduct that supplies the criminal intent and brings an act of mere negligence and imprudence under the operation of the penal law, regardless of whether the private offended party may himself be at fault. 25Imprudence connotes a deficiency of action. It implies a failure in precaution or a failure to take the necessary precaution once the danger or peril becomes foreseen. 26
Section 35 of Republic Act No. (RA) 4136 27 or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code provides:
Sec. 35. Restriction as to speed. — (a) Any person driving a motor vehicle on a highway shall drive the same at a careful and prudent speed, not greater nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard for the traffic, the width of the highway, and of any other condition then and there existing; and no person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway at such a speed as to endanger the life, limb and property of any person, nor at a speed greater than will permit him to bring the vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead. (Emphasis supplied)
A motorist is expected to exercise ordinary care and drive at a reasonable rate of speed commensurate with all the conditions encountered, to enable him to keep the vehicle under control and, whenever necessary, to put the vehicle to a full stop to avoid injury to others using the highway. 28 He is bound to anticipate the presence of other persons whose rights on the street or highway are equal to his own. Although he is not an insurer against injury to persons or property, it is nevertheless his duty to operate his motor vehicle with due and reasonable care and caution under the circumstances for the safety of others as well as for his own. 29 Moreover, public utility drivers are bound by even more stringent standards of care. They should have as their primary concern not only their safety and that of their passengers but also the safety of his fellow motorists. 30
In this case, Marcelino failed to meet this obligation. Since Marcelino was operating a bus, a tall vehicle, he had an elevated driving position that gave him a superior view of the road ahead. For this reason, Marcelino should have or ought to have easily noticed Claudio's slower moving car on the third lane when he decided to overtake the vehicle in front of his bus. Because the third lane was not yet clear, Marcelino should have anticipated the danger of overtaking at that point. Hence, prudence dictated that Marcelino should have waited until Claudio's car had shifted to another lane or accelerated far enough ahead that Marcelino could safely change lanes. aDSIHc
Unfortunately, Marcelino did not foresee this peril and instead went barrelling into the third lane only to slam on the brakes after realizing too late that he would be crashing into Claudio's car. The skid marks found at the scene and the resulting position of Claudio's car on the fourth lane facing the opposite direction, confirm Claudio's testimony that Marcelino was indeed over speeding at the time of the collision.
A driver attempting to overtake another bears a far greater amount of responsibility than is usual and gives rise to a reasonable presumption of negligence on the part of such person in case of an accident. 31 The rule springs from the following reasons: (1) it was the overtaker's decision to assume the risks involved in overtaking another; and (2) the overtaker, being behind the vehicle sought to be overtaken, is in a better position to ensure the safety of the vehicles concerned. It is thus the responsibility of the overtaking driver to ensure the safety of all the vehicles, passengers, and pedestrians in the immediate vicinity. 32
Since a crash resulted from Marcelino's passing maneuver, he is presumed to be the negligent party. As aptly pointed out by the MTC, there is no evidence to support his claim that Claudio's act of swerving into the third lane was the proximate cause of the collision. Other than his bare allegation, Marcelino failed to adduce proof that Claudio suddenly encroached into his lane. A mere allegation is neither proof nor evidence. 33
Neither will the Traffic Accident Report help Marcelino's cause. We agree with the CA that the Report itself is self-serving considering that the statement therein that Claudio switched lanes was solely relayed by Marcelino himself as the "DRIVER OF V2." The pertinent portion of the Traffic Incident Report reads: "x x x PER STATEMENT OF THE DRIVER OF V2, 34 HE WAS OCCUPYING LANE 03, WHEN HE SAW V1 35 COMING FROM LANE 04 CHANGING LANE TO LANE 03." 36
Further, Marcelino's assertion that Claudio admitted his contributory negligence by signing the said Traffic Accident Report deserves scant consideration. Even assuming such contributory negligence in fact exists, the same will not exonerate petitioner whose negligence had been clearly established by evidence.
In reckless imprudence cases, the accused cannot invoke another person's negligence to evade the effects of his very own negligence. 37 Notably, Marcelino himself had already admitted his negligence through his very petition where he asserted that "the mishap is not only attributable to the petitioner." 38 The statement constitutes a judicial admission made in a pleading. The allegations, statements or admissions contained in a pleading are conclusive as against the pleader and such pleader cannot subsequently take a position contrary to or inconsistent with what was pleaded. 39 Simply put, Marcelino himself lent credence to the lower courts' findings that he was indeed negligent when he crashed into Claudio's vehicle.
We now come to the proper penalty to be imposed.
