ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 141005.March 27, 2001]

DANILO TABURNAL vs. PEOPLE

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 2 2001.

G.R. No. 141005(Danilo A. Taburnal vs. People of the Philippines.)

This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals, ¹ Fourteenth Division, promuglated on August 26, 1999, Rollo, pp. 25-29.which affirmed in toto the decision ² Decision promulgated on September 29, 1994 by Judge Oscar B. Pimentel.of the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 148, convicting petitioner of reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property with double homicide.

The trial court found that petitioner, after coming from a curve, ³ Rollo , p. 41.tried to overtake two vehicles in front of him. It was too late when he saw the oncoming Ford Escort car, and, having lost control of the bus and its brakes, ⁴ Rollo , p. 27.collided with the car. Petitioner admitted that there were no other vehicles in front of the Ford Escort car. ⁵ Rollo , p. 101.

On September 29, 1994, the trial court rendered a decision ⁶ Rollo , pp. 31-49.finding petitioner guilty of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Damage to Property with Double Homicide.

On August 11, 1995, accused appealed to the Court of Appeals.

On August 26, 1999, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision affirming in toto the trial court's decision. On September 21, 1999, petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the decision. Finding no cogent reason to modify or reverse its decision, on December 9, 1999, the Court of Appeals denied the motion.

Hence, this petition. ⁷ Filed on January 27, 2000, Rollo, pp. 9-22.

Petitioner contends that the decision of the trial court was based merely on presumptions. He could not be faulted for the collision because the bus was in the proper lane.

On February 14, 2000, we required respondent to comment on the petition. On July 7, 2000, the Solicitor General recommended that the trial court decision be affirmed.

On October 11, 2000, we gave due course to the petition and required the parties to file their memoranda.

After considering the pertinent facts of the case, we find the petition devoid of merit.

The Land Transportation and Traffic Code enjoins all motorists to drive at a careful and prudent speed along a highway, and to make sure that the road is free of oncoming traffic before overtaking or passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction. ⁸ Sections 35 and 41, R.A. 4136.

The rule is settled that a driver abandoning his proper lane for the purpose of overtaking another vehicle in an ordinary situation has the duty to see to it that the road is clear and not to proceed if he cannot do so in safety. When a motor vehicle is approaching or rounding a curve, there is special necessity for keeping to the right side of the road and the driver does not have the right to drive on the left side relying upon having time to turn to the right if a car approaching from the opposite direction comes into view. ⁹ Mallari, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 147 (2000), citing BLTB Co. v. IAC, 167 SCRA 379 (1988).

As was found by the trial court, and upheld by the Court of Appeals, petitioner was grossly negligent in driving the bus, which resulted to the death of the car's driver and its passenger. We find no reason to reverse the findings of the lower courts. Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law imputed to it, its findings of fact being conclusive. ¹⁰ Universal Motors Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 448, 455 (1992).

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA- G. R. CR No. 17257 is affirmed in toto. Costs against petitioner.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE