University of The Philippines College of Law: GAN v. Court of Appeals
University of The Philippines College of Law: GAN v. Court of Appeals
DOCTRINE
Emergency Rule—One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to
consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he
fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the
emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.
SUMMARY
Hedy Gan (defendant-appellant) was driving a Toyota car at 8 am along North Bay Boulevard, Tondo, Manila,
when she tried to avoid an impending head-on collision with a car driving in the opposite direction which, by
trying to overtake another vehicle, encroached on her lane. Gan immediately swerved to the right side of the
road where a jeepney and a truck were parked one in front of the other. Gan’s Toyota hit an old man trying to
cross the street and pinned him between the bumper of her car and the back of the jeepney, which also hit the
truck in front of it because of the force of the rear impact. Gan was convicted of Homicide thru Reckless
imprudence by the CFI which was modified by the CA to Homicide thru Simple Imprudence. On appeal, the SC
reversed the decision and acquitted Gan based on the Emergency Rule, stating that a mere mortal like the
petitioner could not have been expected to avoid the incident (of hitting the old man) due to the real and
imminent danger (of head on collision) threatening her very existence. “Petitioner certainly could not be
expected to act to act with the coolness of a person under normal conditions.”
RELEVANT FACTS
On July 4, 1972, petitioner Hedy Gan was driving a Toyota car at 8 am along North Bay Boulevard in Tondo.
There was a truck parked two to three meters in front of a parked jeepney on the side of the road. As Gan was
approaching the area where the two vehicles were parked, a vehicle on the opposite lane encroached on her
lane while trying to overtake another vehicle. To avoid the head-on collision, Gan swerved to the right towards
the back of the jeepney where she hit an old man about to cross the road. The old man was pinned between the
bumper of the Toyota and the back of the jeepney while the jeepney moved forward because of the force of
impact, hitting the truck in front of it. The old man was brought to Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital where he was
pronounced dead on arrival.
An information for Homicide thru Reckless imprudence was filed against Gan. Gan was granted a re-investigation
where the fiscal moved for the dismissal of the case because of the lack of interest of the complaining witness,
evidenced by the affidavit of desistance. The motion to dismiss was never resolved by the CFI and Gan was
convicted of the charge against her.
On appeal, the CA modified the conviction to Homicide thru Simple Imprudence and to indemnify the heirs of
Isidro Casino (the old man) in the sum of P12,000. Thus, petitioner appeals to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
W/N Gan was correctly convicted of Homicide thru Simple Imprudence given the circumstances of the case—NO
University of the Philippines College of Law
RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N the conviction was NO.
correct
1. The test for determining negligence is whether a prudent man in the
position of the person to whom negligence is attributed would foresee harm
to the person injured as a reasonable consequence for the course about to be
pursued.
2. Under the Emergency Rule, a person “who suddenly finds himself in a place
of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that
may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of negligence…
unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own
negligence.”
4. Gan “had no opportunity for rational thinking but only enough time to
heed the very powerful instinct of self-preservation.
5. Damages are also deleted because the heirs waived their right thereto.
RULING
WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby rendered acquitting petitioner HEDY GAN y YU of the crime of Homicide thru
Simple Imprudence. She is no longer liable for the P12,000.00 civil indemnity awarded by the appellate court to
the heirs of the victim. SO ORDERED.