People v Banagan

CA GR S.P. No. 160777

Petition for Review
Page 1

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

PEOPLE OF THE C.A. G.R. SP No.

PHILIPPINES, 160777
Plaintiff-Petitioner,

-versus- -for-

MARIO BANAGAN Y RTC Calamba

ALVARADO, Branch 36 Criminal
Case No. 31876-
Accused-Respondent.
2018-C
X-----------------------
MTC Los Baños
X
Criminal Case No.
12771

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

Petitioner, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court of
Appeals most respectfully alleges, that:

NATURE OF THE PETITION

1. This is a petition for review under Rule 42 (and

Section 3 (b), Rule 22 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure) is a mode of appeal from the decision of the
Regional Trial Court rendered in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction;

2. Final judgment or order of the Regional Trial

Court in an appeal from the final judgment or order of
a Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, may
be appealed to the Court of Appeals through Petition
for Review under this rule, whether the appeal involves
question of fact, of law or mixed question of fact and
law;

THE PARTIES

3. Petitioner (private complainants in the court a

quo) all are of legal age, all married and residents of
 People v Banagan
CA GR S.P. No. 160777
Petition for Review
Page 2

Tagumpay Rodriguez Rizal, Paete Laguna, Sta. Maria

Laguna, Pangil Laguna, Kalayaan Laguna, Maura
Aparri Cagayan, Cabanatuan Nueva Ecija and Chipeco
Calamba Laguna, represented in this case by his
counsel of records, Atty. Benjamin V. Escolano Jr., with
office address at One Central Ave., New Era, Quezon
City 1107;

4. Private Respondent Mario Banagan Y Alvarado

(accused in the court a quo) is likewise of legal age,
resident of No. 146 Brgy Bucal, Calamba City, Laguna,
represented in this case by Atty Aris J. Talens with
office address at Suite 506 South Center Towers, No.
2206 Market Street, Madrigal Business Park, Barangay
Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City 1799;

5. Parties have the capacity to sue and be sued and

may be served with processes at aforementioned
address and through counsels of records;

MATERIAL DATES SHOWING TIMELINESS OF THE

PETITION

6. This originated as an appeal from the Municipal

Trial Court of Los Baños, Laguna acquitting the
accused on its decision dated July 16, 2018 (hereto
attached as Annex A);

7. On January 16, 2019, Petitioner received a copy of

the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba,
Laguna Branch 36 dated January 4, 2019 (hereto
attached as Annex B);

8. Petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration on

January 31, 2019 (hereto attached as Annex C). He
received on April 26, 2019 denying his Motion for
Reconsideration (hereto attached as Annex D). He had
until May 14 to file a Petition for Review. The reason is
that May 11 being a Saturday and May 13 being a
Holiday due to the conduct of Midterm National
Elections. The Undersigned counsel filed on May 14,
2019 by personal service his seasonable Motion for
Extension of Time to File Petition for Review praying
for additional fifteen (15) days from May 14, 2019 or
 People v Banagan
CA GR S.P. No. 160777
Petition for Review
Page 3

up to May 29, 2019 within which to file their intended

Petition for Review (hereto attached as Annex E). He
paid the requisite docket fees and other fees;

9. The fifteen (15) day period shall expire on May

29, 2019 but without waiting for the said expiry date,
he now filed this instant Petition;

10. This petition was not filed for delay. It is one

which raises substantial issues and thus, is worthy of
consideration, the Regional Trial Court having
rendered the assailed decision in a way that is not in
accord with facts, law and applicable decisions of the
Supreme Court;

11. The Honorable Regional Trial Court did not

discuss the merits of these evidences on records or did
it resolve the serious errors and assigned issues which
are quite serious and must deserve better treatment;

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT PLEADINGS, ANNEXES

AND EXHIBITS

ANNEX A - Decision of the Municipal Court of Los Baños

dated July 16, 2018.
ANNEX B - Decision of the Regional Trial Court Branch
36 of Calamba Laguna dated January 4, 2019.
ANNEX C - Motion for Reconsideration filed by the
Petitioners on the Decision of the Regional
Trial Court, January 31, 2019.
ANNEX D - Resolution of the Regional Trial Court on the
Motion for Reconsideration filed dated
March 29, 2019.
ANNEX E - Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition
for Review
ANNEX F - Transcript Stenographic Notes dated
November 13, 2013
ANNEX G - Sketch report
ANNEX H- Pictures of two vehicles

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASES

12. On July 31, 2009, Friday, the Private

Complainants travel their way to Calamba, Laguna in
 People v Banagan
CA GR S.P. No. 160777
Petition for Review
Page 4

order to attend their klase. However, the Private

Complainants were not able to attend their klase
because they were seriously injured due to a vehicular
collision with an STE Shuttle Bus driven by the
Accused Mario Banagan.

