Abueva Vs People

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 12

[G.R. No. 134387.

September 27, 2002

TEOFILO ABUEVA Y CAGASAN, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE


PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.:

This petition for review seeks the reversal of the decision1 of the
Court of Appeals dated November 27, 1997, in CA-G.R. No. 18212
and its resolution2 dated May 20, 1998, denying petitioners motion
for reconsideration. The assailed decision affirmed that of the trial
court in Criminal Case No. 28091-92, finding petitioner guilty of
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.3 Petitioner now prays for
acquittal.

Petitioner Teofilo Abueva y Cagasan was charged before the


Regional Trial Court of Davao City, in an information which reads:

That on or about August 7, 1992, in the City of Davao, Philippines,


and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
mentioned accused, being an employee of BACHELOR EXPRESS,
INC., and while driving a FUSO BUS (For Hire) with Plate No. KVA
211 registered under VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC. along Ecoland
Terminal, Matina Davao City, and without taking due precaution to
prevent injury to persons, wilfully, unlawfully and suddenly drove
and moved the said motor vehicle out of the terminal building even
before Lourdes Mangruban, a passenger of said bus, could properly
find and safely take her seat, and that as a direct result of said
negligence, recklessness and carelessness, LOURDES MANGRUBAN
fell down to the cemented pavement of the terminal road and
sustained the following injuries:

Intracerebral Blood; Subdural Hematoma; Cerebral Contusion and


Laceration Left Temporal Area; Subdural Contusion Right Temporal
Area.

which caused her death.


That immediately after LOURDES MANGRUBAN fell down, the
accused wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously failed to render or lend
assistance on the spot to the victim such help as may be in the
hands of the accused to give.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4 cräläwvirtual ib räry

Assisted by counsel de parte, petitioner pleaded not guilty upon


arraignment.

During trial, the prosecution and the defense presented different


versions of the occurrences that led to Lourdes Mangrubans death.

For the prosecution, IRENEO MANGRUBAN, the victims brother,


testified5 that at around 6:00 A.M. of August 7, 1992, he was with
his siblings Lourdes and Abundio Mangruban, and their paralyzed
aunt Ginobata Mangruban. They went to the Ecoland Bus Terminal
in Matina, Davao City. Lourdes was tasked to accompany their aunt
to Butuan City.

At the terminal, Raul Quiblat,6 a dispatcher for the bus company


Bachelor Express, Inc., approached and informed them that a bus
bound for Tacloban via Cebu and Butuan was about to leave. They
were told to wait as the bus maneuvered to its proper position prior
to departure. The said bus, driven by petitioner, came to a full stop
in front of the terminal building. Ireneo, who was assisting his aunt,
was the first one to board the bus. Lourdes was close behind.
Ireneo was already inside the bus, while his aunt, on the lookout for
available seats, was still standing on the second stepboard of the
middle entrance. As they negotiated their way towards the back of
the bus, Lourdes, with luggage in hand, was waiting on the first
stepboard when the bus suddenly moved.

Due to the sudden movement, according to the witness, Lourdes fell


off the bus and hit her head on the cement pavement below. The
conductor shouted that a passenger fell off the bus. The bus
immediately stopped, but only after moving about six meters. When
the witness learned that it was Lourdes who fell off the bus, he
immediately disembarked to help his sister. Ginobata, assisted by
Abundio Mangruban, likewise disembarked. According to the
witness, the driver did not disembark to assist Lourdes, while a
dispatcher of the bus company assured them that there was nothing
to worry about because the victim was not bleeding. Petitioner
continued driving per his scheduled trip.

Lourdes was taken to the San Pedro Hospital where a brain scan
revealed the presence of a blood clot that needed immediate
surgery. The bus company refused to give financial assistance to
the Mangrubans. On their own, the family raised the amount
required by the hospital as downpayment for the operation. Surgery
was performed but Lourdes never regained consciousness and
expired five days later.

For the defense, MELQUIADES ROJAS,7 the bus conductor, testified


that on August 7, 1992, at about 6:00 A.M., while the bus of
Bachelor Express, Inc., which was bound for Butuan was parked in
the Ecoland Terminal, Ireneo, Lourdes, and their aunt Ginobata
boarded the bus and took their seats. He handed to them their
tickets, and collected their fares, and then he disembarked to remit
his collections to the cashier. Thereafter, he asked for clearance
from the dispatcher so the bus could leave the terminal. Raul
Quiblat, the dispatcher of the bus, made a final inspection of the
exterior of the bus and then instructed the conductor to go. The
conductor returned to the bus, made a final check on the
passengers, and blew his whistle as a signal to petitioner to
commence the trip.

