GR 133323; (March, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133323 ; March 9, 2000
ALBERTO AUSTRIA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
On July 9, 1989, petitioner Alberto Austria was driving a Ford Fiera along the Olongapo-Gapan Road in Bacolor, Pampanga. The vehicle, carrying ten passengers, was traveling from the Manila International Airport to Dinalupihan, Bataan. While cruising, one of the Fiera’s tires hit a stone on the road, causing Austria to lose control. The vehicle subsequently collided with the rear of an improperly parked cargo trailer truck, which was driven by accused Rolando M. Flores who remained at-large. The collision resulted in the death of one passenger, Virginia Lapid Vda. de Diwa, and caused serious physical injuries to several other occupants. An Amended Information was filed charging Austria and Flores with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Multiple Physical Injuries.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Austria of the lesser crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries, modifying its initial decision after a motion for reconsideration. It sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty and ordered him to pay indemnity and actual damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to a straight penalty of one month and one day of arresto mayor and deleted one award for damages. Austria then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for reckless imprudence and in imposing a straight penalty of arresto mayor instead of destierro.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals. On the conviction, the Court found no reason to overturn the factual findings of the lower courts. The consistent conclusion was that Austria failed to exercise the necessary precaution required of a prudent driver, given the circumstances of driving at night with passengers. His claim of a sudden mechanical defect was not sufficiently proven, and the element of negligence on his part was established beyond reasonable doubt.
Regarding the penalty, the Court held that the imposition of a straight penalty of one month and one day of arresto mayor was legally sound. The petitioner incorrectly argued that the penalty should be destierro. Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code grants courts sound discretion in imposing penalties for crimes of imprudence and negligence, without regard to the rules on mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The penalty imposed by the appellate court was within the range prescribed by law for the offense, which constitutes an act that, if intentional, would be a less grave felony. Finding no clear abuse of discretion in the appellate court’s exercise of its sentencing power, the Supreme Court sustained the penalty. The awards for damages were also upheld, except for the deletion already made by the Court of Appeals.