ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 145841.January 17, 2001]
OLALIA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILS.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 17 2001 .
G.R. No. 145841 (Irineo M Olalia v. People of the Philippines.)
In a decision of the Third Municipal Circuit Trial Court, petitioner Irineo M. Olalia was found guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide for the death of Fernando Parungao on June 24, .1993. The victim died when he came into contact with the live electric wire installed atop the perimeter fence of petitioner's poultry farm in Sto. Domingo, Minalin, Pampanga. The electricity was activated from 8:00 p.m. until 5:00 a.m. of the following day. Petitioner admitted that the electrical installation on his fence was made without any permit from the authorities, but claimed that he placed a notice at the outer part of the fence which read, ELECTRIFIED FENCE. In finding him liable for the death of Parungao, the MCTC took note of the fact that petitioner is the holder of a Bachelor's Degree in Industrial Education and, therefore, should have known that the electrical installation posed a grave danger to any unwary trespasser. Accordingly, the trial Court sentenced petitioner to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor with all the accessory penalties provided for by law and to indemnify Eugenia Parungao, mother of the victim, in the amount of P50,000.00 by reason of her son's death, P48,000.00 for loss of earning capacity of the victim, P12,000.00 for funeral expenses, and P40,000.00 by way of moral damages.
On appeal, the decision was affirmed, first, by the Regional Trial Court, San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 41, and later, by the Court of Appeals. Hence this petition for review by certiorari.
Petitioner's appeal is without merit. The basic issue in this case is whether or not petitioner is negligent when he caused the installation of an electric live wire over his fence without exercising the necessary precautions to prevent the death of the victim. After due consideration of the allegations of the petition, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the same.
(1) To find a person guilty of reckless imprudence under Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code, the following must be shown: the offender does or fails to do an act; that the doing of or the failure to do that act is voluntary; that it be without malice; that material damage results; and that there is an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
These requisites have been shown in this case. There is no question that petitioner caused the installation of the electric wire on the fence surrounding his poultry farm which was activated from 8:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. of the following day. The victim was electrocuted at about 4:00 a.m. when he came into contact with the live wire installed inside the concrete fence enclosing the residence and poultry farm of petitioner. The live wire was about 15 meters long and placed about two inches from the top of the fence (or about six feet above the ground). There was no adequate warning sign to put a potential trespasser on notice of the danger posed by the electrically charged wire. The wooden board sign ELECTRIFIED FENCE, the letters about two (2) inches in size, did not sufficiently convey the danger involved, which another sign would have conveyed, for example, one that states, DANGER-FENCE ELECTRICALLY CHARGED or DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE CHARGE. Nor was the sign prominently displayed. The sign was a small one, measuring approximately 18 inches in length and placed at about six (6) feet above the ground located in an inconspicuous part of the concrete wall at the back. There is no showing that passersby could have seen it since it appears it was intended for trespassers climbing over the wall at the back. Since the incident happened at 4 a.m., it cannot be assured it was seen by the deceased. Clearly, petitioner failed to warn innocent passersby of the danger posed by the electric wires.
In any event, the trial court's finding that petitioner was negligent is a factual finding. It has long been settled that factual findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals, unless shown to be contrary to the evidence, are entitled to great weight (Villalon v. Court of Appeals, 319 SCRA 530 (1999)). There is no reason in this case to deviate from this established rule.
(2) Neither is there merit in the argument of petitioner that there was contributory negligence on part of the victim. - As the MCTC correctly held:
The victim's contributory negligence will not absolve the accused from criminal liability if it is shown that his (accused's) negligence is the proximate cause of the injury or death of the victim. Moreover, the defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases through reckless imprudence since one cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his own negligence. At most, the accused's liability, criminal or civil, is only mitigated by the contributory negligence or fault of the victim. (Tayontong, 21 Phil. 476 ; Del Prado v. Manila Electric Co., 52 Phil. 900; Qui�ones v. CA, 44 O.G. 1520).
The accused cannot likewise invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of property. In defense of his property rights, a person may use only such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property (Art. 429, Civil Code). But by wiring the perimeter fence enclosing a piece of realty with deadly electrical charge just to prevent or deter trespass into it is not by any legal or moral standard reasonable.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