While the bus was already in motion, according to the witness,


Lourdes Mangruban suddenly knocked on the ceiling of the bus and
informed Rojas that she wanted to get off the bus. He saw Lourdes
kiss and bid her aunt a safe trip. Lourdes started walking towards
the exit. Rojas warned her to wait for the bus to come to a full stop
before alighting but the victim did not heed the warning and
continued to rush towards the exit. Rojas blew his whistle to tell
petitioner to stop the bus. However, although he already gave the
signal and before petitioner could put the bus to a stop at the side
of the road, Lourdes, with her body facing the door, jumped out.
Rojas tried to grab her arm but failed to prevent her from jumping
off the bus.
TEOFILO ABUEVA, the driver of the bus and petitioner herein,
testified8 that on the 6:00 A.M. trip of August 7, 1992, after he was
given the signal by the dispatcher to leave, he started the engine of
the bus. After having traveled about five to six meters, he heard
shouts from the people at the terminal, saying that someone had
jumped from the bus. He stopped the bus, immediately alighted,
and saw the dispatcher and a terminal helper assisting the woman
who had jumped off. He saw them carry the woman to a public
utility vehicle. He then asked the one in-charge of the terminal if
they could leave to continue the trip. After he was told that they
could and that the victim was going to be taken to the hospital, he
started to drive the bus on its way.

QUINTIN BORROMEO, a laborer at the Ecoland Terminal,


testified9 that he boarded the bus bound for Tacloban with the
intention of having breakfast in Ma-a, Davao City, a place the bus
was going to pass. He recalled that he was on the stepboard of the
rear door, clinging to the handlebars and facing the direction of the
driver when a girl passed behind him. When he turned to look back
at her, she had already fallen off the bus. The bus was moving
slowly at the time and the conductor was issuing tickets inside. It
was Manoling Gaviola, Jessie Aguirre, and the dispatcher
Quiblat10 who assisted the girl after her fall. Confronted with his
conflicting testimony whether the girl jumped or fell, the witness
stated that she fell and she jumped.11 He admitted, however, that
he did not know whether she had just boarded or was already inside
the bus when he actually noticed her pass behind him.12 cräläwvirtual ibrä ry

MANOLING GAVIOLA testified that while he was at his workstation


at the Ecoland Terminal that fateful day, he heard the passengers of
a Bachelor bus shouting that a passenger had jumped. He rushed to
the aid of the passenger. Together with Jessie and the companions
of the passenger, they took her to the hospital.

RAUL QUIBLAT,13 the dispatcher, testified that he saw Lourdes jump


from the bus at its rear right side. He testified that he actually saw
Lourdes from the time she was in mid-air until she landed on the
ground. She first landed on her buttocks and then her head hit the
ground.14 The bus left the terminal an hour after the incident, after
the driver was told by the officer-in-charge that the matter had
been reported to the management and would be taken care of. The
driver was in fact frightened, according to the witness, and did not
leave until finally told to do so.

The trial court convicted petitioner, as follows:

WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused TEOFILO ABUEVA Y


CAGASAN, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO HOMICIDE under Article
365 of the Revised Penal Code which is punishable with Arresto
Mayor in its Maximum period as Minimum to Prision Correccional in
its Medium Period and accordingly sentence said accused to suffer
Two (2) Year[s] Ten (10) months and Twenty (20) Days of Prision
Correccional. And as civil liability, accused is held liable and ordered
to pay to the surviving heirs or parents of Lourdes Mangruban the
following:

1. P50,000.00 for actual expenses for medicine and attending


physicians fees;

2. P4,500.00 as funeral expenses; and

3 P50,000.00 as indemnity to (sic) the death of Lourdes Mangruban.

4. The cost.

SO ORDERED.15 cräläwvirtua lib räry

Pursuant to a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the prosecution,


the trial court, in an Order dated March 10, 1995, increased the
amount of actual expenses for medicine and attending physicians
fees from P50,000 to P148,202.70.16 cräläwvirt ualib rä ry

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts judgment


of conviction. But the CA modified the RTC decision by increasing
the penalty imposed by one degree, in view of the presence of the
qualifying circumstance of failure to lend assistance on the spot to
the injured party.17 From the penalty meted by the RTC of two (2)
years, ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of prision
correccional,18 the Court of Appeals imposed the indeterminate
penalty of one (1) year, seven (7) months and eleven (11) days of
prision correccional as minimum, to six (6) years, one (1) month
and eleven (11) days of prision mayor as maximum.19 The
dispositive portion of the CA decision states:

WHEREFORE, except for the modification of the indeterminate


penalty of the accused-appellant, as above indicated, the judgment
of conviction appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in all other
respects.

Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.20 cräläwvirtua lib räry

The Court of Appeals denied petitioners motion for reconsideration,


for lack of merit.

