G.R. No. L-6897 / February 15, 1912
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. POLICARPIO TAYONGTONG, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Policarpio Tayongtong was convicted of homicide by reckless negligence (homicidio por imprudencia temeraria) for the death of Severino Resume, who was painting a telephone pole beside the highway between Jaro and Iloilo. The prosecution’s primary witness, Pablo Tayson, testified that Tayongtong was driving his passenger automobile at a very high speed, zigzagging across the road, and struck Resume while he was standing and painting. Tayson claimed the impact and “suction” from the fast-moving vehicle pulled Resume under its wheels. In contrast, Tayongtong and his witnesses testified that he was driving at a moderate speed (10-15 mph) in the center of the road, with the vehicle under control. They asserted that Resume, likely to avoid the dust raised by the vehicle, suddenly attempted to cross the road directly in front of the automobile, misjudging the distance. Tayongtong claimed he immediately applied the brakes and swerved, but could not avoid the accident, with only the front wheel running over Resume. The credibility of the prosecution’s witness was impeached, as he had given a contradictory statement during the preliminary investigation.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Severino Resume was caused by the reckless negligence of Policarpio Tayongtong.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Policarpio Tayongtong. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, primarily relying on the testimony of Pablo Tayson, insufficient and unreliable. Tayson’s testimony was contradicted by his prior statement and was deemed improbable and unexplained in key aspects (e.g., why the accused would deliberately drive off the road toward a pole and a stationary person, and why the deceased would not move to avoid an obviously approaching vehicle). The Court found the preponderance of evidence supported the defense’s version: that the accident was caused by the sudden and negligent act of the deceased in crossing the road directly in front of the automobile, leaving the driver no opportunity to avoid the impact despite exercising due care. The Court held that where death results solely from the negligence of the deceased himself, and not from any negligence of the accused, the accused cannot be held liable for homicide.