Pacis, Baluyot, Reyes & de Leon For Petitioner. The Solicitor General For Respondents
Pacis, Baluyot, Reyes & de Leon For Petitioner. The Solicitor General For Respondents
L-44264 September 19, 1988 him against the rear of the parked without, however, any subsidiary
HEDY GAN y YU, petitioner, jeepney. The force of the impact imprisonment in case of insolvency,
vs. caused the parked jeepney to move and to pay the costs. 3
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE forward hitting the rear of the parts Petitioner now appeals to this Court on the following
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. truck ahead of it. The pedestrian was assignments of errors:
Pacis, Baluyot, Reyes & De Leon for petitioner. injured, the Toyota Sedan was I
The Solicitor General for respondents. damaged on its front, the jeep The Court of Appeals erred in holding
suffered damages on its rear and front that when the petitioner saw a car
FERNAN, C.J.: paints, and the truck sustained travelling directly towards her, she
Petitioner Hedy Gan was convicted of the crime of scratches at the wooden portion of its should have stepped on the brakes
Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence in Criminal Case No. rear. The body of the old man who immediately or in swerving her vehicle
10201 of the then Court of First Instance of Manila, was later Identified as Isidoro Casino to the right should have also stepped
Branch XXII presided by Judge Federico C. Alikpala. She was immediately brought to the Jose on the brakes or lessened her speed,
was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) Reyes Memorial Hospital but was to avoid the death of a pedestrian.
months and one (1) day ofarresto mayor as minimum (pronounced) dead on arrival.2 II
and two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day An information for Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence The Court of Appeals erred in
of prision correccional as maximum and was made to was filed against petitioner in view of the above convicting the petitioner of the crime
indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of P12,000.00 incident. She entered a plea of not guilty upon of Homicide thru Simple Imprudence.
without any subsidiary imprisonment in case of arraignment and the case was set for trial. III
insolvency and to pay the costs. On appeal, the trial Meanwhile, petitioner sought and was granted a re- The Court of Appeals erred in
court's decision was modified and petitioner was investigation by the City Fiscal, as a result of which the adjudging the petitioner liable to
convicted only of Homicide thru Simple Imprudence. trial fiscal moved for the dismissal of the case against indemnify the deceased in the sum of
Still unsatisfied with the decision of the Court of petitioner during the resumption of hearing on P12,000.00.4
Appeals,1 petitioner has come to this Court for a September 7, 1972. The grounds cited therefor were We reverse.
complete reversal of the judgment below. lack of interest on the part of the complaining witness The test for determining whether or not a person is
The facts of the case as found by the appellate court to prosecute the case as evidenced by an affidavit of negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage
are as follows: desistance submitted to the trial court and lack of results to the person or property of another is this:
In the morning of July 4, 1972 at about eyewitness to sustain the charge. Would a prudent man in the position of the person to
8:00 o'clock, the accused Hedy Gan The motion to dismiss filed by the fiscal was never whom negligence is attributed foresee harm to the
was driving a Toyota car along North resolved. The Court instead ordered the prosecution to person injured as a reasonable consequence of the
Bay Boulevard, Tondo, Manila. While present its evidence. After the prosecution rested its course about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes the
in front of house no. 694 of North Bay case, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the case duty oil the doer to take precaution against its
Boulevard, there were two vehicles, a on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. mischievous results and the failure to do so constitutes
truck and a jeepney parked on one On December 22, 1972, the trial court rendered negligence. 5
side of the road, one following the judgment finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable A corollary rule is what is known in the law as the
other about two to three meters from doubt of the of- offense charged. emergency rule. "Under that rule, one who suddenly
each other. As the car driven by the Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act
accused approached the place where No. 14472-CR. On May 3, 1976, the Court of Appeals without time to consider the best means that may be
the two vehicles were parked, there rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of
was a vehicle coming from the reads as follows: negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and
opposite direction, followed by Wherefore, as modified, the accused upon reflection may appear to have been a better
another which tried to overtake and Hedy Gan is guilty beyond reasonable method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself
bypass the one in front of it and doubt of the crime of homicide thru is brought about by his own negligence." 6
thereby encroached the lane of the simple imprudence and, pursuant to Applying the above test to the case at bar, we find the
car driven by the accused. To avoid a paragraph 2, Article 365 of the Revised petitioner not guilty of the crime of Simple Imprudence
head-on collision with the oncoming Penal Code, she is hereby sentenced resulting in Homicide.
