G.R. No. L-20455, March 31, 1965
NAZARIO CATUIZA, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

On August 10, 1957, Halili Transit buses Nos. 187 and 606, carrying students and professors, were traveling north on the National Highway to Nueva Ecija. The weather was rainy, and the road was wet. Between kilometers 99 and 100, bus No. 606, driven by petitioner Nazario Catuiza and following bus No. 187, collided with a jeep traveling in the opposite direction. The collision resulted in the deaths of eight jeep passengers and serious injuries to two others. The prosecution evidence established that bus No. 606, traveling over 70 kilometers per hour, swerved to the left beyond the center line in an attempt to overtake bus No. 187, hitting the jeep. The defense claimed the jeep, driven by a woman at 50 miles per hour, attempted to overtake a freight truck and collided with the bus. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding that Catuiza’s reckless negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. He was convicted of multiple homicide with serious physical injuries through reckless negligence and ordered to indemnify the victims’ heirs. Catuiza appealed, raising issues regarding the damages awarded.

ISSUE

1. Whether the award of P1,000 for damages to the jeep of the deceased Pedro Pagdanganan was proper despite the information charging only multiple homicide and physical injuries.
2. Whether indemnities received by the heirs from life insurance companies should be deducted from the damages awarded.
3. Whether loss of earning capacity can be awarded to heirs who were not dependent on the deceased for support.
4. Whether the damages should be equitably reduced due to alleged contributory negligence of the deceased and absence of malice on Catuiza’s part.
5. Whether damages should be limited because Catuiza was engaged in a necessary and essential industry.

RULING

1. On the award for jeep damages: The award of P1,000 for damages to Pedro Pagdanganan’s jeep was erroneous. The information charged only multiple homicide and physical injuries, not damage to property. A person cannot be convicted or sentenced for an offense not charged.
2. On deduction of life insurance indemnities: No deduction is allowed. Article 2207 of the Civil Code, which provides for subrogation of insurance companies, applies only to property insurance, not to life insurance. Life insurance indemnities do not compensate for the loss of life in the same manner as property insurance.
3. On loss of earning capacity for non-dependent heirs: The award for loss of earning capacity is proper under Article 2206(1) of the Civil Code, which mandates such indemnity to the heirs of the deceased, regardless of dependency. The second paragraph of Article 2206 applies only to recipients of support who are not heirs, which is not the case here.
4. On equitable reduction due to contributory negligence and absence of malice: No reduction is warranted. Absence of malice is inherent in the crime of reckless negligence and does not mitigate liability. The alleged overloading of the jeep did not contribute to the collision, and the passengers could not have contributed to it.
5. On limitation due to necessary and essential industry: No such limitation exists under Philippine law. While the state may grant concessions in areas like taxes or regulations, there is no distinction between industries concerning liability for damages caused to third persons.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The decision of the Court of Appeals is modified by reducing the indemnity to the heirs of Pedro Pagdanganan from P17,850.00 to P16,850.00 (removing the P1,000 for jeep damages). In all other respects, the decision is affirmed, with costs against petitioner Nazario Catuiza.