13. The vehicular accident happened at around 6:00

to 6:30 am near the crossing of Los Baños, Laguna and
Caltex Gasoline Station at Olivarez.

14. The Tamaraw FX driven by our Private

Complainants were travesing at the Outer
lane/Shoulder lane of the highway while the STE
Shuttle Bus travelled at the inner lane.

15. Immediately and without warning from the STE

Shuttle after the accused overtook the car of the
Private Complainants, change lanes (from inner lane to
outer lane) and make a sudden stop in order to alight
some passengers on that area.

16. The Private Complainant has no recourse but to

collide with the STE Shuttle Bus because they were
given no time to avoid the impending accident. Thus,
causing serious injuries to the majority of the private
complainants.

17. Accused Mario Banagan was charged for the

crime of Reckless Imprudence resuting in damage to
property and multiple physical injuries in an
information filed by the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Laguna on November 13, 2009, which
reads as follows, to wit:

That on July 31, 2009 or thereabout, Los Baños, Laguna,

Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, being then the driver of an Isuzu Shuttle Bus
with plate no. DXS-681 and registered to STE Shuttle Service
Corporation, without due regard to traffic laws, rules and
regulations and without taking the necessary precautions to avoid
damage to property and injuries to persons, did then and there
unlawfully and feloniously drive, manage and operate said motor
vehicle in a careless, reckless, negligent and imprudent manner, as
a result of which said motor vehicle was hit and bumped by a
Toyota Tamaraw FX bearing Plate No. TPC 942 and driven by
complainant Jerbie Jassen B. Mata and owned by Arthur Dela
 People v Banagan
CA GR S.P. No. 160777
Petition for Review
Page 5

Cruz, thereby causing damage to the Toyota Tamaraw FX in the

amount of P78,600.00 and due to the impact of the driver and the
passengers of said Toyota Tamaraw FX sustained Physica Injuries
which required medical attendance as stated opposite their
respective names to wit:

1. ROMAN S. DELA CRUZ - More than 30 days

2. JERBIE JASSEN B. MATA -Less than 9 days
3. SOLA CAYDE -Less than 9 days
4. DANIEL S. ANTONIO -Less than 9 days
5. ISRAEL G. SANGLAY -Less than 9 days
6. RENATO D. SANCHEZ -Less than 9 days
7. RIC VARGAS -Less than 9 days
8. ROBUSTIANO ABELLERA, JR. -Less than 9 days
9. DANDY ROMERO -Less than 9 days
10. ANDRES A. NICOLAS, JR. -Less than 9 days
11. DANIEL ANTONIO -Less than 9 days

and incapacitated them from performing their customary labor for

the same period of time.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

18. On June 16, 2010, accused was arraigned assisted

by Court appointed Counsel de Oficio, Atty, Cherrlyn
Go-Ortiz of the Pubic Attorneys Office, and he pleaded
“NOT GUILTY” to the criminal charge after the
information was read in Filipino, a language and
dialect understood by him.

19. Both the private complainant and the accused

were directed to appear before the Philippine
Mediation Center for mediation proceedings but
despite thereof no settlement was reached.

20. On July 16, 2018, the Court rendered its decision

which states:

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.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders

judgment finding accused MARIO BANAGAN y ALVARADO
“NOT GUILTY” and is hereby absolved of the crime charged.

SO ORDERED.
 People v Banagan
CA GR S.P. No. 160777
Petition for Review
Page 6

21. The Private Complainants filed their respective

appeal (only as to the Civil Aspect of the case).
However, the Regional Trial Court Branch 36 of
Calamba, Laguna in its decision dated January 4, 2019
affirmed in toto the previous decision of the lower
court;

ASSIGNMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1: Whether or not the accused should be acquitted

for the crime of for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Damage to Property and Multiple
Physical Injuries.