vehicle, the defendant swerved to the to the indeterminate penalty of three The appellate court in finding the petitioner guilty said:
right and as a consequence, the front (3) months and eleven (11) days The accused should have stepped on
bumper of the Toyota Crown Sedan hit of arresto mayor and to indemnify the the brakes when she saw the car going
an old man who was about to cross the heirs of Isidoro Casino in the sum of in the opposite direction followed by
boulevard from south to north, pinning Twelve Thousand Pesos (Pl2,000.00) another which overtook the first by
passing towards its left. She should not time to heed the very powerfull instinct of self- circumstances of evident premeditation and superior
only have swerved the car she was preservation. strength, and the means employed was to weaken the
driving to the right but should have Also, the respondent court itself pronounced that the defense; that the wrong done in the commission of the
also tried to stop or lessen her speed petitioner was driving her car within the legal limits. We crime was deliberately augmented by causing another
so that she would not bump into the therefore rule that the "emergency rule" enunciated wrong, that is the burning of the body of Bayani
pedestrian who was crossing at the above applies with full force to the case at bar and Miranda.
time but also the jeepney which was consequently absolve petitioner from any criminal CONTRARY TO LAW (p. 1, Records).
then parked along the street. 7 negligence in connection with the incident under Upon being arraigned, both accused pleaded not guilty
The course of action suggested by the appellate court consideration. to the offense charged. After trial, the trial court
would seem reasonable were it not for the fact that We further set aside the award of damages to the heirs rendered a decision finding both accused guilty on the
such suggestion did not take into account the amount of of the victim, who by executing a release of the claim crime of murder but crediting in favor of the accused
time afforded petitioner to react to the situation she due them, had effectively and clearly waived their right Pugay the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention
was in. For it is undeniable that the suggested course of thereto. to commit so grave a wrong, the dispositive portion of
action presupposes sufficient time for appellant to WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered acquitting which reads as follows:
analyze the situation confronting her and to ponder on petitioner HEDY GAN y YU of the crime of Homicide thru WHEREFORE, the accused Fernando Pugay y Balcita and
which of the different courses of action would result in Simple Imprudence. She is no longer liable for the Benjamin Samson y Magdalena are pronounced guilty
the least possible harm to herself and to others. P12,000.00 civil indemnity awarded by the appellate beyond reasonable doubt as principals by direct
Due to the lack of eyewitnesses, no evidence was court to the heirs of the victim. participation of the crime of murder for the death of
presented by the prosecution with respect to the SO ORDERED. Bayani Miranda, and appreciating the aforestated
relative distances of petitioner to the parked jeepney mitigating circumstance in favor of Pugay, he is
and the oncoming overtaking vehicle that would tend to sentenced to a prison term ranging from twelve (12)
prove that petitioner did have sufficient time to reflect G.R. No. L-74324 November 17, 1988 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20)
on the consequences of her instant decision to swerve THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and Samson
her car to the light without stepping on her brakes. In vs. to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua together
fact, the evidence presented by the prosecution on this FERNANDO PUGAY y BALCITA, & BENJAMIN SAMSON y with the accessories of the law for both of them. The
point is the petitioner's statement to the MAGDALENA, accused-appellants. accused are solidarily held liable to indemnify the heirs
police 8 stating:: The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. of the victim in the amount of P13,940.00 plus moral
And masasabi ko lang ho umiwas ho Citizens Legal Assistance Office for accused-appellants. damages of P10,000.00 and exemplary damages of
ako sa isang sasakyan P5,000.00.
na biglang nagovertake sa sasakyan na MEDIALDEA, J.: Let the preventive imprisonment of Pugay be deducted
aking kasalubong kung kaya ay aking For the death of Bayani Miranda, a retardate, from the principal penalty.
kinabig sa kanan ang akin kotse subalit FERNANDO PUGAY y BALCITA and BENJAMIN SAMSON y Cost against both accused.
siya naman biglangpagtawid ng tao o MAGDALENA were charged with the crime of MURDER in SO ORDERED (p. 248, Records).
