People v. Delos Santos

Facts:

On the early morning of October 5, 1995, at the Maitum Highway in Cagayan de Oro City, a team of PNP members undergoing a Special Training Course were performing an Endurance Run. They were jogging at the right side of the lane. A speeding Isuzu Elf ran into them, resulting to deaths and injuries. The accused surrendered to the Governor, and was eventually convicted of Multiple Murder, Multiple Frustrated Murder, and Multiple Attempted Murder. He was sentenced to death by the Trial Court. Hence, this automatic review.

Issue:

Whether there was intentional killing or attempt to kill the policemen, or a mere reckless imprudence

Held:

From the convergence of circumstances, we are inclined to believe that the tragic event was more a product of reckless imprudence than of a malicious intent on Glenn’s part. First, as testified to by prosecution rebuttal witness Danilo Olarita, the place of the incident was "very dark," as there was no moon. And according to PAGASA’s observed weather report within the vicinity of Cagayan de Oro City covering a radius of 50 kilometers, at the time the event took place, the sky was overcast, i.e., there was absolutely no break in the thick clouds covering the celestial dome globe; hence, there was no way for the moon and stars to be seen. Neither were there lampposts that illuminated the highway. Second, the jogging trainees and the rear guards were all wearing black T-shirts, black short pants, and black and green combat shoes, which made them hard to make out on that dark and cloudy night. The rear guards had neither reflectorized vests or gloves nor flashlights in giving hand signals. Third, GLENN was driving on the proper side of the road, the right lane. On the other hand, the jogging trainees were occupying the wrong lane, the same lane as Glenn’s vehicle was traversing. Worse, they were facing the same direction as Glenn’s truck such that their backs were turned towards the oncoming vehicles from behind. Fourth, no convincing evidence was presented to rebut Glenn’s testimony that he had been momentarily blinded by the very bright and glaring lights of the oncoming vehicle at the opposite direction as his truck rounded the curve. He must have been still reeling from the blinding effect of the lights coming from the other vehicle when he plowed into the group of police trainees. Indeed, as pointed out by appellant, instinct tells one “to stop or swerve to a safe place the moment he sees a cow, dog, or cat on the road, in order to avoid bumping or killing the same"; and more so if the one on the road is a person. It would therefore be inconceivable for GLENN, then a young college graduate with a pregnant wife and three very young children who were dependent on him for support, to have deliberately hit the group with his truck.

We are convinced that the incident, tragic though it was in light of the number of persons killed and seriously injured, was an accident and not an intentional felony. It is significant to note that there is no shred of evidence that GLENN had an axe to grind against the police trainees that would drive him into deliberately hitting them with intent to kill. Glenn’s offense is in failing to apply the brakes, or to swerve his vehicle to the left or to a safe place the movement he heard and felt the first bumping thuds. Had he done so, many trainees would have been spared.

The test for determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another is this: Could a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course actually pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course or to take precautions to guard against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the admonition born of this prevision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist.

GLENN showed an inexcusable lack of precaution. Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code states that reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration (1) his employment or occupation; (2) his degree of intelligence; (4) his physical condition; and (3) other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

GLENN, being then a young college graduate and an experienced driver, should have known to apply the brakes or swerve to a safe place immediately upon hearing the first bumping thuds to avoid further hitting the other trainees. By his own testimony, it was established that the road was slippery and slightly going downward; and, worse, the place of the incident was foggy and dark. He should have observed due care in accordance with the conduct of a reasonably prudent man, such as by slackening his speed, applying his brakes, or turning to the left side even if it would mean entering the opposite lane (there being no evidence that a vehicle was coming from the opposite direction). It is highly probable that he was driving at high speed at the time. And even if he was driving within the speed limits, this did not mean that he was exercising due care under the existing circumstances and conditions at the time.

Considering that the incident was not a product of a malicious intent but rather the result of a single act of reckless driving, GLENN should be held guilty of the complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide with serious physical injuries and less serious physical injuries.