G.R. No. 56481 July 21, 1989
ANTONIO SORIAO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Antonio Soriao, part-owner of the motor boat “Sweet Lord,” was charged with multiple homicide and damage to property through reckless imprudence. The information alleged that on January 10, 1978, Soriao, conspiring with the boat’s captain Domingo Zamora, overloaded the vessel with passengers and cargo and operated it in a reckless manner. The boat capsized in the Pacific Ocean near Baler, Quezon, resulting in numerous deaths and the loss of property. The prosecution established that the boat was grossly overloaded, with only a palm’s width of freeboard above the waterline. Despite rough sea conditions and the explicit objection of the employed captain, Zamora, Soriao ordered the boat to resume its voyage after a stop in Dinadiawan. The vessel subsequently sank.
The Court of First Instance found Soriao guilty. The court ruled that as a part-owner who took active control and gave orders to the crew, he was a “person in charge” of the vessel under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. His decision to sail despite the dangerous overload and adverse weather constituted reckless imprudence. The Court of Appeals affirmed this conviction. Soriao appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing he was merely a passenger and not in charge of the boat’s navigation.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether petitioner Antonio Soriao, as a part-owner who gave orders to the crew, qualifies as a “person in charge” of a vessel under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code and can thus be held criminally liable for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple deaths and damage.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic hinges on the interpretation of “person in charge” under Article 365. The Court held that liability attaches not only to the formal operator or pilot but to anyone who assumes actual control and direction of the conveyance. The evidence conclusively showed that Soriao exercised de facto command. He boarded the vessel and subsequently gave the order to depart Dinalungan. Most critically, after a three-hour stop in Dinadiawan due to rough seas, he overruled the employed captain’s safety objections and ordered the overloaded boat to resume its voyage into still-dangerous conditions. This direct intervention in operational decisions established him as a person in charge. His part-ownership and his actions demonstrating control over the crew’s movements made him criminally responsible for the reckless operation. The Court found that his imprudence—sailing an overloaded boat in stormy weather—was the direct and proximate cause of the tragedy. The penalty imposed by the lower courts was within the range prescribed by law for the complex crime of multiple homicide with damage to property through reckless imprudence.