Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > March 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4091 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BERNABE BACHO

010 Phil 574:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-4091. March 25, 1908. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNABE BACHO, Defendant-Appellant.

Filemon Sotto, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. SHIPS AND SHIPPING; RECKLESS NEGLIGENCE. — Defendant, a chief engineer on a steamship plying in Philippine waters, caused the manhole plate of the vessel’s boiler to be removed under his supervision. The operation was performed in the manner customary upon such vessels and with reasonable car. Held, That the defendant is not guilty of reckless negligence, and judgment of conviction reversed.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


The appellant was convicted of the crime of homicidio por imprudencia temeraria (homicide resulting from reckless negligence) and sentenced to four months and one day of arresto mayor, to pay P1,000 civil damages to the heirs of the deceased, and to the accessory and subsidiary penalties prescribed by law in such cases.

The information charges, in substance, that the accused, the chief engineer on board the steamer Carmen which was lying at anchor near Cebu, carelessly and with reckless negligence released the screws which held in place the manhole plate on the steamer’s boiler, without taking proper precautions to keep the plate from falling into the boiler; that as a result the plate fell into the boiler, and plunging into the hot water splashed some of it through the manhole so that it fell upon a Chinaman named Chan-Yan, scalding him severely that he died the following day.

The evidence of record discloses that in the usual and proper discharge of his duties as engineer, the accused directed one of his firemen to open the manhole in the boiler on his steamer; that the accused personally superintended the work, and that it was done in accordance with the method usually adopted on board steamers in Philippine waters; that the manhole plate, which is so constructed that it can not be taken off, is held in position by large screws in such manner that when the bolts on these screws in such manner that when the bolts on these screws are loosened the plate drops into the boiler, unless it be supported by a cord or rope; that under the direction of the accused the plate, which weighed about 20 pounds, was suspended on a rope kept for that purpose; that thereafter the accused and the fireman went about their work in another part of the ship; and that in from one to three minutes, the plate fell into the boiler and splashed the hot water through the manhole on the Chinaman Chan-Yan, who died within twenty-four hours from the effect of the scalds thus inflicted on his person.

Except so far as it can be inferred from the fact that the plate fell into the boiler, there is not a particle of evidence which tends to show that in opening the manhole of the boiler the accused was guilty of negligence. On the contrary all the evidence of record tends to prove that he adopted the usual, proper, and necessary method of procedure, and that in opening the manhole at the time and under the conditions then existing he was in the usual and proper performance of his duties as engineer.

The evidence throws no light on the true cause of the accident. It may have resulted from a hidden defect in the rope on which the plate was suspended, for which the accused could in no wise be held responsible. It may have resulted from the slipping of one of the knots used by the fireman in trying the ends of the rope on which the plate was suspended, and while it may be admitted that there are cases where it might be the duty of a ship’s officer to examine personally a knot tied by a subordinate, where there is reason to believe that a slip resulting from an imperfect tie would endanger the lives or the property of others, nevertheless in a case such as the one under consideration, wherein there was apparently only the most remote possibility of danger resulting from a failure to tie the knot in an absolutely safe and secure manner, we do not think that such extreme diligence could be required. Indeed the usefulness of ship’s officers would be dangerously impaired if they were required to give their personal attention to all such petty details, and a ship’s officer might well hesitate to take command if he be held criminally responsible for every accident resulting from the neglect of those under his command. Again, the fall of the plate might have been caused by some mischievous or malicious person, and indeed there is some evidence in the record which suggest this as the true solution of the problem. The rope which the defendant produced at the trial as the one on which the plate was suspended showed evidences of having been cut, from the description of the boiler and the parts about the manhole, it is difficult to understand how it could have been found in that condition unless some one had deliberately used a knife. We presume it will not be contended, and it was not proven, that it was the duty of the defendant to keep such a strict watch on any particular part of the engine as to make it impossible for a malicious mischievous person to give the rope a cut with a knife, with perhaps no other object than to annoy the engineer by letting the plate fall into the boiler, so that he would be compelled to go in after it.

Whatever was the cause of the fall of the plate, we find nothing in the record to indicate that it was due to the negligence or carelessness of the defendant, and on the contrary there is evidence to show that he exercised all the care and took all the precautions required of him in the due performance of his duty.

The trial judge seems to have been of opinion that if a rope strong enough had been used, and if the knots had been tied in a proper, and if the plate had been properly secured, it could not have fallen, so that there must have been negligence somewhere, and as the defendant was in charge of the work, he should be held responsible. What has been said would seem to be sufficient answer to this reasoning, and it may be added, that in the general experience of mankind, accidents apparently unavoidable and often inexplicable are unfortunately too frequent to permit us to conclude that some one must be criminally liable for negligence in every case where an accident occurs. It is the duty of the prosecution in each case to prove by competent evidence not only the existence of criminal negligence, but that the accused was guilty thereof.

