488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 884, APRIL 7, 2008 489 ‘Awtr Astre Gaid vs. Pople ‘murder. Such circumstantial evidence in our view, would not $0 ORDERED. tuifieently warrant aeoneluion that private respondents are esponibl for the death of Hens, Patitonere’ mere presse st the death seen, without more, doesnot sufice to etablish prcbableesuse against them ei noteworthy that complain Sts filed to establish eancusively thet Ape, Hana’ cous in, and his workers had an ato grind ageinst Hans. The alleged quarrel of the couple che night before the incieat i ‘hoaoay and could not establish enough credible motive on the part of April, contrary to the opinion of the lavestigating Dratecutor, bcauso the sume witness who tested about the ‘lege fight alio stated thatthe couple had good relation. ‘hip and that it waa not unusual for the couple to have verbal tereatons occasionally. Baually Worth stressing isthe pos tive proof thatthe acuoed were nat the only persons present inside the couple's hours; and thatthe doo of the gate ofthe house, including the door ofthe Toom sthere the vten was found hanging, wore not so wall secured esto exclude the possibility that the act wa commited by other persons who ‘were lao then preseat in the house, or even by intradars. ‘April was not attempting t reduoe the mumber of possible ‘witnesses as stated by the investigating prosecutar when she ent her children to lilo ne it was the vetn’s decison to fend their children to Tilo upon his cousin’ invitation ieee, concerning the acto ring the bedshest, we find ‘no grave nbuse of discretion in te ruling of he DOM that an ‘ordinary person lke April could have believe thatthe police Investigation made atthe death scene and the port-nertess ‘examination conducted on the body of tho viet were alieady ‘more than enough to eonelade end close the investigation ‘Thus, we find no grave abuse of disretion onthe part of the Secretary of Justice WHEREFORE, the pottion ie GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 18, 2005 in CAG'R. SP No. T3495 is REVERSED and the Resolution dated Decenber 17,2002 ofthe Department of Justice Is AFFIRMED, Carpio Morales, Tinga, Velasee, Jr. and Brion, sd, con- Patton granted, judgment reversed Notes —Where the Ombudsman approves a City rosso fort Resolution affirming) the Prosecutors dismiseal of charges, ho then and there tales cognizance of tha cage in the ‘rercie of his primary juladition, and, by deing so, such ‘xaeise of jriaiietion bars the Department of Juste from intervening in the proliminary investigation proceedings, (Dein on Teyco, 516 SCRA 685 (20071) ‘As a general rale, the Court does not intafere with the Omoudsman's determination af the existence or sbronca of probable cause (Galerio vs. Office of the Ombudsmon [in ‘tenao}, $27 SCRA 190 20071) 000 RN, 176 NORMAN A. GAID, petitioner, os. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. IPPINES, repondent itt Lay Naglgence: Definition of Neggence: Blements of ‘Simple Negligent Standard tert n dining theher «pron te Ieggnt tm ding or act whereby injury or Gamage rent othe ‘ero or property of anather--Noglzats as bos. defined as the {aren obaere fr the proacion othe lterets facta person hat dare of eae, prcatio, end vice which the cease ans Jutly demand, whereby oudh ober persn sfrs tury, ‘The eeients of simple egigence: ere (1) that thre lk fpr: ‘SECOND DIVISION,490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 584, APRIL 7, 2009 491 Gai ve. People Guid ve. Peo euton on he prof te fede ad @) dat damage pend {Suse coun i ot inmedat a the dang io Sey te {Ea The stanae tet in dotersing whether a paron nent iting a tery ny Sage he pre rope af nthe tilda grosest man eth postion of Eitpcgn tenho negligeos is eerste, rece arm ote Pvt t's ae met of cou al {ir eure or take peta ofr ego e master ‘tu uod the tre to do o eons negligence, Retsonaie ‘rua barm lwed ty the orn the mont or of {hs proven, ls aye netnny be nine ean be helo on Same; Same; Prosimate Cause; Worde and Phrases: Dyin of Proxiate Cause; I order fo extabak a motor ai for he oligo operation of whist be haw that tee os © (let cual connection btoen suck