victim at hindi ko na ho naiwasan at Criminal Case No. L-175-82 of the Court of First Instance Not satisfied with the decision, both accused interposed
ako ay wala ng magawa . Iyan ho ang (now Regional Trial Court) of Cavite, under an the present appeal and assigned the following errors
buong pangyayari nang nasabing information which reads as follows: committed by the court a quo:
aksidente.9 (Emphasis supplied) That on or about May 19, 1982 at the town plaza of the 1. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN UTILIZING THE
The prosecution having presented this exhibit as its own Municipality of Rosario, Province of Cavite, Philippines, STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED-APPELLANTS IN ITS
evidence, we cannot but deem its veracity to have been and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the APPRECIATION OF FACTS DESPITE ITS ADMISSION THAT
admitted by it. Thus, under the circumstances narrated above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS WERE NOT ASSISTED BY A
by petitioner, we find that the appellate court is asking mutually helping and assisting one another, with COUNSEL DURING THE CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION.
too much from a mere mortal like the petitioner who in treachery and evident premeditation, taking advantage 2. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE
the blink of an eye had to exercise her best judgment to of their superior strength, and with the decided purpose SUPPRESSION BY THE PROSECUTION OF SOME EVIDENCE
extricate herself from a difficult and dangerous to kill, poured gasoline, a combustible liquid to the body IS FATAL TO ITS CASE.
situation caused by the driver of the overtaking vehicle. of Bayani Miranda and with the use of fire did then and 3. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN LENDING CREDENCE TO
Petitioner certainly could not be expected to act with there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, burn the THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF EDUARDO GABION WHO
all the coolness of a person under normal whole body of said Bayani Miranda which caused his WAS ONE OF THE MANY SUSPECTS ARRESTED BY THE
conditions. 10 The danger confronting petitioner was real subsequent death, to the damage and prejudice of the POLICE (Accused-appellants' Brief, p. 48, Rollo).
and imminent, threatening her very existence. She had heirs of the aforenamed Bayani Miranda. The antecedent facts are as follows:
no opportunity for rational thinking but only enough That the crime was committed with the qualifying The deceased Miranda, a 25-year old retardate, and the
circumstance of treachery and the aggravating accused Pugay were friends. Miranda used to run
errands for Pugay and at times they slept together. On statements did not impute any participation of reading a comic book during an unusual event is
the evening of May 19, 1982, a town fiesta fair was held eyewitness Gabion in the commission of the offense. contrary to human behavior and experience.
in the public plaza of Rosario, Cavite. There were While testifying on their defense, the accused- Gabion testified that it was his uncle and not the
different kinds of ride and one was a ferris wheel. appellants repudiated their written statements alleging mother of the deceased who asked him to testify and
Sometime after midnight of the same date, Eduardo that they were extracted by force. They claimed that state the truth about the incident. The mother of the
Gabion was sitting in the ferris wheel and reading a the police maltreated them into admitting authorship of deceased likewise testified that she never talked to
comic book with his friend Henry. Later, the accused the crime. They also engaged in a concerted effort to Gabion and that she saw the latter for the first time
Pugay and Samson with several companions arrived. lay the blame on Gabion for the commission of the when the instant case was tried. Besides, the accused
These persons appeared to be drunk as they were all offense. Pugay admitted that Gabion was his friend and both
happy and noisy. As the group saw the deceased walking Thus, while it is true that the written statements of the Pugay and the other accused Samson testified that they
nearby, they started making fun of him. They made the accused-appellants were mentioned and discussed in the had no previous misunderstanding with Gabion. Clearly,
deceased dance by tickling him with a piece of wood. decision of the court a quo, the contents thereof were Gabion had no reason to testify falsely against them.
Not content with what they were doing with the not utilized as the sole basis for the findings of facts in In support of their claim that the testimony of Gabion to
deceased, the accused Pugay suddenly took a can of the decision rendered. The said court categorically the effect that he saw Pugay pour gasoline on the
gasoline from under the engine of the ferns wheel and stated that "even without Exhibits 'F' and 'G', there is deceased and then Samson set him on fire is incredible,
poured its contents on the body of the former. Gabion still Gabion's straightforward, positive and convincing the accused-appellants quote Gabion's testimony on
told Pugay not to do so while the latter was already in testimony which remains unaffected by the cross-examination that, after telling Pugay not to pour
the process of pouring the gasoline. Then, the accused uncorroborated, self-serving and unrealiable testimonies gasoline on the deceased, he (Gabion) resumed reading
Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of of Pugay and Samson" (p. 247, Records). comics; and that it was only when the victim's body was
him. Accused-appellants next assert that the prosecution on fire that he noticed a commotion.
