GREGORIO GENOBIAGON, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review of the Court of Appeals’ decision
in CA-G.R. No. 09949-CR, dated October
10, 1974, affirming the conviction of the petitioner of the crime
of homicide thru reckless imprudence.

As found by the Court of Appeals, the facts of this case are:

On December 31,
1959, at about 7:30
o’clock in the evening, a rig driven by appellant 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 Nangyao, who had just closed
his store in the 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, Nangyao 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 (Exh.
C).  The
findings after an autopsy are as follows:

‘Contusion with Hematoma
Left, Frontal and Occipito – Parietal Regionas Fracture Occipito –
Parietal Bone Cerebral Hemorrhage.’

“The deceased was an eighty-one-year old woman named Rita
B. Cabrera.” (pp. 31-32, Rollo.)

Petitioner was charged with homicide thru reckless imprudence in
the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Crim. Case No. V-7855).  The trial court found petitioner 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” (p. 3,
Appellant’s Brief, p. 56, Rollo).

The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R.
09949-CR) which, on October 10, 1974, affirmed the conviction of the accused
but increased his civil liability to P12,000. 
The dispositive portion of its decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, finding no error in the judgment appealed from
except in the amount of indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the deceased, Rita
B. Cabrera, which is the sum of
P6,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, which should be
raised to P12,000.00 (People vs. Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18793,
October 11, 1968, 25 SCRA 468) but without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, the same should be, as it
is hereby affirmed in all other respects
with costs.” (p. 37, Rollo.)

After his motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals’
decision was denied, he filed a petition for review in this Court, alleging
that the Court of Appeals erred:

1. in not finding that the
reckless negligence of the victim was the proximate cause of the accident which
led to her death;

2.  in
not acquitting the petitioner on the ground of reasonable doubt; and

3. 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.

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 (Bernardo vs. Bernardo, 101 SCRA 351; Vda. De Roxas vs. IAC, 143 SCRA 77; Republic vs. IAC, 144 SCRA 705).

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 (People vs. Orbeta,
CA-G.R. No. 321, March 29, 1947).” (People vs. Quiñones, 44 O.G. 1520).

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 (People vs. De
la Fuente, [1983] 126 SCRA 518; People vs. Centeno 130 SCRA 198). 
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.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Gancayco, J., no part, took part in Court of Appeals.