negligence and the iso ‘Lemaave complaint of-Auniming anya that etioer had ‘eta onigont mus b shown that Rn napigence wes the pra Ine cae ofthe acient, Protease defined no hath {2th mur! and eontinuous sequen, unbroken by any fin {uereningcnse, reduces the uy, and wikoat which he sul ‘old ot have sored ode to weablah a motria Ltiy [behooves persia ot eile mst be shown th thee tres'e doze nun connection between auch nepigunce and the TWloes ov damages complsind of Tham negligence Ut le nots tnbranal entrain hea inthe enurnon of the acest oct ‘he poset use oe PETITION for review on certiorari ofthe decision and resolu tion af the Court of Appeals, ‘The fact are stated in the opialan ofthe Cour. oy I Mocua for petitioner ‘The Solicitor General for respondent. mNaa, J Before the Court je petition for review on certiorari as- sailing the 12 July 2008 Decision’ ofthe Court of Appeals and fis subsequent Resolution” denying potitoner's motion for ‘reconsideration, attioner Norman A. Gaid was charged with the eime of rcklees imprulence resulting in homelde in an information ‘which reade as fale: “Tuto or about 12:0 high noon of Ogaber 25,200, nont the Laguiincaa National Hiph Sel, Pols. Lagundige, same Onental Phipps and with the jurolition of te Honore Cour, the sad seed mentina! sbove whi devng a panonge jopey ele while batng plate ae. KVGLTH ood by fpr ibe ascend then nd there willy unary and Feonicay ran inl over Michael Daye rnng of Lele un Urey death ae pronouood bythe standing phyaan of Norther Modano Bld Center Hopital, Cagnyun de Oro Cy. ‘CONTRARY TOLAW" Pottonar entrod not guilty pl ed ‘The antecedent fete are undisputed, ‘As sround 12:00 noon on 25 October 2001, petitioner was driving his passenger jeepney along a two-lane road where ‘he Laguindingan National High Sehoo is loeated toward the direction of Moog ig Misamis Oriental His jeepney was fled to seating capacity” At tho time soveral students were coming ‘Thoresfter, tial on- “ta, Bal ened by hate Jin Mya Di ins Flows and Edgardo A. Camel. “id at pp 2828 SCA Ral pa492. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 584, APRIL 7, 2000 493 Gaid we People Grieve, People ‘ut of the school premises* Meanwhile, « fourteen yearaid ftudent, Michsel Dayata (Dayata), wos seen by eyewitness ‘Artman Bongolto (Bengals) altting noar a store on the lef fide ofthe toad. From whore he wae at the let sie of the oad, Dayata raised his lof hand to Nag down petitioner's Jeepney’ which was traveling on the right lane of the road! neither did petitioner nor the conductor, Dennis sav anybody Sagging dow the jepacy to "The next thing Bongalto ea, Dayate's fet was pinned ts the rear wheel ofthe jeepney after which, he Ini lat onthe round behind the jeepney" Another prosecution witness, Uralfe Actub (Act), who was als situated onthe left side af the ret but direty in front of the school gate, hoard "a strong impact coming from the Jeep sounding ifthe driver forced ta ncolerate in crder to hurdle an obstacle" Dayats ‘was then seen ying en the ground” and eaught in beteen the reer tires” Petisoner fit that the lot rear tre of the Jeepney nad bounced and the vehicle ted to Us right sida" DMellalos hoard a hout that a bey was run over, prompting him ta jump off the jeepney to help the vst, Petitioner stopped and saw Moliaios carrying tho body of tho victim” ‘lato loaded the vitim on motoreyle and brought im to the hospital Dayats was Gat brought tothe Laguindingan Health Canter, but it wes closed, Meals then proceeded to the Bl Salvador Hospital. Upon advice ofits doctors, however, 21, at pp. 208.21, ia "Tdat pp. 264286, Dayata was brought tothe Northern Mindango Medical Cen: ter where he was pronounced dead on aerial" De. Tammy Uy lasued an autopey report stating eranio- asthe ext of death.” She testified thatthe ‘Tho Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTO) of Laguindin- an” found potioncr guilty beyond receenable doubt of the frime charged. The lower coart eld petitioner negligent in his driving cnnaideving thatthe vistim was dragged ta edie tance of 6-70 maters from the point of impact. He was alse fcored for “not stopping his vehicle aftr noticing