Dear Atty. Nico,

My uncle is a jeepney driver. He is currently incarcerated for running over a 12-year-old boy as he was charged with reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.

According to him, he was driving along the road near a public elementary school. He was moving slowly when suddenly, he felt the right rear tire of the jeepney bounced while the vehicle lifted to the left side. Prior to the incident, he did not notice anyone trying to flag him down nor did he feel that the victim was hanging onto the jeepney, as he was focused on the road ahead.

Are the authorities correct in keeping my uncle in prison due to the criminal charge mentioned?

Thank you.

Gary

□□□□□

Dear Gary,

In the case of Gaid v People of the Philippines, the Court absolved the petitioner of the criminal charge as the prosecution failed to prove that he was negligent in his driving which caused the death of the minor student.

Reckless imprudence consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do, without malice, an act from which material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform an act.

The standard test in determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another is this: could a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course actually pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course or to take precautions to guard against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitute negligence.

Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the admonition born of this provision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist.

In order to establish a motorist’s liability for the negligent operation of a vehicle, it must be shown that there was a direct causal connection between such negligence and the injuries or damages complained of. Thus, negligence that is not a substantial contributing factor in the causation of the accident is not the proximate cause of an injury.

Applying the legal principles above-mentioned in your uncle’s case, he cannot be held liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, as the proximate cause of the accident as well as the death of the victim was definitely the latter’s own negligence in trying to catch up with the moving jeepney to get a ride.

Moreover, it can also be gleaned from the facts that your uncle was moving slowly thereby negating any imputation of recklessness.

Atty. Nico A. Antonio