Case Digest: Gan vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-44264, September 19, 1988

 Torts and Damages

Fernan, J.

Facts:

• On the morning of July 4, 1972, Hedy Gan was driving a Toyota car on North Bay Boulevard, Tondo, Manila.

• Two parked vehicles–a truck and a jeepney–were on one side of the road.

• A vehicle from the opposite direction overtook another car, encroaching on Gan's lane.

• To avoid a head-on collision, Gan swerved right and hit an old man who was about to cross the boulevard, Isidoro Casino, pinning him against the rear of the parked jeepney.

• The impact caused a chain reaction, moving the jeepney forward and hitting the truck, resulting in damages to all vehicles.

• Casino died upon arrival at the hospital.

• Gan was charged with Homicide through Reckless Imprudence.

CFI-Manila: Found Gan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide through Reckless Imprudence.

• Gan appealed the decision.

CA: Modified the verdict, finding Gan guilty of Homicide through Simple Imprudence.

• She was sentenced to 3 months and 11 days of arresto mayor and ordered to indemnify the heirs of Isidoro Casino ₱12,000.

Issue:

Whether the CA erred in convicting Gan of the crime of Homicide thru Simple Imprudence. YES

Held:

We reverse.

The test for determining whether or not a person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another is this: Would a prudent man in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes the duty oil the doer to take precaution against its mischievous results and the failure to do so constitutes negligence.  

A corollary rule is what is known in the law as the emergency rule. "Under that 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."  

Applying the above test to the case at bar, we find the petitioner not guilty of the crime of Simple Imprudence resulting in Homicide.

The appellate court in finding the petitioner guilty said:

The accused should have stepped on the brakes when she saw the car going in the opposite direction followed by another which overtook the first by passing towards its left. She should not only have swerved the car she was driving to the right but should have also tried to stop or lessen her speed so that she would not bump into the pedestrian who was crossing at the time but also the jeepney which was then parked along the street. 

The course of action suggested by the appellate court would seem reasonable were it not for the fact that such suggestion did not take into account the amount of time afforded petitioner to react to the situation she was in. For it is undeniable that the suggested course of action presupposes sufficient time for appellant to analyze the situation confronting her and to ponder on which of the different courses of action would result in the least possible harm to herself and to others.

Due to the lack of eyewitnesses, no evidence was presented by the prosecution with respect to the relative distances of petitioner to the parked jeepney and the oncoming overtaking vehicle that would tend to prove that petitioner did have sufficient time to reflect on the consequences of her instant decision to swerve her car to the light without stepping on her brakes. In fact, the evidence presented by the prosecution on this point is the petitioner's statement to the police stating::

And masasabi ko lang ho umiwas ho ako sa isang sasakyan na biglang nagovertake sa sasakyan na aking kasalubong kung kaya ay aking kinabig sa kanan ang akin kotse subalit siya naman biglang pagtawid ng tao o victim at hindi ko na ho naiwasan at ako ay wala ng magawa. Iyan ho ang buong pangyayari nang nasabing aksidente. 

The prosecution having presented this exhibit as its own evidence, we cannot but deem its veracity to have been admitted by it. Thus, under the circumstances narrated by petitioner, we find that the appellate court is asking too much from a mere mortal like the petitioner who in the blink of an eye had to exercise her best judgment to extricate herself from a difficult and dangerous situation caused by the driver of the overtaking vehicle. Petitioner certainly could not be expected to act with all the coolness of a person under normal conditions. The danger confronting petitioner was real and imminent, threatening her very existence. She had no opportunity for rational thinking but only enough time to heed the very powerfull instinct of self-preservation.

Also, the respondent court itself pronounced that the petitioner was driving her car within the legal limits. We therefore rule that the "emergency rule" enunciated above applies with full force to the case at bar and consequently absolve petitioner from any criminal negligence in connection with the incident under consideration.

We further set aside the award of damages to the heirs of the victim, who by executing a release of the claim due them, had effectively and clearly waived their right thereto.

WHEREFORE, judgment 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.