that the jeepney’s lef rear tire jolted enoring the vehicle to tilt to: veards the ight™ On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTCF" affirmed in toto the dessin of the MCTC. ‘The Court of Appeal ‘with mesifcation eit find pte ‘imple nogligonorosltng in homicide. ‘The Court of Appeals exonerated pottionsr ftom the charge of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide on the ground that he was not driving recklessly at tho time of the [tedent. However, the appellate eour sl ound him to be ‘negligent when he filed *to promptly stop his vehicle to ‘heck what eaused the sudden joting of ls rer tire at p48. "GK Rollo, pp. 8482 Preside by Judge Talo T Adten. Promylgsted on 30 duly 2008, "Rol. "CA Rolo pp. 74.278, Penned by Acting Judge Maminelars P-Maggstre. "Moll,494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED aid on People nits 6 February 2006 Resolution, the Cgurt of Appeals eniod potitione’s motion for reconsideration.” ‘Hence, the instant petition Petitimer submits thst the Court of Appeals ersed in find ing that “there is (sc) absolutely Tack of precaution om the part of the petitioner when he continued even after he had ‘otied thatthe left ear Ure and the jeep tod to its vit ide" Petitioner streaed that he, in fet, stopp his jp ‘when itl rear tire Bounced and upon hearing that some. body had been an ove, Moreover, ptitioner asserts that the Court of Appeals com: mitted a grave abu of discretion in convsting him of the offense of simple negligence resulting in homicide. Astuming arguendo that he faled to promptly stop his vehicle, pet Loner maintains that no prudent man placed in the eae situation could have foreseen the vehicular acsdeat or could Ihave stopped hie vehicle in time when its left rear tive ‘bounced due tthe flowing reesone (D the vietim was ony 4 trespascer; (2) petitioner’ attention was focused onthe road ‘and the students outside Use echolsgate; and (2) the jeepney ras fully loaded with passongers and cargoes and it was io post forthe petitioner to promptly stop his visio” ‘The Office of the Solictr-General (OSG) maintained that patitioner was nepligent when he continued to tun towards the direction of Moog, Laguindingen, dragging the victim « Taw meters from the poist of impact, decpte hearing that ¢ clild had been run over” ‘The presence or absence of neglgones on the pat of pa sioner is determined by the opersive events leading to the death of Dayata which actually comprised of two phases or stages. Te fist stago bogan when Dayata Magged down the Supra ote Rolo, 518. VOL. 584, APRIL 7, 2008 495, Guid ve, People “eopney while pesitoned on the left side ofthe road and ended ‘when he was ran over by the jeopney. The second stage cov red the opan between the momieat immediately star the ‘tim was run ovor and the point when pelitionar put the Jeopney to halt During the fist etago,poitioner was not shown to be ne Agent. Reckless prudence consata of vlustarity doing or faling 4 do, without malls, an act from which material damage eaulia by vaso of ea inexcusable lack of precaution nthe part of the peren perferming or filing to perform such st” In Manconareso. People,® thie Court convicted ptitioner of the erime of reckless impridence resulting i mille homicide and serious physical injuries when he wat fxd driving the [sua truck very fast bere it smashed into a Jeepney” Likaw ae, n Pangonorom v. People,” a publi lity ‘Newerving car He was Tound negligent by thie Cour. Tn the instene case, patitioner was driving slowly st the time of the aaddent, a tesifed #2 by two eyewitnesses Prosecution witness Aciub affirmed this fast en eres ‘examination, th ATTY. acta (to theta) Me. Woes, when the passage oopnay paond by the tte othe Lapulndingue National Mich Sea ta ‘ings, am epee ‘8. eabe man runing showy. * Puope Gari, 467 Phil 1102, 1081108, 629 SCRA 58, $80 2004) Pplee. Aatiday, 410 Pi 85, 8 967 SCRA 29,288 ‘Goon, “SG Nex 15978061, 16 Oster 2006, 601 SCRA 954 ‘GR No 1890, 1 Apel 2005, «55 SCRA 2 Records» 257496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED aid os. People “The slow pac of the jaepney was socended by Mellals: You tein hat yu heard somebody