Under Art. 365 (2) of the RPC, the imposable penalty for homicide resulting from reckless imprudence in the use of motor vehicle is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, which ranges from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Under Article 65 of the same Code, such penalty shall be divided into three equal portions, each of which shall form one period. In the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the proper penalty shall be within the medium period, which is three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days to four (4) years, nine (9) months and ten (10) days. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused is entitled to a minimum term to be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is arrestomayor maximum to prision correccional minimum, which is four (4) months and one day (1) to two (2) years and four (4) months. 40
In view thereof, the MTC correctly imposed the penalty of imprisonment for four (4) years and two (2) months as the maximum term of his indeterminate sentence which properly falls within prision correccional medium to maximum in its medium period. Hence, the maximum term of Marcelino's indeterminate sentence imposed by the MTC should be reinstated. However, the minimum term of his indeterminate penalty should be modified to four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor maximum, and not merely (4) months, which falls within the medium period of arrestomayor.
Anent Marcelino's civil liability, Azucena's heirs are also entitled to Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity, in addition to the Php50,000.00 awarded by the MTC as moral damages pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 41
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 30 January 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36304 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accordingly, petitioner MARCELINO DELA CRUZ y MANALO is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property.
Petitioner is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of four (4) months and one (1) day of arrestomayor as minimum and (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum. Petitioner is further ordered to:
(1) pay the heirs of Azucena Miranda Php50,000.00 in civil indemnity, Php83,099.00 in actual damages, and Php50,000.00 in moral damages; and
(2) pay private complainant Claudio Miranda actual damages for less serious physical injuries in the amount of Php1,966.00, and for damage to the car in the amount of Php160,000.00. ETHIDa
Legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) perannum is imposed on the total monetary awards, computed from the finality of this decision until full payment.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 20-36; Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Stephen A. Cruz and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela of the Eight (8th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2. CA rollo, pp. 41-44; Penned by Judge Wilfredo T. Nieves.
3. Id. at 33-40; Penned by Judge Myrna S. Lagrosa.
4. Id. at 33.
5. Id.
6. Id. at 35-35, 38.
7. Id. at 37-38.
8. Id. at 40.
9. Id. at 38-40.
10. Id. at 41.
11. Id. at 43-44.
12. Id. at 42-44.
13. Id. at 45-47.
14. Rollo, p. 20.
15. Id. at 35.
16. Id. at 38-40.
17. Id. at 37.
18. Id. at 13-17.
19. Id. at 51-52.
20. Rondal, Jr. v. Cajimat, G.R. No. 214898, 08 June 2020 [Per J. Hernando].
21. Id.
22. Villarba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 227777, 15 June 2020 [Per J. Leonen].
23. 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; 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 twenty-five 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 courts shall exercise their sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in article sixty-four.
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 courts 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 prisión 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 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.
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.
24. Gonzaga v. People, 751 Phil. 218 (2015), G.R. No. 195671, 21 January 2015 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
25. Id.; Emphasis supplied.
26. Caminos, Jr. v. People, 605 Phil. 422 (2009), G.R. No. 147437, 08 May 2009 [Per J. Tinga].
27. Entitled "AN ACT TO COMPILE THE LAWS RELATIVE TO LAND TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC RULES, TO CREATE A LAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on 20 June 1964.
28. Tabao v. People, 669 Phil. 486 (2011), G.R. No. 187246, 20 July 2011 [Per J. Brion].
29. Id.; Emphasis supplied.
30. Pangonorom v. People, 495 Phil. 195 (2005), G.R. No. 143380, 11 April 2005 [Per J. Carpio].
31. Alvero v. People, 523 Phil. 613 (2006), G.R. No. 145209, 08 June 2006 [Per J. Chico-Nazario].
32. Id.
33. Karj Global Marketing Network, Inc. v. Mara, G.R. No. 190654, 28 July 2020 [Per J. Caguioa].
34. Driven by Marcelino.
35. Driven by Claudio.
36. Rollo, pp. 33-34.
37. Genobiagon v. Court of Appeals, 258-A Phil. 201 (1989), G.R. No. L-40452, 12 October 1989 [Per Grino-Aquino].
38. Rollo, p. 16; Emphasis supplied.
39. Gonzales-Saldana v. Spouses Niamatali, 843 Phil. 787 (2018), G.R. No. 226587, 21 November 2018 [Per J.C. Reyes, Jr.].
40. People v. Garcia, 467 Phil. 1102 (2004), G.R. No. 153591, 23 February 2004 [Per J. Ynares-Santiago].
41. People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016), G.R. No. 202124, 05 April 2016 [Per J. Peralta].