0% found this document useful (0 votes)
186 views13 pages

Arson

Rogelio was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and serious injuries after the motorcycle he was driving collided head-on with another motorcycle, killing one rider and seriously injuring two others. The trial court found Rogelio guilty, noting he was driving fast on the wrong side of the road as it curved. The appellate court upheld this conviction, finding Rogelio acted recklessly in his manner of driving, which was the direct cause of the collision and resulting damages. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, agreeing Rogelio's speeding and driving on the wrong side of the curving road constituted inexcusable lack of precaution.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
186 views13 pages

Arson

Rogelio was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and serious injuries after the motorcycle he was driving collided head-on with another motorcycle, killing one rider and seriously injuring two others. The trial court found Rogelio guilty, noting he was driving fast on the wrong side of the road as it curved. The appellate court upheld this conviction, finding Rogelio acted recklessly in his manner of driving, which was the direct cause of the collision and resulting damages. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, agreeing Rogelio's speeding and driving on the wrong side of the curving road constituted inexcusable lack of precaution.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 13

Crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting To Homicide with Double Serious Physical

Injuries and Damage to Property under Article 365 In Relation To Article 263 of The
Revised Penal Code (RPC).

The Facts

At around 6 o'clock in the morning of June 25, 1997, Dionesio Inguito, Sr. (Dionesio,
Sr.) was driving his motorcycle along Brgy. Kiara, Don Carlos, Bukidnon towards Brgy.
Bocboc5 of the same municipality, to bring his two (2) minor children, Dionesio Inguito,
Jr. (Dionesio, Jr.) and Cherry Inguito6 (Cherry), to school.7 While they were ascending
the curving road going to Bocboc on their proper lane on the right side of the road, a
Toyota Land Cruiser (Land Cruiser)driven by Rogelio was swiftly descending the same
lane from the opposite direction. Dionesio, Sr. blew the horn of his motorcycle to signal
the Land Cruiser to return to its proper lane but the Land Cruiser remained.8 In order to
avoid collision, Dionesio, Sr. tried to swerve to the left, but the Land Cruiser suddenly
swerved towards the same direction and collided head-on with the motorcycle.9

As a result of the collision, Dionesio, Sr. and his 2 children were thrown off the
motorcycle. Dionesio, Sr. was pinned beneath the Land Cruiser,10 while Cherry and
Dionesio, Jr. were thrown over the hood of the Land Cruiser and fell on the side of the
road,11 causing injuries to their legs. Siblings Rolf, Cherry,12 and Jenny Ann Aquino,
who were traversing the same road aboard their own motorcycle, stopped to help and
placed the victims together13 on the rightmost side of the road facing Brgy. Bocboc,14
while Rogelio remained inside the Land Cruiser.15

Rolf left the scene of the incident to seek further assistance, leaving his two (2) sisters
to cater to the victims.16 Eventually, he chanced upon Kagawad Nerio Dadivas (Kgd.
Dadivas), who had just opened his store, and informed the latter of the vehicular
accident. After reporting the incident to the police and getting his vehicle, Kgd. Dadivas
proceeded to the site and loaded the victims to his vehicle with Rolf’s assistance.17
Meanwhile, Rolf went to Brgy. Kawilihan to inform Dionesio, Sr.’s wife, Clemencia
Inguito (Clemencia), of what had transpired.18 Thereafter, the victims were brought to
the Emergency Hospital of Maramag where they were treated.19 Operations were
performed on the legs of Dionesio, Jr. and Dionesio, Sr., but the latter eventually
expired. Cherry’s leg was placed in a cast and she was confined in the hospital,
together with Dionesio, Jr., for more than one (1) month, or until July 26, 1997.20 All the
expenses were shouldered by Clemencia.21

In view of the foregoing mishap, the provincial prosecutor filed an Information22


charging Rogelio for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide with Double Serious
Physical Injuries and Damage to Property "with the aggravating circumstance that
accused failed to lend on the spot to the injured party such help that was in his hands to
give"23 before the RTC. Upon arraignment,24 Rogelio entered a plea of not guilty.25

