G.R. No. L-9700, December 3, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BENITO MANABAT and LUCAS PASIBI, defendants. LUCAS PASIBI, appellant.

FACTS:
On August 22, 1913, in Dagupan, Pangasinan, a collision occurred at a railroad crossing between a train (engineered by Benito Manabat) and an automobile (driven by Lucas Pasibi). The collision resulted in the death of Lieutenant Frank B. Jenkins, a passenger in the automobile, and injuries to others. The defendants were charged with the crime of “imprudencia temeraria” (reckless negligence). After trial, the court dismissed the charge against Manabat for insufficiency of evidence but convicted Pasibi. The trial court sentenced Pasibi to one year and one day of prision correccional, with accessory penalties, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. Pasibi appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt.

ISSUE:
Whether the evidence adduced during the trial was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Lucas Pasibi was guilty of reckless negligence.

RULING:
Yes, the evidence was sufficient. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

The Court held that the appellant’s own admissions established his criminal negligence. As the chauffeur of the automobile, Pasibi was familiar with the route and the railroad crossing, having traversed it over a hundred times. He admitted that upon approaching the crossing on the day of the accident, he did not look to see if a train was coming; he looked straight ahead, neither to the right nor left. The evidence showed that from points on the road before the crossing, an approaching train could have been seen several hundred yards away. Had Pasibi exercised ordinary care by looking and listening, he could have easily seen the train and avoided the collision.

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the train engineer might have failed to sound the whistle or ring the bell. Even assuming such contributory negligence by the engineer, it does not excuse the appellant’s own failure to take ordinary precautions. A person approaching a railroad crossing is bound to use his senses to avoid accidents. By omitting this basic duty and driving thoughtlessly onto the track, Pasibi assumed the risk and was solely responsible for the resulting collision and death.

The Court found that Pasibi’s actions constituted reckless imprudence as defined under Article 568 of the Penal Code, as his negligence, had it been done with malice, would have constituted a punishable crime. The sentence of the lower court was affirmed.