PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ROMULO DE LA MERCED, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This case was forwarded here by the Court of Appeals as involving questions
of law exclusively.

Both Romulo de la Merced y Cruz and Jose Almorin were originally charged with
the crime of serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence in the
Municipal Court of Quezon City by an information dated 4 June 1957. Jose Almorin
pleaded guilty, and was sentenced accordingly. Romulo de la Merced y Cruz
entered a plea of not guilty, and, upon conviction, appealed to the Court of
First Instance of Quezon City. In the latter court, he was likewise found to
have driven his bus in a reckless and imprudent manner and sentenced to 2 months
and 1 day of arresto mayor. No civil liability was awarded the offended
party as the latter reserved his right to file a separate action. From this
decision of 21 June 1960 Romulo de la Merced y Cruz appealed to the Court of
Appeals.

The findings of fact of the trial court were as follows:

“From the evidence submitted by the prosecution, it appears that the accused
Romulo de la Merced was the driver of a De Dios bus on February 16, 1957; that
on said date the said bus driven by the said accused was cruising along Quezon
Boulevard, near the Jusmag Officers’ Open Mess, Quezon City, when it bumped a
Flash Taxicab with plate No. 2981 (QC. 1957); that at the time the De Dios bus
with plate No. 4508 (Mla. ’57) bumped the Flash taxicab, the De Dios bus was
coming from behind the said taxicab and it bumped the same at the middle portion
of its body in the portion encircled with blue ink in the sketch marked as
Exhibit B; that the driver of the Flash Taxicab was then at a stop in front of
the Jusmag Officers’ Mess, as its passenger, Atty. Eliseo Tenza was to attend a
meeting to be held in the said Open Mess; and that as a result of the said
accident, the passenger of the taxicab, Atty. Eliseo Tenza, suffered
“Concussion, cerebral, mild; contusions, multiple, parietal, ocapular region and
lower thigh, right and shoulder and chest, left” (Exh. A), which incapacitated
him fop about a month.

The accused only offered in evidence Exhibit 1, wthich is the sentence of the
Municipal Court as regards the accused Jose Almorin, and rested his case.

In effect, the accused, in resting his case on the basis of the sentence of
the Municipal Court as regards the accused Jose Almorin, argues that by virtue
of the plea of guilty of the said accused Jose Almorin, the other accused Romulo
de la Merced cannot be held responsible for the crime charged. The Court cannot
sustain this stand of the said accused de la Merced. It should be noted that
from the evidence for the prosecution, it is obvious that the said accused de la
Merced, was the one at fault for the accident. The bus driven by him bumped the
Flash taxi-cab behind. Furthermore, the said taxicab was bumped while it was a
complete stop. As a matter of fact, the passenger Atty. Tenza was about to
alight already when the incident happened (pp. 54 and 55 tsn). In the face
of these facts as already established which the Court cannot ignore, the Court
cannot sustain the theory of the defendant de la Merced. In this particular
instance, mention should be made that it seems obvious that the plea of guilty
of Jose Almorin is tainted with collusion.” (Italics supplied)

Appellant advances the theory that he may not be convicted of the offense
charged, or be found to have driven his bus recklessly, after his former
co-accused in the collision in question had already pleaded guilty, in the
Municipal Court. Obviously, appellant’s contention is untenable.

First, there is nothing in the plea of guilty of Jose Almorin which
would in any manner imply that he is the only one solely answerable for the
collision, thereby exonerating appellant from any criminal responsibility. On
the contrary, the information filed alleges clearly that both Almorin and
de la Merced drove their respective vehicles in such a careless, reckless, fast,
and imprudent manner, that it resulted in injury to complainant Eliseo Tenza.
Collisions do happen every day which are caused directly by the gross negligence
and recklessness of both chauffeurs involved.

Second, the appellant alone stood trial before the Court of First
Instance of Quezon City, and it was entirely de novo, independently of
the trial had in the municipal court.

And last, to uphold the argument of appellant would leave at the hands of the
one accused, who elects to plead guilty, the automatic exemption of his
co-accused from all criminal responsibility. Plainly, this should not be
allowed.

Finding this appeal to be without merit, the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Quezon City is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera,
Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.