In his defense, Rogelio claimed that he was driving the Land Cruiser on his proper lane
along the descending curving road towards the direction of Kalilangan, Bukidnon, when,
from a distance of about 70 meters away, he saw the motorcycles driven by Dionesio,
Sr. and Rolf racing towards the curve from the opposite direction.26 Dionesio, Sr. was
driving his motorcycle in a zigzag manner on the Land Cruiser’s lane while Rolf was on
his proper lane.27 Undecided which side of the road to take to avoid collision, Rogelio
stopped the Land Cruiser but the motorcycle of Dionesio, Sr., nonetheless, bumped into
it.28 As a result of the impact, Cherry and Dionesio, Jr. were thrown over the roof and
the hood of the Land Cruiser, respectively, and fell on the side of the road, while
Dionesio, Sr. and the motorcycle were pinned beneath the land Cruiser.29 With the use
of a jack handle and the assistance of two (2) persons, i.e., Jose Bacus and Reynaldo
Quidato, who arrived at the scene, he was able to retrieve both Dionesio, Sr. and the
motorcycle from beneath the Land Cruiser. Thereafter, they loaded the victims on board
the Land Cruiser so they may be brought tothe hospital, but the vehicle turned out to
have defective brakes, so he asked other persons to secure another vehicle instead.30

The RTC Proceedings

In a Decision31 dated July 31, 2006 (July 31, 2006 Decision), the RTC found Rogelio
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Homicide withDouble Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property punishable
under Article 365 in relation to Article 263 of the RPC.32
It held that Rogelio’s act of driving very fast on the wrong side of the road was the
proximate cause of the collision, resulting to the death of Dionesio, Sr. and serious
physical injuries to Dionesio, Jr. and Cherry. Considering further that Rogelio failed to
offer any help to the victims,33 the RTC sentenced him to suffer a higher indeterminate
penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months of prision correccional maximum, as minimum,
to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as maximum, and ordered
him to pay the following civil liabilities: (a) ₱50,000.00 as moral damages for the death
of Dionesio, Sr.; (b) ₱30,000.00 as moral damages for the mental anguish suffered by
the family; (c) ₱200,000.00 for the medical expenses incurred; (d) ₱25,000.00 for the
expenses incurred during the wake and the burial; (e) ₱30,000.00 for the damaged
motorcycle; (f) ₱60,000.00 for the loss of earning capacity; and (g) ₱30,000.00 as
attorney’s fees.34

Rogelio filed a motion for reconsideration35 which was partly granted in a Resolution36
dated February 22, 2007, reducing the penalty to four (4) months and one (1) day of
arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
as maximum, with the same civil liabilities. The RTC reconsidered its opinion regarding
Rogelio’s claim of having extended aid to the victims, concluding that the jack handle
that was used to get the body of Dionesio, Sr. beneath the Land Cruiser could have
been his in the absence of showing who owned the same.37 Aggrieved, Rogelio
appealed to the CA.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision38 dated September 18, 2009, however, the CA reinstated the RTC’s July
31, 2006 Decision, thereby imposing on Rogelio the original indeterminate penalty of
four (4) years, two (2) months of prision correccional maximum, as minimum, to eight(8)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as maximum, and the same civil
liabilities,39 hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court

The essential issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld
Rogelio’s conviction in accordance with the RTC’s July 31, 2006 Decision.

The Court’s Ruling


The petition lacks merit.

Reckless imprudence, as defined in Article 36540 of the RPC, consists in voluntarily,


but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by
reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing
to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of
intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and
place.

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. To constitute the offense of reckless driving, the act
must be something more than a mere negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle – a
willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is required.41 Willful, wanton or
reckless disregard for the safety of others within the meaning of reckless driving
statutes has been held to involve a conscious choice of a course of action which injures
another, either with knowledgeof serious danger to others involved, or with knowledge
of facts which would disclose the danger to any reasonable person. Verily, it is the
inexcusable lack of precaution or conscious indifference to the consequences of the
conduct which supplies the criminal intent and brings an act of mere negligence and
imprudence under the operation of the penal law, without regard to whether the private
offended party may himself be considered likewise at fault.42

