Case Digest: Genobiagon vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 40452, October 12, 1989
Torts and Damages
Griño-Aquino, J.
Facts:
On December 31, 1959, at about 7:30 o'clock in the evening, a rig driven by appellant Gregorio Genobiagon bumped an old woman who was crossing T. Padilla St., Cebu City, at the right side of T. Padilla Market.
The appellant's rig was following another at a distance of two meters.
The old woman started to cross when the first rig was approaching her, but as appellant's vehicle was going so fast not only because of the steep down-grade of the road, but also because he was trying to overtake the rig ahead of him, the appellant's rig bumped the old woman, who as a consequence, fell at the middle of the road.
The appellant continued to drive on, but a by-stander, one Vicente Mangyao, who just closed his store in market in order to celebrate the coming of the New Year, and who saw the incident right before him, shouted at the appellant to stop.
He ran after appellant when the latter refused to stop. Overtaking the appellant, Mangyao asked him why he bumped the old woman and his answer was, 'it was the old woman that bumped him.'
The appellant went back to the place where the old woman was struck by his rig.
The old woman was unconscious, and the food and viands she was carrying were scattered on her body.
The victim was then loaded in a jeep and brought to the hospital where she died three hours later.
The deceased was an eighty-one-year old woman named Rita B. Cabrera.
Genobiagon was charged with homicide thru reckless imprudence.
CFI-Cebu: Found Genobiagon guilty of the felony charged and sentenced him to "suffer an indeterminate penalty of three (3) months of arresto mayor as minimum to one (1) year, one (1) month and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as maximum, to indemnify the heirs of Rita Banzon Cabrera the sum of P6,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, not to exceed 1/3 of the principal penalty and to pay the costs.
CA: Increased Genobiagon’s civil liability to P12,000.
Issues:
Whether the CA erred in not finding that the reckless negligence of the victim was the proximate cause of the accident which led to her death;
Whether the CA erred in not acquitting the petitioner on the ground of reasonable doubt; and
Whether the CA erred in unjustly increasing the civil liability of the petitioner from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00, although the circumstances of the victim and the accused (petitioner) do not warrant such increase.
Held:
It is quite evident that all the issues raised in the petition for review are factual. Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the rule that findings of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are binding upon us.
The alleged contributory negligence of the victim, if any, does not exonerate the accused. "The defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases committed through reckless imprudence, since one cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his own negligence.
The petitioner's contention that the Court of Appeals unjustly increased his civil liability to P12,000, is devoid of merit. The prevailing jurisprudence in fact provides that indemnity for death in homicide or murder is P30,000. Accordingly, the civil liability of the petitioner is increased to P30,000.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is affirmed with modification as to the civil liability of the petitioner which is hereby increased to P30,000. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Comments
Post a Comment