Case Digest: Manzares vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 153760-61, October 12, 2006

Torts and Damages

Chico-Nazario, J.:

Facts: 

• A vehicular collision occurred at around 2:30 PM on January 13, 1983, along MacArthur Highway in Barangay Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan.

• The collision involved an Isuzu six-wheeler truck, owned by Manhattan Enterprises, Inc., and driven by Teodorico Manzanares, and a passenger jeepney registered to Teodoro Basallo.

• During the trial, it was established that the jeepney was heading south toward Manila, while the truck was traveling in the opposite direction.

• The incident resulted in the deaths of:

• Jesus Basallo, the jeepney driver 

• Miguel Anas

• Ferdinand Exaltacion

• Antonio Pasco

• Several passengers of the jeepney sustained serious injuries:

• Angela Enriquez

• Romeo Espelimbergo

• Teresita dela Cruz

• Cita Vicente

• Jesus Bartolome

• Rolando Peralta

• Felicidad Raymundo y Tomaquin

• Civil suits were filed by the victims against Manzanares alleging that he drove the truck in a grossly negligent and reckless manner, disregarding traffic rules.

• Manhattan Enterprises, Inc. and Eduardo Yang —  failure in the selection and supervision of Manzanares as their employee.

• Teodoro Basallo — breach of contract of carriage as the registered owner of the jeepney.

• Defense:

• Manzanares was not at fault, that Manhattan Enterprises had exercised due diligence in employee supervision, and that they acted in good faith.

• Teodoro Basallo contended that the jeepney was leased to his brother and driver, Jesus Basallo, for P100.00 per day, and thus, he did not have a contract of carriage with any passenger.

• In addition to civil cases, an Information was filed against Teodorico Manzanares.

• The damages to the jeepney were assessed at P65,000.00.

• The civil and criminal cases were consolidated for a joint trial.

• Witnesses’ Testimony:

• Passenger Angela Enriquez testified that the jeepney was on an inclined section of the highway when it was struck by the Isuzu truck, which was attempting to overtake another vehicle.

• Felicidad Raymundo y Tomaquin and Cita Vicente corroborated Enriquez's account, stating that the jeepney was ascending the cemented portion of the highway at the time of the collision.

• Paterno Dimapilis, another witness, said that the jeepney was on the right shoulder of the road while the truck was trying to overtake a bus and was swerving to avoid an oncoming vehicle. As the truck swerved to the left to avoid a tamaraw jeep, the passenger jeepney was moving to stop on the cemented portion, resulting in the collision.

• Petitioner Manzanares testified that he was returning to the company's premises after a delivery and attempted to overtake a passenger jeepney after a bus overtook it. He claimed that while trying to overtake, the passenger jeepney suddenly moved into his path, prompting him to apply the brakes, causing the truck to skid and collide with the jeepney. Manzanares admitted that the two jeepneys were approximately five to ten meters apart, and he had not turned the steering wheel when the truck skidded to the left.

RTC-Bulacan: Teodorico Manzanares was found guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide, serious physical injuries, and damage to property.

• Indeterminate prison term of 3 years, 6 months, and 20 days to a maximum of 7 years and 4 months, plus costs.

CA: Affirmed the trial court's decision.

Issue: Whether the prosecution failed to discharge its duty of establishing petitioner Manzanares’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt. NO

Petitioners insist that the prosecution failed to discharge its duty of establishing petitioner Manzanares’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the decisions both of the trial court and of the Court of Appeals were based only on mere assumptions. They pointed out that if it were true that petitioner Manzanares swerved farther to the left of the highway while he was overtaking, as found by the trial court, then, there was no reason why it still ended up on the asphalted portion of the highway. 