staid fon the oh sboting that aby was Yan oor, am Teel? a Verse @ Now, tor you heard that shouting, dl you abies ay ‘motion rom ha vba? ‘The Joop was moving slowly an nticed that here ws omathing that al the eps Heit bance pai Thump thatthe ine Tanda hot rm ute” Petitioner stated that he was driving at no more than 15 Jelometees per hour” It appears from the evidence Dayate camo from the lft sie ofthe street. Petitioner, who was driving the jeapney on the righ lane, did not see the victim flag him down. He also {alld to ee him go near the jeepney at the lft side, Undor standably, petitioner ‘was foased ‘on tho road ahead. Ta Dayata's haste to board the jep which was then running, is foot somehow got pied to the left rer Ue, as narrated by Bongolia Actub only saw Dayata after he heard a strong impact coming from the jeop. With the forogoing fut, pettoner can not be held liable during the fist stag. Specially, ho eannot bo held ible fr eelleesimprudenco resulting in homicide, as found by the teal cour. The proximate cause of the ecidant and the death of the vstim was definitely his owa negligence in tying ‘atch up withthe moving jeepney ta get ane In the instant ens, petitioner had exercised extreme pre- caution as he drove slowly upon reaching the vicinity of the febool He eanact be faulted fer not having seen the victims ‘who came from behind on the eft ide. Howorer, the Court of Appeals found petitioner gully of simple negligence resulting in homicide fr fling to stop ie, ap. 250 ld, atp 278 VOL. $84, APRIL 7, 2000 497 (aid ws, Poople “rving at the time when he noticed the bouncing of hia vehi tle, Verily, the appellat court was referring to the seznd tage ofthe ineent, [Negligence has been defined a tho failure to observe for the protection othe interests of anothar person that degre of care, preeatir, and igilaneo which the circumstances justly femand, whereby such ether person sullers inary.” ‘The clement of simple noglignce: are (1) tha there flack of precaution a tho part of the olfender; and (2) that the damage imponding to be eqused ino immesits or the dane for isnot clerl7 manifest." ‘The standarc test in determining whether » parson is nag ligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results tothe pereon or propery of anather is thie could prudent tan, in the position of te person to whom negligancs is aiributod, firesee harm ty the person injured as a reasonable conse ‘quence af th course tually pursued? Ifo, the law imposes {duty on the ator to refrain from that couree orto take pr Cautions to gucrd against ita mischievous reals, and the failure todo So constitutes noglignce, Reasonable fesight of harm, followed by the ignoring ofthe admeition born of this provision, i alnaysneceaary before negligence ean be held ko In Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court ‘he fanchivee that operates inthe North and South Lazon, ‘oll Expressway. It failed to exercne the requsite diligence ‘in maintaining he NLEX safe for motorist. Th lighted cane snd lane dividers on the highway were removed even ae flat * Remando Court of Appuns, GR. No. 92057, 8 May 1992, 28 SRA 7,7 "Reve, Lvs, Tee RevseD Pe. Coon, 1" ep 1008 Pippin National Contraction Corporations Cour ofA ‘ale, G3. No 189210, 22 August 2005, c57 SCRA 80, 8 ‘Supra ote 36 tp. 568.498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 584, APRIL 7, 2008 499 aid ve, People {ened eagareanes lay seattered on the ground. The highway was etll wet from the juice and exp ofthe Nattoned suger ‘anes. Tho pattionr chould have freee that the wet eon tion of the highway would endangor matorsta passing by ai ‘ight of inthe wee hours ofthe morning” Cansequenty, ‘was held liable for damages Jn an American ease, Hemondes 0. Lukas.” 