In the present case, the RTC and the CA uniformly found that Rogelio’s act of driving
very fast on the wrong side of the road was the proximate cause of the collision,
resulting to the death of Dionesio, Sr. and serious physical injuries to Dionesio, Jr. and
Cherry. Notably, the road where the incident occurred was a curve sloping upwards
towards Brgy. Bocboc where the Inguitos were bound and descending towards the
opposite direction where Rogelio was going. Indeed, the very fact of speeding, under
such circumstances, is indicative of imprudent behavior. As a motorist, Rogelio was
bound to exercise ordinary care in such affair by driving at a reasonable rate of speed
commensurate with the conditions encountered, as this would enable him to keep the
vehicle under control and avoid injury to others using the highway.43 Moreover, it is
elementary in traffic school that a driver slows down before negotiating a curve as it
may be reasonably anticipated that another vehicle may appear from the opposite
direction at any moment. Hence, excessive speed, combined with other circumstances
such as the occurrence of the accident on or near a curve, as in this case, constitutes
negligence.44 Consequently, the Court finds that Rogelio acted recklessly and
imprudently in driving at a fast speed on the wrong side of the road while approaching
the curve where the incident happened, thereby rendering him criminally liable, aswell
as civilly accountable for the material damages resulting therefrom. Nonetheless, while
the CA and the RTC concurred that the proximate cause of the collision was Rogelio’s
reckless driving, the CA Decision made no mention as to the presence or absence of
the limiting element in the last paragraph of Article 365 of the RPC, which imposes the
penalty next higher in degreeupon the offender who "fails to lend on the spot to the
injured parties such help as may be in his hands to give." Based on case law, the
obligation under this paragraph: (a) is dependent on the means in the hands of the
offender, i.e., the type and degree of assistance that he/she, at the time and place of the
incident, is capable of giving; and (b) requires adequate proof.45

It is well to point out that the RTC’s July 31, 2006 Decision found that Rogelio failed to
offer any help to the victims46 and, thus, imposed on him the penalty next higher in
degree.However, upon Rogelio’s motion, the RTC reconsidered its earlier conclusion,
holding that the jack handle that was used to get the body of Dionesio,Sr. beneath the
Land Cruiser could have been his in the absence of showing who owned the same and,
accordingly, reduced the penalty.47 Nothing was said on this point by the CA which
affirmed Rogelio’sconviction based on the RTC’s July 31, 2006 Decision.

The Court has perused the records and found contradictory testimonies presented by
the prosecution and the defense on this matter.1âwphi1 Considering however, that
Cherry herself admitted that the victims were first loaded on the Land Cruiser before
they were transferred to Kgd. Dadivas’s vehicle,48 the Court is inclined to sustain
Rogelio’s claim that he tried to extend help to the victims, but when hestarted the engine
with the intention to go to the hospital, he discovered that the vehicle had no brakes.49
Hence, in imposing the proper penalty on the accused, the qualifying circumstance
under the last paragraph of Article 365 of the RPC should not be considered.

Here, Rogelio was charged with the offense of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Homicide with Double Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property under Article
365 in relation to Article 26350 of the RPC, a complex crime. Article 48 of the RPC
provides that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or
when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the
most serious crime, in this case, Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide, shall be
imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

Under Article 365 of the RPC, when reckless imprudence in the use of a motor vehicle
results in the death of a person, as in this case, the accused shall be punished with the
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, i.e., two (2) years,
four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law,51 the minimum of said penalty should be taken from arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or four (4) months and one (1) day
to two (2) years and four (4) months. Consequently, the Court finds a need to modify the
penalty to be imposed on Rogelio and thus, sentences him to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of two (2) years of prision correccional in its minimum, as minimum, to six years
of prision correccional in its maximum, as maximum.

As a final note, the Court clarifies that the order for the payment of "moral damages" in
the amount of ₱50,000.00 for the death of Dionesio, Sr. should be, properly speaking,
denominated as one for the payment of "civil indemnity" as they were not awarded
under the parameters of the Civil Code relevant thereto,52 but was one "given without
need of proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of [the
accused’s] responsibility for it."53 This is a palpable legal error which the Court should
correct if only for terminological propriety. With the private complainant not herein
impleaded, the rest of the RTC’s July 31, 2006 Decision with respect to the civil
liabilities awarded should remain undisturbed. Note that, in line with existing
jurisprudence, interest atthe rate of six percent (6) per annum shall be imposed on all
damages awarded from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.54

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 18, 2009 and
the Resolution dated January 26, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No.
00427-MIN, finding petitioner Rogelio J. Gonzaga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide with Double Serious Physical
Injuries and Damage to Property under Article 365 in relation to Article 263 of the
Revised Penal Code are hereby AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
(a) Petitioner is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years of prision
correccional in its minimum, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional in its
maximum, as maximum; and

(b) The award of ₱50,000.00 for the death of Dionesio Inguito, Sr. in favor of his heirs is
denominated as "civil indemnity," instead of"moral damages."

(c) All monetary awards for damages shall bear interest at the rate of six percent (6%)
per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
The Facts

The instant case arose from an Information4 filed before the Municipal Trial Court of
Bauang, La Union (MTC), charging Curammeng of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Homicide, defined and penalized under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. The
prosecution alleged that on the night of September 25, 2006, a Maria De Leon bus
going to Laoag, Ilocos Norte being driven by Francisco Franco y Andres (Franco) was
traversing the northbound lane of the national highway along Santiago, Bauang, La
Union, when its rear left tire blew out and caught fire. This prompted Franco to
immediately park the bus on the northbound side of the national highway, and
thereafter, unloaded the cargoes from the said bus. At a little past midnight of the next
day, an RCJ bus bound for Manila being driven by Curammeng traversed the
southbound lane of the road where the stalled bus was parked and hit Franco, resulting
in the latter's death.5

In his defense, Curammeng averred that he was driving the RCJ bus bound for Manila
and traversing the southbound side of the national highway at less than 60 kilometers
per hour (kph) when he saw from afar the stalled Maria De Leon bus at the road's
northbound side which was not equipped with any early warning device, thus, prompting
him to decelerate. When the RCJ bus was only a few meters away from the stalled
Maria De Leon bus, a closed van suddenly appeared from the opposite direction,
causing petitioner to steer his bus to the west shoulder, unfortunately hitting Franco and
causing the latter's death. Out of fear of reprisal, petitioner surrendered to the Caba
Police Station in the next town. Eventually, petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not
guilty to the charge.6

The MTC Ruling

In a Decision7 dated November 26, 2013, the MTC found Curammeng guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment for the indeterminate period of four (4) months and one (1) day
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as maximum, and ordered him to pay Franco's heirs the amounts of
₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱200,000.00 as actual damages.8
The MTC found that Curammeng showed an inexcusable lack of precaution in driving
his bus while passing through the stalled Maria De Leon bus, which resulted in Franco's
death. Moreover, it found untenable Curammeng's assertion that he decreased the
speed of his bus when he was nearing the stalled bus, considering that the evidence on
record showed that he was still running at around 60 kph when he hit Franco. In this
relation, the MTC pointed out that if Curammeng had indeed decelerated as he claimed,
then he should have noticed the barangay tanods near the stalled bus who were
manning the traffic and signalling the other motorists to slow down.9

Aggrieved, Curammeng appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Bauang, La Union,


Branch 33 (RTC).

The RTC Ruling

In a Decision10 dated June 3, 2014, the RTC affirmed Curammeng's conviction in


toto.11 It found that as a professional public utility vehicle driver, his primary concern is
the safety not only of himself and his passengers but also that of his fellow motorists.
However, he failed to exhibit such concern when he did not slow down upon seeing the
Maria De Leon bus stalled on the northbound side of the national highway, especially so
that the area where the incident happened was hardly illuminated by street lights and
that there is a possibility that he might not be able to see oncoming vehicles because
his view of the road was partially blocked by the said stalled bus. In view of the
foregoing circumstances, the RTC concluded that Curammeng was negligent in driving
his bus, and such negligence was the proximate cause of Franco's death. As such, his
liability for the crime charged must be upheld.12

Curammeng moved for reconsideration but was denied in an Order13 dated July 22,
2014. Dissatisfied, he filed a petition for review14 under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court
before the CA.