Moreover, they claim that petitioner Manzanares exercised caution before he proceeded to overtake the passenger jeepney on his side of the road by making sure that there was no oncoming vehicle on the opposite side of the highway. It was only after petitioner Manzanares was certain that he could successfully overtake that he did so but Jesus Basallo suddenly and unexpectedly maneuvered his passenger jeepney into the highway forcing petitioner Manzanares to apply the brakes of his truck. Unfortunately, the Isuzu truck skidded and rammed into the passenger jeepney driven by Jesus Basallo. Petitioners also impugn the reliance by the trial court and the Court of Appeals on the testimony of Dimapilis by claiming that the latter was a biased witness supplied by the parents of Ferdinand Exaltacion, one of the passengers who died because of the incident.

Petitioners also maintain that at the time of the incident, the passenger jeepney owned by Teodoro Basallo was not covered by any franchise to operate and that Jesus Basallo was driving with an expired license. Thus, under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, Jesus Basallo is presumed negligent.

The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment and essentially maintained that this petition does not present any special and important reason that may justify the exercised of this Court’s power of review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

The petition is unmeritorious.

It is quite evident that the question as to who between petitioner Manzanares and Jesus Basallo was negligent in the operation of his vehicle is factual in nature justifying the outright rejection of this petition. As this court has repeatedly stressed in the majority of appeals in criminal cases, an appellate court gives great weight to the factual findings of trial courts and accords them respect if not finality unless the accused-appellant is able to show that the trial court overlooked or disregarded matters of substance which if considered would very likely change the results. 

Petitioners plead with us to absolve them of any liability arising from the incident which occurred in the afternoon of 13 January 1983 by shifting the blame to the Jesus Basallo, the driver of the passenger jeepney involved in the incident. We have carefully reviewed the entire records of this case and failed to find any reason to rule in their favor.

We particularly take note of the inconsistency in petitioner Manzanares’ stance as to what really caused him to abruptly step on his brakes while he was trying to pass the passenger jeepney then unloading its passengers in his side of the road. While he insists that he was compelled to apply his brakes when he saw Jesus Basallo’s passenger jeepney move into the MacArthur Highway away from the shoulder to allow its passengers to disembark, he stated a different recollection of the incident in his direct testimony on 5 March 1986, thus:

Q   -   Will you tell this Honorable Court how that accident where you were involved happened?

A   -   I was following a truck, sir, and that truck I was following overtook a jeep which was unloading a passenger, sir.

Q   -   What happened next after that truck you have mentioned overtook a passenger jeep which was unloading a passenger?

A   -   I was also coming, sir.

Q   -   Coming from where?

A   -   From Tabang going to Malolos, sir.

Q   -   How about that truck which according to you overtook a jeep which was unloading a passenger, where did it come from?

A   -   From Tabang, sir.

Q   -   What happened when that truck you were following overtook that jeep which was unloading passenger?

A   -   He was able to overtook (sic), sir.

Q   -   And after… by the way, what kind of truck was it which you said overtook that passenger jeepney which you said was unloading a passenger, if you still recall?

A   -   It was a passenger bus, sir, colored red.

x x x x

Q   -   After that passenger bus according to you had overtaken the jeep which was unloading a passenger, what happened next to you, if anything had happened?

A   -   I was also going to overtake because the jeep was still there but I tried to see whether there was an oncoming vehicle so that I would be able to overtake, also, sir.

Q   -   Was that the only thing you did before overtaking the said passenger jeep?

A   -   I did not see any oncoming vehicle, sir.

Q   -   When you said you did not see oncoming vehicle, you mean you did not see vehicle coming from the direction of Malolos going towards Guiguinto?

A   -   No one, sir, was coming except a jeep which was on the shoulder of the road, sir.

Q   -   What did you do upon seeing that there was no oncoming vehicle from the direction of Malolos?

A   -   I overtook, sir.

Q   -   Were you able to successfully overtook that passenger jeepney which was unloading passenger?

A   -   No, sir.

Q   -   Why, please tell the Court?

A   -   When I was already aligned with the jeep, I was to overtake the jeep which was on a stop on the shoulder, it immediately took its motion, sir.