Hence, this petition for review filed by petitioner on the ground


that:

IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONER AND IN


INCREASING THE PENALTY, THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS
COMMITTED A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS AND HAS DECIDED A
QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY PROBABLY NOT IN ACCORD
WITH LAW OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME
COURT.21 cräläwvirt ualib rä ry

There are two issues for our resolution: (1) whether or not the
prosecution has proven the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable
doubt; and (2) whether or not the qualifying circumstance, that the
offender failed to lend on the spot to the injured parties such
assistance as may be in his hands to give, should be considered
against the petitioner.

On the first issue, petitioner urges us to re-examine the factual


findings of both the trial and appellate courts. Petitioner contends
that the Court of Appeals misapprehended facts and disregarded the
evidence presented by the defense. Conviction was allegedly based
only on the testimony of Ireneo Mangruban whose testimony should
not be given much weight and credit. Ireneo was clearly a biased
witness whose testimony was full of inconsistencies, according to
petitioner. He reiterates the testimonies of defense witnesses
attesting to the fact that Lourdes jumped off the bus and should be
faulted for what befell her.

In contrast, the prosecution sticks to its version that Lourdes fell


off the bus as a result of petitioners reckless disregard for the safety
of the passengers, when he started the bus without making sure
everyone was properly seated or at least in a secure position.
According to the prosecution, petitioner failed to exercise
extraordinary care and caution when he drove off without verifying
whether the passengers of the bus were already safely seated.

After a careful review of the records, we agree with the factual


findings of the trial and appellate courts showing that the victim,
Lourdes Mangruban, fell rather than jumped off the bus. The trial
court found Ireneos testimony on this point to be credible and
convincing,22 and declared the petitioner liable for reckless
imprudence. The Court of Appeals upheld the prosecutions version
regarding the incident, saying that it was more credible and
consistent with human experience.23 This Court will not interfere
with the trial courts assessment of the credibility of the witnesses,
except where it is shown that the trial court has overlooked some
material fact or circumstance that could lead to a different result.
This is especially true when said assessment is affirmed by the
Court of Appeals.24cräläwvirt ualib rä ry

As held by the appellate court:

The claim of the defense that the deceased jumped off the bus is
incredible and contrary to human experience. If it is indeed true
that the deceased never intended to take a bus trip with her aunt,
she would never have taken a seat normally reserved for
passengers and waited until the very last moment when the bus
was already moving before informing the conductor that she was
getting off. Even assuming that the deceased indeed rushed
towards the exit and jumped off the bus, she would have been
facing the exit. Had the deceased truly jumped, she would have
landed on her feet, and her momentum would have caused her to
fall face down. Hence, her injuries should have been located at the
frontal area of her body. However, Raul Quiblat, the dispatcher of
Bachelor Express, Inc., testified on cross examination that the
deceased landed on her buttocks then fell on her back, causing the
back of her head to hit the cemented pavement, Quiblats testimony
gave credence to the prosecutions contention that the deceased was
standing on the stepboard with her back facing the exit when she
fell.25
c räläwvirtual ibrä ry

The appellate court also found that the alleged inconsistency in


witness Ireneos testimony is only in a minor detail. It only involves
his location or position inside the bus, relative to that of Lourdes. He
remains consistent in his testimony that Lourdes was only on the
first stepboard of the bus and that the sudden motion of the bus
was what caused his sister to fall. Like the trial and appellate courts,
we find this more in consonance with ordinary human experience.
The prosecution has provided sufficient, clear and convincing basis
for the conclusion that Lourdes fell off the bus due to the reckless
act of the petitioner.

Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code states that 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 (1) his
employment or occupation; (2) his degree of intelligence; (3) his
physical condition; and (4) other circumstances regarding persons,
time and place.

Petitioner herein is a professional driver who has been in the employ


of the bus company for 18 years26 and has undergone training
courses and seminars27 to improve his skills as a driver. He is
expected to be well aware of his responsibilities to his passengers.
Not only must he make sure that they reach their destinations on
time, he must also ensure their safety while they are boarding,
during the entire trip, and upon disembarking from the vehicle.

Hereunder for appreciation of petitioners liability is a pertinent


excerpt from the transcript of his testimony in open court:
COURT: The Court would like to clarify

Q: Now, did the Court hear you right when you said that after the
signal for you to leave was given, your bus has just covered about a
distance of six (6) meters when you suddenly heard the shouts that
somebody had jumped out of your bus, is that correct?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: Now, according to you actually when you started the engine and
you began to move, you left the care, the welfare and safety of your
passengers to your conductor, is that correct?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: In other words, you want the Court to understand, as far as you


are concerned, you simply concentrated on your driving to move
forward without bothering to check on the situation or condition of
your passengers on that occasion?

A: I relied on the dispatcher, Your Honor, because before the bus


leaves, he sees to it that everything is okay, Your Honor.

Q: That is why, your answer, as far as you are concerned, you


simply rely on them, on your part you do not seem to take any
pains or trouble?