9 motirist traveling within the speed limit and di oll was possible to ‘void string a child who was then six years old only. The place of the incident was & neighborhood where children were playing in the parloways on prior oceasions. The court ruled {hat i must be tll proven that the driver did not exerise de care The evidence showed that the driver war proceeding {in lawfol manner within the speed limit when the Sid ran Into tho stot and was struck by tho drivorsvohile Cleary, this was an emorgeney situation thrust upan the driver ton ‘suddenly to avoid. ‘In thia cao, the courts below zeroed in onthe face Ua pe tiioner didnot stop the jeepney when he felt the bouncing at ‘is vehile, a circumstance which the appelinte court equates swith negligence Peitioner contends that be didnt inne stay tap beeause he did not see anybody go near his vile tthe Lime of the incident.” Assuming arguendo that petitioner had boon nepligant, i must be shown that his negligence was the proximate cause of the acedent.Proximate enss is defined ao hat whlch ln te ‘natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any eicent, Intervning eause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred," In order to establish mo a saan E28 1028 "Colima «People, OR. No, 15238, 9 Februcy 2008, 82 [SORA 44, 0; Lambert Heirs of Ray Csdion, G2 No 8070, 25. February 005,482 SORA 2a 291, St Mary Academy ©, Cor Gaid ve, People ‘ori’ iaility for the negligent operation of a vehicle, it must be shown that there was e dict causal connection betwees such negligence and the injuries or damages com- plained of Thus, ngligence thet isnot substantial contrib ‘tng fictor in the causation of the aetident isnot the prox imate crue of en injury.” ‘The ead injuries sustained by Dayata atthe print of im- pact proved to be the immediate ext of his death, a indi- fated in the postmortem findings” His skull was rushed as ‘reeul ofthe aceident. Fad petitioner immediately stopped the jegney, t would stil ot Aave saved the lip of the wet 5th injuries he suflerod wor fatal ‘The evidence on record do not show that tho jeepney ragged the victim after he wae hit and run ver bythe Joep ‘ey. Quit th contrary, the evidence dssloses chat the vsti wat no: deagged at al In Tac, ite the other way around, Bongole narrated thet after the inpact, he aw Dayan let tehted Gh fecpeey.” Actab wow Doyaia in a proae pootion, snd bleeding within seonda aor smpact™ Right afer the imps, Mellnos immediatly jumped out of the jespney and sw the vies lying on the ground." The distance of 5.70 motes is the fongth of spaca botwaon tho spot where the stim Gl to tho ground and the apet where the jeepney. ‘anos, 498 PA. 678,886,376 SCRA 473,480 (2002); Reyer £65 Pi. 46,685, 06 SCRA 102, 1081000. a0. Jot 3» Avronoonz® Hh ting Brantoter 8, Gor aman 84 Mo 1290, 21 8W24 260 (1955) an Salerno Lar, 169 Py Coma 9,882 4281002 1099), ‘Stacrdsp 65 “Biya p28500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ‘Gail People ‘topped as observed by the tril judge during the eoular in Sspection atthe scene ofthe esident™ Morsove, more suspicions and speculations thatthe vsti ‘ould have lived had paitioner topped ean never be the basis ofa conviction in a criminal ease" The Court must be sat Sed that the guilt of the accused had been proven beyond reasonable doubt." Conviction rust rest on nothing les than, ‘moral certninty ofthe guilt of Uhe accused. The overriding ‘easideration i tt whether the court doubt the innoenee of the secured but whether it entertain doubt as to his pile.” Clearly thon, the prosecution was not ble to etablsh that the proximate eause of the vitins death was petitioner's alleged negligence, sat al, even during the second rage of fhe ineident dure to render assistance to rndonmont 9 Iheble under Avile 276 of the Rew ‘vor, the omission isnot coved by the infrmation. Tht, to hold petitioner eiminally Hable under the provision would be tantamount ta a denial of due process, ‘Thorofore, petitioner must be acquitted a least on resson- sble doubt. The award of damages must alo be deleted pur Suaat te Article 2179 of the Civil Code which seta that when the plaints own neglignce was the immediate and prox! rate cause o his injury, he eannot recver damages WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeala dated 12 July 2006 is REVERSED and SEP ASIDE, Petioner Norman A. Grid is ACQUITTED of I, at p 288, The two separate pos aro marke as Babs ‘ps and “Pt on the atch of te acldnt sone drawn by wines ‘Bones, sh Fan Beh "2" ord, 8 Poope e Ador, GR. Nos 1806980, 14 June 2004, 432 