G.R. No. 18779 ; August 18, 1922
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIONISIO MACASINAG, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Dionisio Macasinag, a chauffeur for A. L. Ammen Transportation Company, was driving a company truck on December 11, 1920, when it was found to be carrying 46 passengers, exceeding its registered capacity of 40. Some passengers were riding on the running boards. The district engineer filed a complaint. Macasinag was convicted in the justice of the peace court and, on appeal, in the Court of First Instance, which sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment, reasoning the truck was a public vehicle. Macasinag appealed, arguing the conductor, not the chauffeur, was liable; that the court erred in its evidentiary rulings and findings; and that the information did not allege the vehicle was public.

ISSUE

Whether the chauffeur (Macasinag) is criminally liable for overloading the motor vehicle under Act No. 2159 , as amended by Act No. 2587 , when a conductor was present and in charge of the passengers.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Macasinag. The Court interpreted the term “operating a motor vehicle” as defined in Act No. 2159 . The law defines “operating” to include “running, driving, guiding, controlling, or conducting.” The evidence showed a conductor was on the truck whose duties included collecting fares, giving signals to start and stop, and supervising passengers. The chauffeur’s duties were confined to the mechanical operation of the vehicle. The Court ruled that where a conductor is present and in intelligent supervision of the vehicle, it is the conductor, not the chauffeur, who is “operating” it for purposes of the overloading prohibition. The legislature could not have intended to hold a chauffeur criminally liable for an act (overloading) over which he had no knowledge or control.