PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDWIN BARRION Y VILLALUNA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
BUESER, J.:
rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39 of Calapan City finding
the accused-appellant guilty of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Double
Homicide in Criminal Case No. C-05-8284 entitled “People of the
Philippines vs. Edwin Barrion y Villaluna”.
Culled from the records[2] are the following pertinent, material antecedent facts:
On October 25,2005, at around 4:00 o’clock in the morning,
complainants Renemer Obando (Renemer), Marvin Ortega (Marvin), Marlon
Padua (Marlon), Arjay Obando (Arjay), Antonio Cabrera (Antonio), Galore
Gaytona (Galore), and Jefferson Panganiban (Jefferson) were at the house
of Reagan Ortega (Reagan) in Barangay Caanan, Victoria, Oriental
Mindoro. Private complainants were to accompany Mario Pacion (Mario) to
the pier of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro to catch the 5:00 o’clock
Supercat trip.
About ten minutes later, the entire group left
Reagan’s house for Calapan Pier on board a Toyota Tamaraw FX driven by
Reagan. Seated beside Reagan were Marvin and Renemer, while Mario,
Antonio and Arjay were seated behind the driver’s seat. On the other
hand, Marlon, Jefferson and Galore took the back seat.
While
traversing the national highway of Victoria, Oriental Mindoro at a speed
of around 50km/hr., private complainants noticed an oncoming Isuzu
truck with its headlight on high beam. Renemer advised Reagan to signal
the oncoming truck to turn its headlight on low beam. Renemer further
noticed that the said truck was at its full speed and encroaching their
lane. As advised, Reagan made the signals and slowed down. However, the
truck made no response to the flashed signals and continued on a high
beam, impairing Reagan’s vision. Thereafter, the truck collided with the
private complainants’ vehicle. The said collision resulted to the death
of Reagan and Mario and caused injuries to the others. The driver of
the truck turned out to be the accused-appellant.
Accused-appellant Edwin Barrion y Villanueva was charged with Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Double Homicide, Multiple slight Physical
Injuries and Damage to Property, defined and penalized under Article 365
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in an Information which reads:
“That on or about 25th day of October 2005, at around
4:30 a.m in the morning more or less, along the National Highway of
Barangay Poblacion IV, Municipality of Victoria, Province of Oriental
Mindoro, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above named accused, being then and there the driver of an
Isuzu eight-wheeler truck with plate number RAF 971 owned by Marlon
Castillo, willfully, unlawfully and with reckless imprudence, and in
violation of traffic rules and regulations, managed and drove said
vehicle in careless manner without due regard to traffic conditions, and
without sounding a horn or attracting in any other way the attention of
other motor vehicles, or keeping to the right-hand side of the street
according to the direction he was going, thereby permitting the said
truck to hit and bump the Toyota Tamaraw FX with plate number TSS 135
owned by Alfredo Ortega SR., and driven by Reagan Ortega thereby causing
the untimely demise of the said REAGAN ORTEGA and MARIO ROMEO PACION;
causing slight physical injuries on ARJAY OBANDO, 17 years old, MARLON
PADUA, RENEMER OBANDO, ANTONIO CABRERA, JEFFERSON PANGANIBAN, GALORE
GAYTANO, AND MARVIN ORTEGA who were also on board the said Toyota
Tamaraw FX; and that because of the incident, the said Toyota Tamaraw FX
sustained and that because of the incident, the said Toyota Tamaraw FX
sustained damages, to the damage and prejudice of the complainants.Contrary to law.”
When arraigned, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded
not guilty to the charge. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Subsequently, the court a quo rendered its assailed Decision dated
September 6,2011 finding appellant guilty as charged. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:
“ACCORDINGLY, in view of the forgoing, the Court finds the accused EDWIN BARRION y VILLANUEVA GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO DOUBLE HOMICIDE AND MULTIPLE SLIGHT PHYSICAL
INJURIES AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY, defined and punished under Article 365
of the Revised Penal Code, and sentence him to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment ranging FOUR (4) MONTHS OF ARRESTO MAYOR, AS MINIMUM, TO FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS OF PRISON CORRECTIONAL, AS MAXIMUM.The accused is likewise ordered to PAY:
- the HEIRS OF THE DECEASED REAGAN L. ORTEGA, the following amounts:
- the HEIRS PF THE DECEASED MARIO ROMEO PACION the following amounts:
- ARJAY OBANDO, RENER OBANDO, MARLON PADUA, ANTONIO CABRERA,
JEFFERSON PANGANIBAN, GALORE GAYTANO, and MARVIN ORTEGA the following
amounts:
SO ORDERED.”
Aggrieved, accused-appellant interposed this appeal raising the following arguments:
I
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS DRIVING HIS ISUZU TRUCK AT AN ALLOWABLE RATE OF SPEED BY TRAFFIC RULES AND REGULATIONS.
II
THE DECEASED DRIVER OF THE ILL-FATED TAMARAW FX WAS COMMITTING TWO (2) TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT.
III
THE DECEASED DRIVER OF THE TAMARAW FX ENCROACHED ON THE LANE OF THE ROAD OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
IV
THE COURT A QUO REQUIRED TOO MUCH FROM THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IN PUTTING ALL THE BLAME ON HIM.
