Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
-versus- -for-
THE PARTIES
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
From the foregoing, the Court finds that there is doubt that accused
is negligent and is the direct and proximate cause of the incident.
Thus, accused is also not civilly liable as a consequence of the
incident.
SO ORDERED.
People v Banagan
CA GR S.P. No. 160777
Petition for Review
Page 6
ASSIGNMENT OF ISSUES
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1
The spirit behind the presumption of guilt on one who bumps the
rear end of another vehicle is for the driver following a vehicle to be
at all times prepared of a pending accident should the driver in front
suddenly come to a full stop, or change its course either through
change of mind of the front driver, mechanical trouble, or to avoid
an accident. The rear vehicle is given the responsibility of avoiding
a collision with the front vehicle for it is the rear vehicle who has
full control of the situation as it is in a position to observe the
vehicle in front of it.
The above discussion would have been correct were it not for the
undisputed fact that the U-turn made by the jeepney was abrupt
(Exhibit "K," Pascua). The jeepney, which was then traveling on the
eastern shoulder, making a straight, skid mark of approximately 35
meters, crossed the eastern lane at a sharp angle, making a skid
mark of approximately 15 meters from the eastern shoulder to the
point of impact (Exhibit "K" Pascua). Hence, delos Reyes could not
have anticipated the sudden U-turn executed by Manalo. The
respondent court did not realize that the presumption was rebutted
by this piece of evidence.3
29. What is the proof then that the accused did not
give the other vehicle an opportunity to avoid? This is
what the lower courts fail to consider the evidence
presented by the plaintiffs. In fact the lower courts
blindly followed the self-serving evidences presented
by the defendants and decided that the vehicle driven
by the accused has made a full-stop before the
accident.
ISSUE 2
Article 2179. When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate
and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if
his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendants lack of due care, the plaintiff
may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to
be awarded.
ISSUE 3
Article 2179. When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate
and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if
his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendants lack of due care, the
plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the
damages to be awarded.
A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his
acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful, and prudent, if not from
instinct, then through fear of incurring punishment. He is
responsible for such results as anyone might foresee and for acts
which no one would have performed except through culpable
abandon. Otherwise his own person, rights and property, all those of
his fellow-beings, would ever be exposed to all manner of danger
and injury.
PRAYERS
Copy furnished:
COURT OF APPEALS (by personal service)
City of Manila
EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure)
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE