G.R. No. 134387 , September 27, 2002
Teofilo Abueva y Cagasan, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Teofilo Abueva, a driver for Bachelor Express, Inc., was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The information alleged that on August 7, 1992, at the Ecoland Terminal in Davao City, he drove and moved a bus out of the terminal building even before passenger Lourdes Mangruban could properly find and safely take her seat, causing her to fall onto the cemented pavement, sustaining fatal injuries. It was further alleged that he failed to render assistance on the spot. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s version, primarily through the testimony of the victim’s brother Ireneo Mangruban, was that the victim was waiting on the first stepboard with luggage when the bus suddenly moved, causing her to fall. The defense’s version, through testimonies of the conductor, driver, and other witnesses, was that the victim had already boarded, taken her seat, and then, while the bus was in motion, decided to alight, rushed towards the exit, and jumped off despite warnings, resulting in her fall. The trial court convicted petitioner of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, increasing it by one degree due to the alleged presence of the qualifying circumstance of failure to lend assistance.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution has proven the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the qualifying circumstance that the offender failed to lend on the spot to the injured parties such assistance as may be in his hands to give should be considered against the petitioner.

RULING

1. Yes, the prosecution proved petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which gave credence to the prosecution’s evidence. The Court held that the testimony of the victim’s brother was credible and consistent. It noted that the defense’s claim that the victim “jumped” was inconsistent and unreliable. The Court found that petitioner was negligent in starting the bus while the victim was not yet safely seated, as she was still on the stepboard. His failure to ensure that all passengers were safely seated before moving constituted reckless imprudence.
2. No, the qualifying circumstance of failure to lend assistance was not proven. The Court found that the prosecution failed to substantiate the charge that petitioner did not lend assistance. Evidence showed that after the incident, the bus stopped, and the victim was immediately assisted by the dispatcher and a terminal helper. Petitioner inquired if they could continue the trip and was told they could, and that the victim would be taken to the hospital. The Court ruled that the last paragraph of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, which increases the penalty for failure to lend assistance, contemplates a situation where no help at all is given. Here, assistance was rendered, albeit not by petitioner personally but by other personnel of the bus company whose acts should be considered as having been done for the petitioner. Therefore, the penalty should not be increased.
The Supreme Court MODIFIED the decision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner is declared guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The penalty is modified to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum. The award of damages (P148,202.70 for actual expenses, P4,500.00 for funeral expenses, and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity) is AFFIRMED.