V
THE DECEASED DRIVER OF THE TAMARAW FX IS THE NEGLIGENT ONE AND NO DAMAGES MAY BE AWARDED TO HIM AND HIS OTHER PASSENGERS.
Accused-appellant contends that the prosecution failed to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of reckless imprudence
resulting to double homicide, multiple slight physical injuries and
damage to property. At the time of the incident, he claimed that he was
driving the truck at an allowable speed. On the other hand, it was the
driver of the ill-fated tamaraw fx who was committing two traffic
violations at the time of the accident. The deceased Regan Ortega was
driving without a license, was speeding and encroached on the truck’s
lane, hence it was the tamaraw fx which hit the truck and not the other
way around.
However, contrary to the accused-appellant’s
contentions, the court a quo found that the truck was running at a
speed which was no longer reasonable and proper. Otherwise, the
accused-appellant would have more than enough time to apply his breaks
in order to avoid hitting the Tamaraw FX. Moreover, the prosecution
witnesses were likewise consistent in their testimony that prior to the
accident, the Tamaraw FX was running only at 50 kilometers per hour.
They also testified the truck was approaching them from the opposite
direction and its headlights were on high beam, blinding the deceased.
The deceased Regan Ortega flashed signals to the truck so that it will
switch its headlights to low beam, however the truck had already hit
just right after Regan flashed his signals.
It is well settled[3]
that “the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of a witness is
entitled to great weight, sometimes even with finality.”xxx where there
is no showing that the trial court overlooked or misinterpreted some
material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion, then We do not
disturb and interfere with its assessment of the facts and the
credibility of the witnesses. This is clearly because the judge in the
trial court was the one who personally heard the accused and the
witnesses, and observed their demeanor as well as the manner in which
they testified during trial. Accordingly, the trial court, or more
particularly, the RTC in this case, is in a better position to assess
and weigh the evidence presented during trial.”
It was held in Seguritan vs. People of the Philippines:[4]
“In a criminal case, factual findings of the trial court are
generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal, especially when
such findings are supported by substantial evidence on record. It is
only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court
overlooked material and relevant matters, that this Court will
re-calibrate and evaluate the factual findings of the court below.”
In addition in People of the Philippines vs. Sagarino,[5] it was held:
“Doctrinally, it is settled that the issue of credibility of
witnesses is to be resolved primarily by the trial court because it is
in the better position to assess the credibility of witnesses having
heard the testimonies, observed the deportment and manner of testifying
of the witnesses. Accordingly, its findings are entitled to great
respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any
showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied
some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have
affected the result of the case.”
Here, We find none of the exceptional circumstances which would entail the reversal of the court a quo’s findings.
Even granting that Reagan Ortega was also negligent, the
doctrine of last clear chance applies. The “doctrine of last clear
chance states that where both parties are negligent but the negligent
act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is
impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the
one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to
do so is chargeable with the loss”.[6]
In the instant case, We find no error on the part of the court
a quo when it gave credence to the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses that the deceased Reagan was not negligent in driving the
Tamaraw FX before the collision and that negligence should not be
attributed to him because he drove with an expired driver’s license and
the vehicle registration of the Tamaraw fx had already expired. Rather,
We sustain the court a quo’s findings that it was the driver of the
truck who had the last clear chance to avoid the collision with the
Tamaraw fx.
As aptly held by the court a quo, had the
accused-appellant been more attentive to his driving and heeded the
signals given by Reagan, he would have had the opportunity to avoid
hitting the tamaraw fx which verged on the lane of the truck. He should
have slowed down and switched his headlights on low beam to avoid
blinding the oncoming vehicle’s driver.
Lastly, the
accused-appellant admitted leaving the victims of the accident after the
collision. The act of the accused-appellant of leaving the fatalities
of the accident behind without assistance militates against his
innocence. He simply abandoned Reagan and his companions upon learning
that Reagan was a member of an influential family in Oriental Mindoro.
To Our mind, his act leaving the victims of the collision helpless and
alone at such an early hour of the morning is not justified by his fear
of reprisal from the deceased’s family he should have at least sought
assistance for them, if he cannot assist them on his own.
All
told, finding no cogent reason to reverse the court a quo’s findings,
accused-appellant’s conviction stands. Likewise, the award of damages is
sustained.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39 of Calapan
City dated 6 September 2011 is hereby AFFIRMED in TOTO.
SO ORDERED.
Zalameda[*] (Acting Chairperson) and Sempio Diy,[**] JJ., concur.
[*] Vice Justice De Guia-Salvador per Office Order No. 184-14-ABR dated May 5, 2014.
[**] Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 187-14-ABR dated May 6, 2014.
[1] Rollo, p. 11-23.
[2] Rollo, pp. 1-144
[3] People vs. Bautista, GR. No. 191266, June 6, 2011
[4] GR No. 172896, April 19, 2010 citing People v. Narca, 341 Phil. 713-714 (1997).
[5] G.R. Nos. 135356-58, September 4, 2001
[6] Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corp. vs. Angala, Gr. No. 153076, June 21, 2007