ISSUE 2: Whether or not the Accused free from any

negligence on the incident happened last July 31,
2009 at Los Baños, Laguna.

ISSUE 3: Whether or not the Accused is not liable from

Civil damages as a result from the incident
happened last July 31, 2009 at Los Baños, Laguna.

DISCUSSION OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

22. The violation of Article 365 of the Revised Penal

Code states that states that reckless imprudence
consists in (1) voluntarily, but without malice, doing
or (2) failing to do an act from which (3) material
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the person performing
such act. Compared to intentional felonies, such as
homicide or murder, what takes the place of the
element of malice or intention to commit a wrong or
evil is the failure of the offender to take precautions
due to lack of skill taking into account his employment,
or occupation, degree of intelligence.1

23. The Accused Mario Banagan, the driver of the

STE Shuttle Bus committed the crime of Reckless
Imprudence because he fails to take precaution and

1 People v Carmen, G.R. No. 131588, 27 March 2001

 People v Banagan
CA GR S.P. No. 160777
Petition for Review
Page 7

that failure results to material damage and injury to

the Private Complainants.

24. What act of the accused that Mario Banagan fails

to take which materially result to the injury of the
complainants? From the recounts of the testimony of
the complainants and other witnesses, the accused
failed to warn the Private Complainants with
reasonable time that he change lanes and
ultimately stop in order to alight passengers in
the area.

25. The defense argued that the police report which

indicates that the accused Mario Banagan is not to be
at fault and then released thereafter should exonerate
him from the crime of Reckless Imprudence. However,
the police report is only prima facie at best. It is the
duty of this Honorable Court to decide on the case on
the basis of the evidence presented and the law and
jurisprudence applicable to this case.

26. The defense further argue that in a collision case

it is always the rear vehicle who collided is at fault.
Thus, he should be solely liable for the damages he
suffered as a result of the accident. It is true that there
is a principle that the vehicle that bumps the rear end
of another should be at fault as stated in the case of
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. IAC2 which states that:

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.

27. However, we should take note that the rear

vehicle is given the responsibility to avoid the
collision if he has full control of the situation. If
not, then he cannot be liable for the damages he
suffered.

2 G.R. No. 66102-04

 People v Banagan
CA GR S.P. No. 160777
Petition for Review
Page 8

28. If the rear vehicle is not to be blamed for the

accident, then who? The blame now shifts to the
vehicle who did not give the rear vehicle that
opportunity to avoid. The vehicle who expose the
other to danger and injury due to his negligence.
In the same case sated earlier, it states that the same
principle could not be applied:

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.

30. How can the vehicle driven by the accused be at

full-stop before the incident if at the first place both
vehicles were already side-by-side 100-200 meters
before the incident?

31. How come it seems that after the accident the

STE bus driven by accused was in a position that
seems in a full-stop? Because witness Andres Nicolas,
Jr. said in his testimony when he under cross
examination he said, “Nang nangyari yang banggaan
na ‘yan ang ginawa po ng driver iniabante ‘yon ng bus
nakaganoon na.4 (hereto attached as ANNEX F)

32. Therefore, the initial position of the vehicles

at the time of impact have been changed
deliberately by the accused. Why did he do it? In
order to get a favorable decision that he was not
3 Ibid.
4 TSN November 13, 2013 pp. 22
 People v Banagan
CA GR S.P. No. 160777
Petition for Review
Page 9

cutting across lanes which result the accident and to

show that he made a full stop before the accident. This
position can also be proven by examining more closely
to the pictures and the sketch report (hereto attached
as ANNEX G and ANNEX H). In the sketch report it
shows that both vehicles seems were in a straight line
parallel to the centerline of the road. Therefore both
vehicles after the impact were in the same lane. If this
were true the point of damage of both vehicles must
consistent with the point of impact. What should be the
point of impact? The whole front of the Tamarraw FX
(vehicle driven by the Private Complainants) and
majority of the back of STE bus (vehicle driven by the
accused). Is this what really happen?