People. Sl, LR, No, 1185047 May 290, 2 SCRA 92 VOL. 584, APRIL 7, 2000 501 aid va, People ‘he rine of Simple Nogligence Resulting in Homicide ae {ound br the Court of Appeals and of the charge of Hackloas Impradence Resulting in Homicide in Criminal Case No. 1937 ofthe MCTC of Lguindiagan, Misamis Orient ‘SO ORDERED. Guisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio-Morale and Porta, M.,concae Voie, Jr, J, Please see Dissent DISSENTING OPINION VELASCO, IR, J. ‘With all du respect to my esteomed colleague, Mr. Justice ‘Tinge, who has, as usual, prepared a wellwetten and som. {hat politienar Norman A Gald should be aoqited of the crim of Simple Negligence Resulting in Homicide. Simple nedligence wat shown on the part of ptiioner at the seam stage ofthe operative evonis lading tthe death of Dayata, The second stage constituted the tine between the ‘moment immadiatsly after the vitim was nn over and the point when petitanerstzpped the jeepney. ‘Article 385 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines “sim ple negligence” a8 one tht “consis in the lack of precsution playin howe eases in which the damage impending be ‘aused isnot immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.” ‘The elements of simple imprudence are (1) that there is luck of ocaution on the part ofthe offender, and (2) tha the damage impending t be ease is not immediate or the dan ier isnot clearly manifes." As early atin People. Viston 21,8, Reyes, Te Rese Pac. Coos 988 (22h) OR No. 728, September 8 1921502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED aid ve Pople ‘the Gourt defined simple negligence, penalized under what i now Art. 865 of the RPC, as “a more lack of prevision In situation where either the threatened ar ls hot immed forthe danger not openly viable" Elsrise put, the gravee, ofthe offense ef simple negligence isthe failure to exerciee the diligence necessitated o called for bythe situation which ‘was not immediatly ifedertructve but which culminated ‘the present case, in the death ofa human being. On Octaber 8, 2001, on or about 1:0 high noon, the vie tim Dayata was waiting for «wide home in front of the gate af ‘aguindingan National High Scheel, Misamis Oriental when be was run over by a pastengor utility jeep, driven by pet toner. Dayata was dragged toa distanco of 6.7 meters from the point of impact before paitioner stopped the jeep which ‘wat running at an estimated speed of 15 lslometers pe hour Petitioner did not got off to attend t2 the vsti; aly the conductor did. The conductor loaded the victim on mine. fo, and brought the victim to the howptal. The vite was Alocired dead on errival. Petitioner claimed tat he did ot fee the victim prior othe accident and wag unavace of ow it ‘happened because the pastengor jp fully loaded, ‘Tho evidence shows that petitioner continued on it soute son after sensing that he had run over “hatd object” At this point, petitioner should have displayed precaution ty Stopping on hic tracks. Unfortunately, thie was not done Instead, even ater he heard the shout “adunay bata nals: sant" which means “a child has buen run over” petitioner ‘onetheless continued to run towards the direction of Mog, Laguindingon, dragging the victim a few meters fiom the point of impact. His tack of eare was, thus, prosiable Indeod, petitioner could not exonerat himself frm his negligent at. He filed the test of beng & prudent man. The test for determining whether or not a persons negligent in doing an act that results in damage or injoy tothe person o property of anather is: Would » prudent man, in the post tion of the porson to whom negligence is attributed, VOL, 884, APRIL 7, 2000 503, Gaid ve. People Toresee harm to the person injured as a ressonable ‘consequence of the ecurse about to be purtued? II 6, the law imposes the duty on the dosr to refrain from that ‘parse o tae presution against it mlsehievous results, and the failure tod 20 contitaten negligence, Reasonable ore fight of harm, fllowed by ignoring the admonition borne of this previson isthe constitutive fet in negligence: ‘Bven the Death Cortes ofthe vit snd the tatimn- nies of Dr. Remedios L. Uy and Dr. Tammy L. Uy of