ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 134439. March 8, 1999]

MAMUEL BACANI vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 8, 1999.

G.R. No. 134439 (Manuel Bacani vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and The People of the Philippines.)

Manuel Bacani filed the present "Petition for Review and for Mandamus" assailing his conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property with Less Serious Physical Injuries in the following incident:

xxx the complaining witness testified that on August 27, 1994, at about 3:00 xxx in the afternoon, he came from Quezon City and proceeded to Roxas Boulevard and when he reached the corner of Roxas Blvd., along the NAIA Road, there was a road being constructed there so he proceeded to Cavite passing through Aguinaldo Highway formerly Coastal Road; that at the Marina Intersection, he collided with a road roller (pison) which was traveling on the opposite direction on the outer lane. Because of such collision he was thrown from his motorcycle and at the same time his motorcycle suffered damages. He was brought by a passerby to the Field Engineer of the accused who brought him to the Para�aque Community Hospital where he was x-rayed and later he was brought to the National Orthopedic Hospital for treatment where his hand was cemented. 1 [Decision, MeTC, p. 2; rollo, p. 52.]

After trial, the Metropolitan Trial Court (METC) of Para�aque rendered a decision "finding the accused guilty of the crime charged in the information and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of two (2) months imprisonment; to pay a fine of P24,217.13 and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P40,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages and to pay the cost."2 [Id., at 3; id., at 53.]

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed petitioner's conviction but modified the award of damages. Said court held "that the actual & compensatory damages due the complainant should be in the amount of only P27,217.13 (P3,000.00 for medical and transportation expenses & P24,217.13 for damage sustained by the motorcycle)."3 [RTC Decision, p. 3; id., at 56.]

The decision of the RTC was affirmed by the CA in toto.

Hence, this petition.

Petitioner raises 10 assignment of errors committed by the respondent court which can be summarized into two main issues: (1) whether or not petitioner was negligent; and (2) whether or not there is basis for the award of damages.

It can be readily gleaned that these involve factual issues which are not within the province of this Court to look into. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings are best left to the trial court and such findings are accorded respect by this Court, absent any showing of a fact or circumstance which the trial court failed to appreciate and which would change the result if it were considered. We see no reason to deviate from such rule especially when the same were made by the three courts below.

That petitioner was negligent and that such negligence was the proximate cause of private respondent's injuries was undeniably established:

xxx Even admitting that he was only traveling two kilometers per hour and his road roller (pison) was lighted which was not even proven by the defense by sufficient evidence, the accused cannot escape responsibility. That part of the road where the accident happened is basically prohibited for any type of vehicle to park for it was a highway, more so, where the vehicle is running forward even slowly. That was why the complaining witness was not able to escape bumping the road roller driven by the accused when he overtook a vehicle infront [sic] of him. That can be expected under such situation. No amount of explanation can exonerate the accused for traveling at the opposite direction of the road. His further claim that it was the shortest way in going to his place of work will not also exonerate him.

The fact that he did not even help the complaining witness brought to the hospital for the reason that the asphalt that he will flatten would be hardened aggravated culpability. A [p]rudent person should have alighted [from] his vehicle and helped the victim take a ride or bring him to the hospital for treatment and not to ask him to ride with him in his road roller (pison) which was traveling two kilometers per hour and considering further the hardship that will be suffered by the injured if [he were to] take a road roller (pison) in going to the hospital, such an offer by the accused is [adding] insult to injury. 4 [MeTC Decision, p. 3; id., at 53.]

As to the award of damages, petitioner harps on the fact that private respondents was not the owner of the motorcycle, that the owner never stepped forward to claim compensatory damages, and that such award would unjustly enrich complainant.

These arguments are specious and raised in a strained effort to escape liability. As correctly ruled by the respondent court:

Private complainant is duty bound to restitute or repair the damage caused to the motorcycle owned by another. Petitioner failed to rebut the evidence presented by complainant with regards to the actual medical expenses and repair of the motorcycle. Thus, private complainant's claim for damages is justified.

It is not a requirement that the owner will file the civil case for damages before he can recover the same that arouse [sic] out of a criminal act. The civil aspect is deemed instituted with the criminal aspect unless an express reservation to file a separate civil case is reserved which is not so in this case. Besides, every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. 5 [CA Decision, pp. 5-6; Id., at 62-63.]

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition for review for lack of merit.

Very truly yours.

VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE