G.R. No. 131588 People vs De los Santos
G.R. No. 131588
March 27, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GLENN DE LOS SANTOS, accused-appellant.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
March 27, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GLENN DE LOS SANTOS, accused-appellant.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
Facts:
On the early morning of october 5, 1995 Members of the Philippine National Police (PNP), undergoing a Special Training Course (Scout Class 07-95), wearing black T-shirts and black short pants, performing an "Endurance Run" of 35 kilometers coming from their camp in Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, heading to Regional Training Headquarters in Camp Alagar, Cagayan de Oro City, running in a column of 3, was hit by Glenn was driving his Isuzu Elf causing the death of 13 trainee/members and injuries to others.After which said accused thereafter escaped from the scene of the incident, leaving behind the victims helpless.
Issue:
Is Glenn negligent?
Ruling :
Yes.The test for 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 constitutes negligence. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the admonition born of this prevision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist
GLENN, being then a young college graduate and an experienced driver, should have known to apply the brakes or swerve to a safe place immediately upon hearing the first bumping thuds to avoid further hitting the other trainees. By his own testimony, it was established that the road was slippery and slightly going downward; and, worse, the place of the incident was foggy and dark. He should have observed due care in accordance with the conduct of a reasonably prudent man, such as by slackening his speed, applying his brakes, or turning to the left side even if it would mean entering the opposite lane (there being no evidence that a vehicle was coming from the opposite direction). It is highly probable that he was driving at high speed at the time. And even if he was driving within the speed limits, this did not mean that he was exercising due care under the existing circumstances and conditions at the time.
Comments
Post a Comment