Abueva Vs People
Abueva Vs People
Abueva Vs People
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.
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.
4. The cost.
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.
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
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?
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?
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?
The lack of care and precaution with which petitioner started the
bus is inexcusable.
As held in People vs. de los Santos:28 cräläwvirtualibräry
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
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.
No pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.