GR L 47493; (April, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47493; April 8, 1941
VICTOR AGUILAR, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
On the afternoon of June 23, 1937, a locomotive of the Manila Railroad Company, driven by petitioner Victor Aguilar, collided with a United States Navy jitney at a railroad crossing on the provincial highway in San Juan, Kawit, Cavite. The collision resulted in serious physical injuries to the jitney driver, Mariano Gomez, and a passenger, F.J. Mariano, and caused the death of two other passengers, Antonio Escaño and Jacobo Baylon. The evidence, as found by the Court of Appeals, established that: (1) the locomotive was running at an excessive speed; (2) it did not blow its whistle or ring its bell when approaching the crossing; (3) the railroad line had been declared abandoned by Commonwealth Act No. 59 dated October 20, 1936, and as evidence of this abandonment, the crossing barriers had been removed a month and a half before the incident; and (4) the jitney, upon approaching the crossing, slowed down and waited for an automobile ahead of it to cross before proceeding. Aguilar was convicted of double homicide and serious physical injuries through reckless negligence by the Court of First Instance of Cavite, a judgment affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which increased the principal penalty.
ISSUE
Whether the rule requiring a driver approaching a railroad crossing to take precautions to stop almost immediately upon the appearance of a train applies in this case, given that the railroad track had been declared abandoned and was being dismantled.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the general rule requiring a person in control of an automobile approaching a railroad track to take precautions to be able to stop almost immediately upon the appearance of a train, and being guilty of criminal negligence for failing to do so, does not apply in the instant case. This is because the railroad track in question had been abandoned and was in fact being actually dismantled, as evidenced by the removal of the crossing barriers. The Court found no merit in Aguilar’s contention regarding contributory negligence, as the facts disclosed no contributory negligence on the part of the jitney driver. The other errors assigned involved factual findings of the Court of Appeals, which are conclusive and cannot be disturbed.