G.R. No. 171636 ; April 7, 2009
Norman A. Gaid, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Norman A. Gaid was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. On October 25, 2001, at around 12:00 noon, he was driving a passenger jeepney along a two-lane road near Laguindingan National High School in Misamis Oriental. The jeepney was filled to seating capacity. The victim, fourteen-year-old student Michael Dayata, was sitting on the left side of the road and raised his hand to flag down the jeepney, which was traveling on the right lane. Petitioner and his conductor did not see anyone flagging them down. An eyewitness saw Dayata’s feet get pinned to the left rear wheel of the jeepney, and he was later found lying on the ground caught between the rear tires. Petitioner felt the left rear tire bounce and the vehicle tilt to the right. Upon hearing a shout that a boy had been run over, petitioner stopped. The conductor brought the victim to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead on arrival due to cranio-cerebral injuries. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court found petitioner guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court. The Court of Appeals modified the conviction, finding petitioner guilty only of simple negligence resulting in homicide, holding that while he was not driving recklessly, he was negligent in failing to promptly stop after feeling the tire bounce.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioner guilty of simple negligence resulting in homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding petitioner guilty of simple negligence resulting in homicide. The Court analyzed the incident in two stages. During the first stage (leading up to the victim being run over), petitioner was not negligent. He was driving slowly, as confirmed by witnesses, and was focused on the road ahead; the proximate cause of the initial accident was the victim’s own negligence in trying to board a moving vehicle from the side. However, during the second stage (immediately after the victim was run over), petitioner was negligent. He felt the jeepney’s left rear tire bounce and the vehicle tilt, yet he did not immediately stop. The Court held that a prudent man in petitioner’s position, upon feeling such an unusual occurrence, especially in a school zone, could have foreseen harm and was duty-bound to stop and investigate. His failure to exercise this precaution constituted simple negligence. The Court noted that had he stopped promptly, the victim might not have been dragged approximately 5.70 meters, possibly preventing his death. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was upheld.