the Na tional Bureau of Investigation proved thatthe vsti died of Injuries caused by the fores or impact and found exten sivlcerious fratures and disfigurement aa described in the ‘Autopsy Report” ‘Dr, Tarumy futher testified that bated oa the type, mule plist, and severity ofthe Snjuries to the victim's hed, he Tlieved that the head was ran over and subsequent, the ‘dy yr raged alms basal the multiply nf th ahs "The degree precaution and diligence requir of an ind vidual in any given cae oo as to avoid being charged with reckossnass varios with the degree of the danger. Ifthe dan: ger of doing harm to a person or to anathers property, om ‘coun! of a certain line of conduct, is gros, the individual ‘who chooses to fellow that particular rourso of conduct 1s Compalled to be vary aru in order to provent or avoid he damage or injury. On the other band, ifthe danger ie empl, very lite enre i required. Iti, thus, posible that there ace Infinite degrees of precaution or dligence, from the iost slight and instantaneous thought or the transitory glance of to the mat vigilant aflrt. The duty of the pero to "9 RO, Aaclo, Te Revs Prat. Come 602-609 (1888 ot. ing Picat».Smi 9 Pi 808, 818.0918) Taya TSN, Jane 24,2092, . 22504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Gaid vm People tmpley more or lets degre of care in such nsea will pond ‘upon the circumstances ofeach particular ease ‘An example of simple imprudence is case where the driver of wear, passing along the street ofa city the speed Drescribed by the ordinances end leding his tea fants fide by a strap attached to the bridle or heed of one of te horses, on turning a corner and in a moment of ditrociy dos not se0 a child asleep in the gutter on the ed ae team opposite to him. by reasan where the chil is has ones by the art and killed. The act cannot be denomiantod er Purely acidentl, beatae ifthe cart driver hal been paying tention to his duty he would have seen the child arene likely would have been able to avoid the accident. Nov ext be called gross orreekossnogligence, bese he as not ie to foresee the extremely unusual oecarrence ofa child bey asleep in the gutta” In tho fails similar cae of People v, De lv Santos, where petitioner Glenn De los Santos run over sevore! Phleenns 28 doing thelr jogging, killing 1 of thom and injuring another 10, thie Court se¢ aide"ine Regional Trial Court's convitin of Glenn fur the complee ‘rime of multiple murler, multiple frstrted muster aed ‘multiple attempted murder, with the toe of motor while we he qualifying circumstance. We held thet what happened so the Woe hours of the morning with cverent tLe aad tke PNP trainees who wore hard to discern due to thei dane attire and running atthe wrong sde ofthe road wat an sce dent, Glenn was, however, found to be negligent ia fellne spply the brakes, orto serve his vehicle tothe let or foe safe place the moment he heard and faethe feat bumnng ‘RC Aquino, supra not 8 tp. 60; cing Vite, supra sate "lds at p60 ting US. o, Rentiue, $2 Phi 438 (1918: US. Clamente, 24 Pal 118843), "GH No. 101685, Mare 27, 2001, 866 SCRA As VOL. 584, APRIL 7, 2000 505 Gaid ve Pople ‘huda, Had he done so, many trainese would have been that inthe instant ease, it could be argued that victim Dayate might have died instantaneously upon being run over ly the lft eae tre of ptitioner’s jeepney: Noncte, less, that is slrendy academic a this pois. Had putitioner promptly splid the brakes when he heard the shout that he an over tomeone and fle the burp, eould the icine survived? Alay, that cannot be answered az the victin reared for approximately 6.7 mates. If indeed ptitionars Jeepney was running a only around I6 kilometers par how, it ‘would be easy to stp the jeepney within a distance of five (0) foot, Had ke instantly applied the brakes and put the jespacy to a sudden stop, hence, the life of Dayata could have bose saved. Worse, the lack of care sad precaution af petitions was shown i his uter lnk of eaneern towards the vil We ‘was only condustor who brought the vit om a motorcy let the hospital when petitinsr was daty-und ta do so, lear to my mind is that patitioner did not exercise the noceesry