G.R. No. L-4091
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERNABE BACHO, defendant-appellant.
March 25, 1908

FACTS:
Bernabe Bacho, the chief engineer of the steamer Carmen, was charged with homicidio por imprudencia temeraria (homicide resulting from reckless negligence). The information alleged that Bacho carelessly and with reckless negligence released the screws holding the manhole plate on the steamer’s boiler, without taking proper precautions. As a result, the plate fell into the boiler, splashing hot water onto a Chinaman named Chan-Yan, who subsequently died from severe scalds.

The evidence presented showed that Bacho, in the proper discharge of his duties, directed a fireman to open the manhole and personally superintended the work, which was done according to the usual method in Philippine waters. The manhole plate, weighing about 20 pounds, was suspended by a rope. Shortly after Bacho and the fireman moved to another part of the ship, the plate fell into the boiler, causing the fatal accident.

The defense contended that Bacho adopted the usual and proper method, and there was no evidence of negligence on his part. The true cause of the accident was unknown and could have been due to a hidden defect in the rope, a slipped knot (for which extreme diligence in personal inspection of subordinate’s work was argued not to be required), or even a malicious act by a third person, as the rope presented by the defense at trial showed signs of having been cut. The trial judge, however, found Bacho guilty, reasoning that if proper care (strong rope, good knots) had been exercised, the plate would not have fallen, thus implying negligence on Bacho’s part as the one in charge. The judge also refused to believe the defense’s testimony about the rope used.

ISSUE:
Whether Bernabe Bacho was guilty of criminal negligence (homicidio por imprudencia temeraria) for the death of Chan-Yan.

RULING:
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove criminal negligence on the part of Bernabe Bacho. The evidence indicated that Bacho followed the usual, proper, and necessary method of procedure in opening the manhole. The true cause of the accident remained unexplained and could not be solely attributed to Bacho’s negligence. Possible causes included a hidden defect in the rope, a slipped knot where extreme diligence in personal inspection by an officer was not reasonably required, or a malicious act by a third party, as suggested by the cut rope.

The Court emphasized that accidents, sometimes inexplicable, are common, and criminal liability for negligence cannot be presumed in every case where an accident occurs; the prosecution must prove both the existence of criminal negligence and the accused’s guilt. The trial judge’s refusal to believe uncontradicted testimony regarding the rope used, simply because an accident had occurred, was deemed erroneous. Furthermore, the Court held that merely opening the manhole while the deceased was in the vicinity, when the steamer was at anchor and the possibility of such an accident was remote, did not constitute criminal negligence. It would be unreasonable to hold Bacho criminally responsible for failing to anticipate such a remote possibility. The Court concluded that there was no evidence to suggest Bacho was negligent; on the contrary, he exercised all due care and precautions.