The ferris wheel operator later arrived and doused with suppressed the testimonies of other eyewitnesses to the However, explaining this testimony on re-direct
water the burning body of the deceased. Some people incident. They claim that despite the fact that there examination, Gabion stated:
around also poured sand on the burning body and others were other persons investigated by the police, only Q. Mr. Gabion, you told the Court on cross-examination
wrapped the same with rags to extinguish the flame. Gabion was presented as an eyewitness during the trial that you were reading comics when you saw Pugay
The body of the deceased was still aflame when police of the case. They argue that the deliberate non- poured gasoline unto Bayani Miranda and lighted by
officer Rolando Silangcruz and other police officers of presentation of these persons raises the presumption Samson. How could you possibly see that incident while
the Rosario Police Force arrived at the scene of the that their testimonies would be adverse to the you were reading comics?
incident. Upon inquiring as to who were responsible for prosecution. A. I put down the comics which I am reading and I saw
the dastardly act, the persons around spontaneously There is no dispute that there were other persons who what they were doing.
pointed to Pugay and Samson as the authors thereof. witnessed the commission of the crime. In fact there Q. According to you also before Bayani was poured with
The deceased was later rushed to the Grace Hospital for appears on record (pp. 16-17, Records) the written gasoline and lighted and burned later you had a talk
treatment. In the meantime, the police officers brought statements of one Abelardo Reyes and one Monico with Pugay, is that correct?
Gabion, the two accused and five other persons to the Alimorong alleging the same facts and imputing the A. When he was pouring gasoline on Bayani Miranda I
Rosario municipal building for interrogation. Police respective acts of pouring of gasoline and setting the was trying to prevent him from doing so.
officer Reynaldo Canlas took the written statements of deceased on fire to the accused-appellants as testified Q. We want to clarify. According to you a while ago you
Gabion and the two accused, after which Gabion was to by Gabion in open court. They were listed as had a talk with Pugay and as a matter of fact, you told
released. The two accused remained in custody. prosecution witnesses in the information filed. him not to pour gasoline. That is what I want to know
After a careful review of the records, We find the Considering that their testimonies would be merely from you, if that is true?
grounds relied upon by the accused-appellants for the corroborative, their non-presentation does not give rise A. Yes, sir.
reversal of the decision of the court a quo to be without to the presumption that evidence wilfully suppressed Q. Aside from Bayani being tickled with a stick on his
merit. would be adverse if produced. This presumption does ass, do you mean to say you come to know that Pugay
It bears emphasis that barely a few hours after the not apply to the suppression of merely corroborative will pour gasoline unto him?
incident, accused-appellants gave their written evidence (U.S. vs. Dinola, 37 Phil. A. I do not know that would be that incident.
statements to the police. The accused Pugay admitted 797).<äre||anº•1àw> Besides, the matter as to whom to Q. Why did you as(k) Pugay in the first place not to pour
in his statement, Exhibit F, that he poured a can of utilize as witness is for the prosecution to decide. gasoline before he did that actually?
gasoline on the deceased believing that the contents Accused-appellants also attack the credibility of the A. Because I pity Bayani, sir.
thereof was water and then the accused Samson set the eyewitness Gabion alleging that not only was the latter Q. When you saw Pugay tickling Bayani with a stick on
deceased on fire. The accused Samson, on the other requested by the mother of the deceased to testify for his ass you tried according to you to ask him not to and
hand, alleged in his statement that he saw Pugay pour the prosecution in exchange for his absolution from then later you said you asked not to pour gasoline. Did
gasoline on Miranda but did not see the person who set liability but also because his testimony that he was Pugay tell you he was going to pour gasoline on Bayani?
him on fire. Worthy of note is the fact that both A. I was not told, sir.
Q. Did you come to know..... how did you come to know companions who at the time were making fun of the aforesaid code provides, inter alia, that criminal
he was going to pour gasoline that is why you prevent deceased. We agree with the Solicitor General that the liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
him? accused is only guilty of homicide through reckless felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be
A. Because he was holding on a container of gasoline. I imprudence defined in Article 365 of the Revised Penal different from that which he intended.