ate expected of him given the circumstances, What ‘he Court ai in De fos Santos ie apropos that “lA] man must ‘se common sense, and exorese due reflection in all his sot itis hie duy ta be cautious, earful and prodent, if aot foe instint, then through fear of incutring punishment He iy esponsible for such resulls ne anyone might foesee and fer sete which no ope would have performed except through cal able abandon” In the instant case, lke in De lor Santo, petitioner's of fonse isin not aplying the brakes when he hoor the shout and felt the bump that he ran over something. These ae sot Aenied by ptitiner. Petitioner, thu, fall! fo show lack of recaution ven the czeumnstances = » S ot “Id p40; citing US. w, Meleco, 14 Pi. 48,470 (1900), ion Pvp. Pay, No. T4524, Nove I, to8, 16h geek506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ‘De Vera ue De Vor VOL, 884, APRIL 7, 2008 807 De Vora vs. De Ver ‘Therefore, I vote to affirm the finding of the Court of Ap peals that petitioner is gully beyond reasonable doubt ofthe Teaser offense of Simple Negligence Resulting in Homicide under Art. 365 of the RPC, with the cortspanding penalty of four 4) months imprisonment, inluding the award of evi indemnity, moral and atual damages, plas costs FROM ALL THE FOREGOING REASONS, 1, thettor, ‘vote forthe outright DISMISSAL ofthe instant petition for Tek of ert, Patton granted, judgment reversed and set aside, [Note—A plaintiff who is parily respnsible br his own in Jury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but ‘mutt bear the consequences of his own negligence (yi vs ‘Begoso, 414 SCRA 231 (2008) GR No. 72482, Ape 72008 ROSARIO 7, DB VERA, petitioner, vs. GEREN A. DE VERA, respondent. Criminal Procedure: Judgment: In jadgmants of cynietion, ‘erro nthe den cannot be traced wilt te ated conn ‘ert 7 he hima, moves or consideration fo epee fom ‘he decision In Judgments‘ onion, eer Inthe dts anna be ese une the sete eaten thet othe hie ‘elt moves fr econsderson oor appear, te dein ‘Some: Same: The requisite consent ofthe esd i ined prt hm fram hating 9 def himaetf anew frm mre ces Senses or gnats which the postin tr the court may hate ‘THIRD DIVISION, ‘ecrlesad ke explained ia Pople Viernes G72 SORA 223 {Boo the ral on the modieaton of adgmente of ein ha Urge sigieantshangoe beer and sr the 1964 an 05 “mendnenes the Rsles Boor tha 1904 Re of Csr, ele In'varou ease Cat he proseaton (or private complain canst ‘nove to iceace the peels tmpased ns promulgatd ulgyent, {ie to do so would pce the accused ia double jeopardy. Toe 1904 Smundment, boreer albwed the prosecutor to more the ali Catone the sting aie ha judgment before f beam fil or ‘Sh pel a perfect a 1985, the Hale amended tude (a pe pes io i ee" ety prio ‘artr ruling poking the pensation from soking » meas tion of jdament of conviction. Significant, th prcet Fas rained tho phrase “spon tnton of the netind” Gv, the ‘gelatasonnat ofthe anued i ltanded to gett hs om Iaving to defied himself now from gore serie offense be et {ies hich the proscar the out aye oven. Same: Mizeling Oreumstoncr, Voluntary Serene Re efor Vsiurtary Surrender be Appreaates Thence eo tury tarondr i apantonity and the Inte of the aca gl ima up end subrthimael 6 the authori either case he otnoaledgerie il rhe wsher ose the guthrie the reahe Gd expense tht may be incurred for his search and capture Poe ‘eluntiry surerter to be appreciate, the faring rot ‘hou be poset 1) the elder bas aot been stair: 2) {he fender surrendered ims to person in story he Iters agent and 8) the surender war volntay. Tho evens of ‘eltry surender is spontaneity andthe ito fhe anced fe himnl cp and aut meet tho authorise ear use fe cinowiedges bi guilt ho wiehce to sav the ethane he tobe and epenae hat may be sneered for ls eh dente ‘Without these soments ant where the clear reson forthe posed surencer ae th nertablity of eres the seed wens Eis way, ho eurendor le nat epntanoaus and, therfore, eat bo eharclored “voluntary seeder” to vere a © ising Some: Same: Say That there i no pending warran farest, or information fled xa ourthreguite Bre “voluntary surr™ tay be appreeted in for of he ascsnd Petitioner i cate 0