The accused produced a rope at the trial which he swore was the rope upon which the plate was suspended, and his statement was corroborated by the fireman; the court, however, refused to believe that this was the very rope used by the defendant, although there was not a particle of evidence to the contrary. The trial judge found that, since the rope appeared to be so strong that the swinging plate could not have broken it, either this was not the rope used or it must have been already cut the place where it was supposed to have broken before it was put in use. As we have said, it might have been cut after the plate was suspended, or there might have been a hidden defect in the rope, so far as appears from the testimony of record, the accident might have resulted from some other cause than the breaking of the rope; and in any event, it is going far to say that, as the accident had occurred, the court would refuse to believe uncontradicted testimony that a certain rope had been used, unless that rope were so weak as to justify a finding of negligence in its use.

The accused maintained that before opening the boiler he sent the deceased to work at another part of the ship, and there is some evidence in support of his statement. The prosecution introduced testimony to prove that after the accident, the accused admitted that he had forgotten that the deceased was working near the boiler. We do not think, however, that the point is of special importance, as unless it appeared that the accused was guilty of criminal negligence in the method employed in opening the boiler, we do not think the mere fact that he opened the manhole of the boiler while the deceased was working in the neighborhood constituted such criminal negligence as would sustain the judgment of conviction. The steamer was lying quietly at anchor, and the possibility that the accident by which the deceased came to his death would occur was so remote that it would be most unreasonable to hold him criminally responsible for failing to anticipate it.

The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed upon the appellant are reversed with the costs in both instances de oficio. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa Johnson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3457 March 2, 1908 - YU BUNUAN ET AL. v. ORESTES MARCAIDA

    010 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-4065 March 2, 1908 - BRUNO VILLANUEVA v. MAXIMA ROQUE

    010 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-3717 March 5, 1908 - FELIX VELASCO v. MARTIN MASA

    010 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-4237 March 5, 1908 - SERAFIN UY PIAOCO v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-4447 March 6, 1908 - MURPHY v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    010 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 4438 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO SUNGA, ET AL

    011 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-3811 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BLANCO

    010 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-4026 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL DULAY

    010 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. L-3880 March 9, 1908 - TEOPISTA CASTRO v. ANTONIO MARTINEZ GALLEGOS

    010 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 4131 March 9, 1908 - SERAPIO AVERIA v. LUCIO REBOLDERA

    010 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 4347 March 9, 1908 - JOSE ROGERS v. SMITH

    010 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 3279 March 11, 1908 - CITY OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    010 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-2129 March 12, 1908 - C. HEINZEN & CO. v. JAMES J. PETERSON, ET AL.

    010 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-3523 March 12, 1908 - CARIDAD MUGURUZA v. INT’L. BANKING CORP.

    010 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-3855 March 12, 1908 - EUFEMIA LORETO v. JULIO HERRERA

    010 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-3907 March 12, 1908 - ROMAN ABAYA v. DONATA ZALAMERO

    010 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-4085 March 12, 1908 - CARLS PALANCA TANGUINLAY v. FRANCISCO G. QUIROS

    010 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. L-4087 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. AMADOR BARRIOS

    010 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. L-4341 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS ROJO

    010 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-469 March 13, 1908 - T. H. PARDO DE TAVERA v. HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    010 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-3848 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES GIMENO

    010 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 4146 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PETRA DE GUZMAN

    010 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-3951 March 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    010 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-4169 March 14, 1908 - WILHELM BAUERMANN v. MAXIMA CASAS

    010 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-4205 March 16, 1908 - JULIAN CABAÑAS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    010 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. L-4077 March 17, 1908 - MACARIA MATIAS v. AGUSTIN ALVAREZ

    010 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-4127 March 17, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHARLES J. KOSEL

    010 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 4051 March 18, 1908 - CATALINA BERNARDO v. VICENTE GENATO

    011 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-3606 March 18, 1908 - IGNACIO ACASIO v. FELICISIMA ALBANO

    010 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-3699 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO CUSI

    010 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-4007 March 18, 1908 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. E. DIAZ & CO.