thought it was water but it was gasoline. Code, as amended. In U.S. vs. Maleza, et. al. 14 Phil. As no sufficient evidence appears in the record
Q. It is clear that while Pugay was tickling Bayani with a 468, 470, this Court ruled as follows: establishing any qualifying circumstances, the accused
stick on his ass, he later got hold of a can of gasoline, is A man must use common sense and exercise due Samson is only guilty of the crime of homicide defined
that correct? reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, and penalized in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code,
A. Yes, sir. careful, and prudent, if not from instinct, then through as amended. We are disposed to credit in his favor the
Q. And when he pick up the can of gasoline, was that fear of incurring punishment. He is responsible for such ordinary mitigating circumstance of no intention to
the time you told him not to pour gasoline when he results as anyone might foresee and for acts which no commit so grave a wrong as that committed as there is
merely pick up the can of gasoline. one would have performed except through culpable evidence of a fact from which such conclusion can be
A. I saw him pouring the gasoline on the body of Joe. abandon. Otherwise his own person, rights and property, drawn. The eyewitness Gabion testified that the
Q. So, it is clear when you told Pugay not to pour all those of his fellow-beings, would ever be exposed to accused Pugay and Samson were stunned when they
gasoline he was already in the process of pouring all manner of danger and injury. noticed the deceased burning (Tsn, June 1, 1983, pp.
gasoline on the body of Bayani? The proper penalty that the accused Pugay must suffer 16-17).<äre||anº•1àw>
A. Yes, sir (Tsn, July 30, 1983, pp. 32-33). is an indeterminate one ranging from four (4) months The proper penalty that the accused Samson must suffer
It is thus clear that prior to the incident in question, ofarresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two is an indeterminate one ranging from eight (8) years
Gabion was reading a comic book; that Gabion stopped (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum. With ofprision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years
reading when the group of Pugay started to make fun of respect to the accused Samson, the Solicitor General in of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
the deceased; that Gabion saw Pugay get the can of his brief contends that "his conviction of murder, is The lower court held the accused solidarily liable for
gasoline from under the engine of the ferris wheel; that proper considering that his act in setting the deceased P13,940.00, the amount spent by Miranda's parents for
it was while Pugay was in the process of pouring the on fire knowing that gasoline had just been poured on his hospitalization, wake and interment. The indemnity
gasoline on the body of the deceased when Gabion him is characterized by treachery as the victim was left for death is P30,000.00. Hence, the indemnity to the
warned him not to do so; and that Gabion later saw completely helpless to defend and protect himself heirs of the deceased Miranda is increased to
Samson set the deceased on fire. against such an outrage" (p. 57, Rollo). We do not P43,940.00.
However, there is nothing in the records showing that agree. Both accused shall be jointly and severally liable for the
there was previous conspiracy or unity of criminal There is entire absence of proof in the record that the aforesaid amount plus the P10,000.00 as moral damages
purpose and intention between the two accused- accused Samson had some reason to kill the deceased and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages as found by the
appellants immediately before the commission of the before the incident. On the contrary, there is adequate court a quo.
crime. There was no animosity between the deceased evidence showing that his act was merely a part of their Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed with the
and the accused Pugay or Samson. Their meeting at the fun-making that evening. For the circumstance of modifications above-indicated. Costs against the
scene of the incident was accidental. It is also clear that treachery to exist, the attack must be deliberate and accused-appellants.
the accused Pugay and his group merely wanted to make the culprit employed means, methods, or forms in the SO ORDERED.
fun of the deceased. Hence, the respective criminal execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
responsibility of Pugay and Samson arising from insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from
different acts directed against the deceased is any defense which the offended party might make.
individual and not collective, and each of them is liable There can be no doubt that the accused Samson knew
only for the act committed by him (U.S. vs. Magcomot, very well that the liquid poured on the body of the
et. al. 13, Phil. 386; U.S. vs. Abiog, et. al. 37 Phil. deceased was gasoline and a flammable substance for
1371). he would not have committed the act of setting the
The next question to be determined is the criminal latter on fire if it were otherwise. Giving him the
responsibility of the accused Pugay. Having taken the benefit of doubt, it call be conceded that as part of
can from under the engine of the ferris wheel and their fun-making he merely intended to set the
holding it before pouring its contents on the body of the deceased's clothes on fire. His act, however, does not
deceased, this accused knew that the can contained relieve him of criminal responsibility. Burning the
gasoline. The stinging smell of this flammable liquid clothes of the victim would cause at the very least some
could not have escaped his notice even before pouring kind of physical injuries on his person, a felony defined
the same. Clearly, he failed to exercise all the diligence in the Revised Penal Code. If his act resulted into a
necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence graver offense, as what took place in the instant case,
arising from any act that may be committed by his he must be held responsible therefor. Article 4 of the