Q   -   And what did you do when you saw that the jeep on the shoulder immediately entering the pavement?

A   -   I applied my brakes, sir.

Q   -   How many times did you apply your brakes?

A   -   Only once, sir.

Q   -   Did the truck you were driving stopped as a result of the application of that brake?

A   -   It still continued to move (umusad), sir.

x x x x

Q   -   You said your truck skidded, what happened after it skidded?

A   -   It bumped the jeep, sir.

Q   -   What kind of jeep?

A   -   A passenger jeep, sir. 

On cross-examination, he reiterated that the passenger jeepney he was supposed to pass commenced moving while he was in the process of overtaking –

ATTY. ARCEO:

Q   -   And when you were abreast to the jeep you testified, did you not, that the jeep started its motion?

ATTY. PASAMBA:

Which jeep now?

ATTY. ARCEO:

The jeep at the right side.

A   -   Still little by little, sir. 

By his own admission, it is crystal clear that petitioner Manzanares was caught by surprise when the passenger jeepney he intended to overtake started moving alongside him causing him to hesitate and to step on his brakepedal. 

But as he was running at such a fast pace, the momentum of the Isuzu truck overpowered his brakes such that the truck still continued with its motion until it bumped the passenger jeepney driven by Jesus Basallo right at the edge of the asphalted portion of the highway. 

The location of the debris, as illustrated by the sketch prepared by Patrolman Macapagal, and his testimony confirm that there were more pieces of broken glass on the shoulder of the road than there were on the highway itself. Evidence tending to illustrate the relative positions of the vehicles immediately after the accident tends to throw light on the issue of speed and direction of the vehicle’s movements prior to, and at the same time of, the accident. This confirms that only a small portion of the passenger jeepney was positioned on the asphalted portion of the highway itself while the remainder of its body was still on the shoulder of the road. Given petitioner’s testimony that the two passenger jeepneys were far from one another, there was more than ample road space within which petitioner Manzanares could have maneuvered the Isuzu truck instead of bumping into the passenger jeepney and pinning Jesus Basallo to his death. The fact that he was unable to do so and in the end lost control of the Isuzu truck indicate that petitioner Manzanares was unreasonably fast in traversing that portion of the road despite his insistence that he was driving slowly because his speedometer was not functioning.

Equally damning for petitioner Manzanares are the photographs of the two vehicles which were presented before the court for they easily contradict his claim with respect to the speed of the Isuzu truck. 

In the case of Macalinao v. Ong, we had the occasion to discuss the evidentiary value of photographs –

According to American courts, photographs are admissible in evidence in motor vehicle accident cases when they appear to have been accurately taken and are proved to be a faithful and clear representation of the subject, which cannot itself be produced, and are of such nature as to throw light upon a disputed point. 

The severe damage to the front left portion of the passenger jeepney as shown by said pictures gives rise to the inevitable conclusion that the Isuzu truck was running fast before it smashed into the jeepney. Such destruction could not have resulted had petitioner Manzanares been driving his truck slowly for then the impact would not have been as severe. As we have previously declared, "the very fact of speeding is indicative of imprudent behavior, as a motorist must exercise ordinary care and drive at a reasonable rate of speed commensurate with the conditions encountered, which will enable him or her to keep the vehicle under control and avoid injury to others using the highway."

Nor are we convinced that the Isuzu truck "voluntarily" swerved to the left of the highway. Such bare claim on the part of petitioner Manzanares’ part amounts to nothing but an unsubstantiated and self-serving allegation.

Finally, as to petitioners’ argument that Jesus Basallo should be presumed negligent because he was driving with an expired license and the passenger jeepney owned by his brother Teodorico did not have a franchise to operate, we hold that the same fails to convince. "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."

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals’ Decision dated 30 April 2002 affirming, with modification, the Decision dated 16 December 1994 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Malolos, Bulacan is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.