A: It is only on the dispatchers order that I follow and on the


conductors advice.

Q: Precisely, that is why on your part you did not anymore take the
trouble or bother to check up further as to the actual conditions or
situation of your passengers because you just relied completely on
youryou allegedly rely only upon your dispatcher or conductor, is
that it?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

The lack of care and precaution with which petitioner started the
bus is inexcusable.
As held in People vs. de los Santos:28 cräläwvirtualibräry

A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection


in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful, and
prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear of incurring
punishment. He is responsible for such results as anyone
might foresee and for acts which no one would have
performed except through culpable abandon. Otherwise his
own person, rights and property, all those of his fellow-
beings, would ever be exposed to all manner of danger and
injury.

Having failed to exercise due diligence that resulted in the tragic


incident, petitioners liability for the death of passenger Lourdes
Mangruban, as found by the lower courts, must be sustained.

However, while petitioners recklessness has been sufficiently


established, we cannot concur with the ruling of the Court of
Appeals that the circumstance defined in the last paragraph of
Article 365, Revised Penal Code, has been indubitably proved by the
prosecution, with the result that petitioners sentence was increased
by one degree.

The assailed decision curtly ruled on this point, thus: In finding the
accused-appellant guilty, the trial court failed to take into account
the qualifying circumstance of failure to lend assistance on the spot
to the deceased.29 Ireneo Mangruban testified that the accused-
appellant did not bother to disembark after the accident.30 cräläwvirtua lib räry

Nothing is said by the CA decision regarding the limiting element in


the last paragraph of Article 365, which reads: The penalty next
higher in degree to those provided in this article shall be imposed
upon the offender who fails to lend on the spot such help as may be
in his hands to give. The obligation under this paragraph, in our
view, is dependent on the means in the hands of appellant,
requiring adequate proof.

On this point, the appellate court merely relied upon the sparse
one-line testimony of Ireneo Mangruban that appellant did not
bother to disembark after the accident,31 and by implication did not
assist the injured party. No other witness corroborated his
statement on this matter. But there are witnesses who testified to
the contrary. The records show that petitioner stated under oath
that he alighted from the bus32 and saw that several people were
assisting the injured party. Those who helped included the terminal
aide and the dispatcher.33 Petitioners testimony here was
corroborated by other witnesses who testified that laborers Quintin
Borromeo and Manoling Gaviola, together with the bus dispatcher
Raul Quiblat and a certain Jessie, assisted the victim.34 Petitioner
saw that Lourdes was carried and boarded onto a public utility
vehicle.35 He testified that after the incident and before the bus left
the terminal, he first asked the dispatcher if he could already leave,
and the dispatcher told him that he could, since the victim would be
brought to the hospital.36 It took some time (an hour) for the bus to
leave the terminal because it waited for the order of the
dispatcher.37 For that length of time the driver surely did not stay
rooted in his seat.

The assistance required by Article 365,38 Revised Penal Code, is one


which may be in the hands of the offender to give. We must
therefore take into consideration the type and degree of assistance
that the offender, at the time and place of the incident, is capable of
giving.

Under the circumstances of this case, we find that petitioner is not a


hit-and-run driver. He exerted efforts to see to it that the victim had
been attended to. There were several people assisting the victim,
including his co-employees working for the bus company. The
injured party was carried from the terminal, to a vehicle, then to the
hospital. Before petitioner was given clearance by the dispatcher to
leave, an hour later, he was assured that the victim was brought
already to the hospital. We note that petitioner had a bus full of
passengers requiring also his attention. He could only do so much,
so that the burden of helping the injured party was shared by the
bus company personnel and other good Samaritans.

In sum, we hold that the attendant circumstance of failure to lend


assistance defined in the last paragraph of Article 365, Revised
Penal Code, was not adequately proved by the evidence for the
prosecution. The trial court did not err in disregarding said
circumstance in the sentencing of the accused. However, the
penalty imposed on petitioner ought to be modified.

The penalty prescribed in case of homicide resulting from reckless


imprudence in the use of a motor vehicle, under par. 2 of Article
365, Revised Penal Code, is prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, or from two (2) years, four (4) months and one
(1) day to six (6) years.39 Following the provisions of Act No. 4103,
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty to be actually imposed
should be reduced as therein provided. Accordingly, petitioner
should be sentenced 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.40 cräläwvirtual ibräry

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-


G.R. No. 18212, is hereby MODIFIED. Petitioner TEOFILO ABUEVA Y
CAGASAN is declared guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide, and he is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison
term of 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. The award of damages in the amounts of
P148,202.70 for actual expenses for medicine and attending
physicians fees, P4,500.00 as funeral expenses and P50,000.00 as
civil indemnity for the death of Lourdes Mangruban,
are AFFIRMED.

No pronouncement as to cost.

SO ORDERED.

You might also like