G.R. No. L-9706; March 30, 1915
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIANO AZAJAR, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On the afternoon of August 9, 1913, in Santa Rosa, Laguna, Catalino Delmo was part of a gang cutting grass on the tracks of the Manila Railroad Company. Delmo was working alone between the rails, approximately 350 meters away from his companions. The defendant, Mariano Azajar, was the engineer operating a locomotive traveling from Manila toward Santa Rosa station on schedule. The locomotive struck and killed Delmo at the spot where he was working.

At trial, the prosecution’s witnesses, including the gang’s foreman, testified that they saw the train approaching, that Delmo remained seated on the track oblivious to the danger, and that the foreman ran toward the train waving a red flag and shouting for the engineer to stop. They claimed the defendant gave no warning and did not slow down. The defense, including the defendant and several passengers, testified that the defendant repeatedly blew the whistle and rang the bell, that Delmo initially moved off the track in response, but then suddenly returned to retrieve his hat left between the rails, making the impact unavoidable. The defendant also stated he had reduced the train’s speed to 25-30 kilometers per hour.

The trial court convicted the defendant of homicide by reckless negligence and sentenced him to imprisonment and indemnity.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant, Mariano Azajar, was guilty of criminal negligence in the management of his train, resulting in the death of Catalino Delmo.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and acquitted the defendant.

The Court held that the defendant was not guilty of criminal negligence. The evidence established that the defendant, as the engineer, took all necessary precautions: he blew the whistle and rang the bell to warn the deceased. As a regular employee working on the track, Delmo was duty-bound to be diligent and watchful for approaching trains. The engineer had the right to assume that such a workman would exercise reasonable care, heed the warnings, and leave the track in time to avoid injury.

The proof showed that Delmo did initially leave the track, leading the engineer to reasonably believe the path was clear. His sudden and unexpected return to retrieve his hat created a circumstance that the defendant could not have foreseen or avoided. The accident was therefore attributable to the victim’s own imprudence and not to any negligent act or omission on the part of the defendant. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered discharged.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Moreland, and Araullo, JJ., concurred.