33. No it isn’t. Why? Because the pictures shows us

that it was front right corner of Tamarraw FX (if facing
at the front) and the back right corner of the STE Bus
(if facing from the back). How can this happen? It
would happen only if the Bus immediately change
lanes without giving the Tamarraw FX time to
avoid contact and thus the impact of collision was
at the corners of both vehicles and not full
frontal.

34. The witnesses have been clear in their

testimonies that the point of impact between two
vehicles is at the corners and not at full frontal. One
such instance, even the Courts ask questions from the
witness Andres Nicolas Jr. which result to a very
lengthy discussion between the witness, the Court and
the opposing counsel.5 (ANNEX F)

35. Is it not that physical evidence (as shown in

pictures) when identified by the witnesses as to its
authenticity is much more credible and should been
considered in the decision of the Court? As stated in
the case of People v Vasquez, where the physical
evidence on record ran counter to the testimonial
evidence …, we ruled that the physical evidence should
prevail.6Why not the Court even consider to include in
the decision on their lengthy exchange with the
witness on his clarificatory questions?

5 TSN November 13, 2013 pgs. 18-24

6 280 SCRA 160 (1997)
 People v Banagan
CA GR S.P. No. 160777
Petition for Review
Page 10

36. If only the Court considers these evidences

then it would prove that the accused has indeed
committed negligence which is the proximate
cause of the accident. The accused should have
been declared guilty for Reckless Imprudence and
thus liable for civil damages.

ISSUE 2

37. Even if the accused has been acquitted for the

crime of Reckless Imprudence by the lower courts.
Even if assuming that the negligence committed by the
accused is not the proximate cause of the incident. The
accused is still liable for civil damages caused by the
accident.

38. Contributory negligence as defined in Article

2179 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines states
that:

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.

39. Can we deny the fact that the accused in this

accident is free from negligence? No. He is not
negligent-free. If he is then this accident should not
have happened. Even the Supreme Court decided
against the driver who improperly parked his car on a
National Highway. It states that “It is lamentable that the
vehicular collision in this case could have been easily avoided by following basic
traffic rules and regulations and road safety standards.”7

ISSUE 3

40. If the accused we say committed a contributory

negligence. Is he still liable for civil damages? Yes.
Why? Because the law does not exonerate or liability of
those who committed contributory negligence. The law
allows mitigation of liability. As stated in the same Art
2179 of the New Civil Code it states:
7 Dy Teban Trading v Limbaga, G.R. No. 161803, February 4, 2008
 People v Banagan
CA GR S.P. No. 160777
Petition for Review
Page 11

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.

41. If the accused lack due care though his

negligence is not the proximate cause of the injury, he
may be held liable for the damages sustained by the
Private Complainants but mitigated by the Courts.
Thus it is not correct to say that one is automatically
absolved of his civil liability if his negligence is not the
proximate cause of the accident.

42. The accused cannot also take shelter from the

doctrine of the last clear chance to prove that he is not
negligent. Why? In the landmark case of Picart v. Smith
in its decision where the Supreme Court explained –
“Where both parties are guilty of negligence, but the negligent act of one
succeeds that of the other by an appreciable interval of time, the one who has the
chargeable with the consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of
the other party.”8

43. The accused should be held liable for damages.

He should not be scot-free. As held in People v Garcia 9
it states:

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.

NON-FORUM SHOPPING CERTIFICATE

That petitioner have not commenced any other action

or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals or any tribunal or agency; and
that to the best of his knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of

8 Decision of the Court pg 10 par 2

9 G.R. No. 153591
 People v Banagan
CA GR S.P. No. 160777
Petition for Review
Page 12

Appeals or any divisions, thereof or any tribunal or agency;

and that if he should thereafter learn that similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or
any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly
inform the aforesaid courts and such other tribunal or
agency.

PRAYERS

WHEREFORE, premises considered it is most

respectfully prayed that the Municipal Trial Court decision
of Los Baños, Laguna dated July 16, 2018 (ANNEX A) as the
Regional Trial Court Branch 36 of Calamba, Laguna dated
January 4, 2019 (ANNEX B) be reversed and set aside and
declared that Accused MARIO BANAGAN y ALVARADO
be made LIABLE OF CIVIL DAMAGES as a result of his
contributory negligence to the incident.

Quezon City for the City of Manila, 29 May 2019.

