ROGELIO J. GONZAGA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R.
No. 195671, January 21, 2015
“x x x.
Reckless
imprudence, as defined in Article 36540 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 knowledgeof 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, aswell 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 degreeupon 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
X x x.
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.
X x x.”
Footnotes
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 mayorin its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium
period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of
arresto mayorin its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it would
have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menorin 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 mayorin 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.
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 temporalin 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).