    010 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-4213 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO REYES

    010 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-4233 March 18, 1908 - EXEQUIEL DELGADO v. MANUEL RIESGO

    010 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-4318 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GENEROSO ACADEMIA

    010 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-4147 March 19, 1908 - AGRIPINO DE LA RAMA v. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    010 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. L-4209 March 19, 1908 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. PILAR CORRALES

    010 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-3904 March 20, 1908 - KO POCO v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. L-4104 March 20, 1908 - JAO IGCO v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER

    010 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. L-4155 March 20, 1908 - RUPERTO BELZUNCE v. VALENTINA FERNANDEZ

    010 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-4158 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO CARIÑO

    010 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4196 March 20, 1908 - BENWIT ULLMANN v. FELIX ULLMANN and CO.

    010 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-4241 March 20, 1908 - AGUSTIN G. GAVIERES v. ADMIN. F THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF LUISA

    010 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-4399 March 20, 1908 - BENITO LEGARDA v. S. L. P. ROCHA Y RUIZDELGADO

    010 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. L-4436 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CASTRO DI TIAN LAY

    010 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 4109 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA TORRES

    011 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-3968 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS LOPEZ

    010 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-3975 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL MARIN

    010 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-4167 March 21, 1908 - RAFAELA SALMO v. LUISA ICAZA

    010 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-4300 March 21, 1908 - MARIA BARRETTO v. LEONA REYES

    010 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-4324 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO OLLALES

    010 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3550 March 23, 1908 - GO CHIOCO v. INCHAUSTI & CO.

    010 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-3780 March 23, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SELLANO

    010 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-4132 March 23, 1908 - IN RE: MARIA SIASON Y MADRID DE LEDESMA

    010 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-4215 March 23, 1908 - LUCIO I. LIMPANGCO v. JUANA MERCADO

    010 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-4274 March 23, 1908 - JOSE ALANO v. JOSE BABASA

    010 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-4352 March 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO BAYOT

    010 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2674 March 25, 1908 - JOAQUIN JOVER Y COSTAS v. INSULAR GOV’T., ET AL.

    010 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-3357 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. A. W. PRAUTCH

    010 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-4012 March 25, 1908 - MAXIMO CORTES Y PROSPERO v. CITY OF MANILA

    010 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. L-4063 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARIÑO, ET AL.

    010 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. L-4091 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BERNABE BACHO

    010 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-4354 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO POBLETE

    010 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-4418 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES V. ESTRADA

    010 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-3339 March 26, 1908 - ROSA LLORENTE v. CEFERINO RODRIGUEZ

    010 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. L-3812 March 26, 1908 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV’T. CO. v. BARRY BALDWIN

    010 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-4100 March 26, 1908 - MARIA SINGAYAN v. CALIXTA MABBORANG

    010 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-4121 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GARCIA

    010 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-4175 March 26, 1908 - A. W. BEAN v. B. W. CADWALLADER CO.

    010 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-4207 March 26, 1908 - JUAN VALLE v. SIXTO GALERA

    010 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. L-4265 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS PASCUAL

    010 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-4322 March 26, 1908 - INOCENTE MARTINEZ v. G. E. CAMPBELL

    010 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-4376 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SIP

    010 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. L-4420 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO CAGUIMBAL

    010 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 4160 March 26, 1908 - ANGEL GUSTILO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO MATTI, ET AL.

    011 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 3539 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    011 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4372 March 27, 1908 - ENRIQUE M. BARRETTO v. CITY OF MANILA

    011 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. L-3612 March 27, 1908 - DOMINGO LIM v. JOSE LIM

    010 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-3762 March 27, 1908 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ALEJANDRO AMECHAZURRA

    010 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-4037 March 27, 1908 - LIM JAO LU v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-4200 March 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SEGUNDO SAMONTE

    010 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-4203 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL CRAME SY PANCO v. RICARDO GONZAGA

    010 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. L-4469A March 27, 1908 - FELIPE G. CALDERON v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-4017 March 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MARIÑO

    010 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. L-3007 March 30, 1908 - ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITY OF BADOC

    010 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. L-4198 March 30, 1908 - JUAN MERCADO v. JOSE ABANGAN

    010 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-4222 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO CERNIAS

    010 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-4281 March 30, 1908 - JOSE GARRIDO v. AGUSTIN ASENCIO

    010 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-4377 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE GARCIA GAVIERES

    010 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-3469 March 31, 1908 - JOSEFA AGUIRRE v. MANUEL VILLABA

    010 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-4078 March 31, 1908 - CONCEPCION MENDIOLA v. NICOLASA PACALDA

    010 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. L-4257 March 31, 1908 - SIMON MOSESGELD SANTIAGO v. RUFINO QUIMSON ET AL.

    010 Phil 707