Copy furnished:
COURT OF APPEALS (by personal service)
City of Manila

Atty ARIS J. TALENS (by registered mail)

Suite 506 South Center Towers,
No. 2206 Market Street, Madrigal Business Park,
Barangay Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City 1799
 People v Banagan
CA GR S.P. No. 160777
Petition for Review
Page 13

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure)

Copies of this Petition for Review on Certiorari were

furnished the foregoing recipients by registered mail due to
distance and the limited messengerial facility to effect
personal service.

BENJAMIN V. ESCOLANO JR.

One Central Ave., New Era, 1107 Quezon City
Contact Nos. 9814311 loc. 8632-3788; 09503812081
Email: benjescolano@gmail.com
Roll of Attorney’s No. 57545
PTR No. 7807906 on 2/27/19 at QC
IBP Lifetime No. 014583
MCLE No. VI-0008030 at QC 4/24/2018
 People v Banagan
CA GR S.P. No. 160777
Petition for Review
Page 14

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

QUEZON CITY ) S.S.
x --------------------x

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, BENJAMIN V. ESCOLANO JR., of legal age,

Filipino, married, and postal address at One Central Ave.,
New Era, Quezon City, state under oath:

On 29 May 2019, I served the foregoing Petition for

Review on Certiorari in entitled “People of the Philippines v.
Mario Banagan” pursuant to Sections 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 13,
Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure by registered
mail to the following:

Atty ARIS J. TALENS

Suite 506 South Center Towers,
No. 2206 Market Street, Madrigal Business Park,
Barangay Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City 1799

by depositing copies with the New Era Post Office as

evidenced by Registry Receipt No. ________________ attached
hereto, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the
mail to the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered.

29 May 2019 at Quezon City.

Benjamin V. Escolano Jr.

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on 29

May 2019 at Quezon City, affiant exhibiting to me his UMID
with CRN 0006-1947446-7 valid permanently.

Doc. No. _____

Page No. _____
Book No. _____
Series of 2019
 People v Banagan
CA GR S.P. No. 160777
Petition for Review
Page 15
 People v Banagan
CA GR S.P. No. 160777
Petition for Review
Page 16

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

AGAINST NON-FORUM SHOPPING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

QUEZON CITY ) S.S.

We, ROMAN DELA CRUZ (deceased as represented by

his spouse LOIDA DELA CRUZ), JERBIE JASSEN MATA,
SOLA CAYDE, DANIEL ANTONIO, ISRAEL SANGLAY,
RENATO SANCHEZ, RIC VARGAS, ROBUSTIANO
ABELLERA JR., DANDY ROMERO, ANDRES A. NICOLAS
JR., and DANIEL ANTONIO, Filipinos of legal age residing
at Tagumpay Rodriguez Rizal, Paete Laguna, Sta. Maria
Laguna, Pangil Laguna, Kalayaan Laguna, Maura Aparri
Cagayan, Cabanatuan Nueva Ecija and Chipeco Calamba
Laguna after being sworn to in accordance with law,
deposes and says that:

1. We are the Plaintiff-Petitioners in the above-entitled

case;
2. The facts stated in the above Petition for Review on
Certiorari are true and correct to the best of our
knowledge and authentic records;
3. We have not commenced any action or filed any claim
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or
quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge,
no such other action or claim pending in them; and
4. If we should learn that the same or similar action or
claim has been filed or is pending after its filling, we
shall report that fact within five (5) days from notice to
the court or where the complaint or initiatory pleading
has been filed.

28 May 2019 Quezon City

ROMAN DELA CRUZ (deceased as JERBIE

JASSEN MATA
represented by his spouse
LOIDA DELA CRUZ), SOLA CAYDE

DANIEL ANTONIO ISRAEL SANGLAY

RENATO SANCHEZ RIC VARGAS

ROBUSTIANO ABELLERA JR., DANDY

ROMERO
 People v Banagan
CA GR S.P. No. 160777
Petition for Review
Page 17

ANDRES A. NICOLAS JR. DANIEL

ANTONIO

SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me, this 28 TH of May

Quezon City, all affiants personally appeared before me and
all personally known to me.

Doc. No. _____

Page No. _____
Book No. _____
Series of 2019