The CA Ruling
In a Resolution15 dated October 20, 2014, the CA dismissed outright Curammeng's
petition based on procedural grounds. Specifically, the CA found that Curammeng
violated Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court as he failed to attach a certification of
non-forum shopping as well as material portions of the record (e.g., affidavits referred to
in the MTC Decision, transcript of stenographic notes of the MTC, documentary
evidence of the parties).16

Undaunted, Curammeng filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Compliance17 dated


November 6, 2014, praying for the relaxation of procedural rules so that his petition will
be reinstated and given due course. He explained that the failure to comply with the
rules was only due to a plain oversight on the part of his counsel's secretary. To show
that such failure was unintentional, he attached his certification of non-forum shopping
as well as copies of the pertinent records of the case.18

In a Resolution19 dated June 30, 2015, the CA denied Curammeng's motion for lack of
merit. It held that Curammeng failed to give any convincing explanation which would
constitute a compelling reason for a liberal application of the procedural rules on
appeal.20

Hence, this petition.

The Issue Before the Court

The primordial issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly
dismissed Curammeng' s petition for review based on procedural grounds.

The Court's Ruling

The petition is meritorious.


Appeals of cases decided by the RTCs in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction are
taken by filing a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.21 Section 2,
thereof, provides that such petitions shall be accompanied by, inter alia, material
portions of the record which would support the allegations of said petitions as well as a
certification of non-forum shopping, viz.:

SEC. 2. Form and contents. -The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies, with
the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and
shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the lower
courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the specific
material dates showing that it was filed on time; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the
matters involved, the issues raised, the specification of errors of fact or law, or both,
allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court, and the reasons or arguments relied
upon for the allowance of the appeal; (d) be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate
originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified
correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain
copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would
support the allegations of the petition.

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a certification under oath that
he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal
or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the
same; and if he should thereafter learn that a 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 other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom. (Emphases
and underscoring supplied)

It must be stressed that since a petition for review is a form of appeal, non-compliance
with the foregoing rule may render the same dismissible.1âwphi1 This is in furtherance
of the well-settled rule that "the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due
process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and
in accordance with the provisions of law. A party who seeks to avail of the right must,
therefore, comply with the requirements of the rules, failing which the right to appeal is
invariably lost."22 Verily, compliance with procedural rules is a must, "since they are
designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of
delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice."23

Nevertheless, if a rigid application of the rules of procedure will tend to obstruct rather
than serve the broader interests of justice in light of the prevailing circumstances of the
case, such as where strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the
petition, the Court may relax the strict application of the rules of procedure in the
exercise of its equity jurisdiction.24 The Court's pronouncement in Heirs of Zaulda v.
Zaulda25 is instructive on this matter, to wit:

The reduction in the number of pending cases is laudable, but if it would be attained by
precipitate, if not preposterous, application of technicalities, justice would not be served.
The law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The court's primary duty
is to render or dispense justice. "It is a more prudent course of action for the court to
excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on appeal rather
than dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the parties,
giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually resulting in more
delay, if not miscarriage of justice."

What should guide judicial action is the principle that a party-litigant should be given the
fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him
to lose life, liberty, honor, or property on technicalities. The rules of procedure should be
viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid
application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote
substantial justice, must always be eschewed. At this juncture, the Court reminds all
members of the bench and bar of the admonition in the often-cited case of Alonso v.
Villamar [16 Phil. 315, 322 (1910)]:

Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it
deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief
enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. There should be no vested rights in
technicalities.26 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Otherwise stated, procedural rules may be relaxed for the most persuasive of reasons
in order to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his
thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. Corollarily, the rule,
which states that the mistakes of counsel bind the client, may not be strictly followed
where observance of it would result in the outright deprivation of the client's liberty or
property, or where the interest of justice so requires.27

In the instant case, the Court notes that the dismissal of Curammeng's appeal is based
solely on his counsel's negligence in failing to attach a certification of non-forum
shopping as well as material portions of the record. Notwithstanding the filing of a
Motion for Reconsideration with Compliance dated November 6, 2014, the CA upheld
its earlier dismissal, ratiocinating that the reasons presented by Curammeng' s counsel
were not compelling enough to relax the technical rules on appeal.

While the Court understands and applauds the CA' s zealousness in upholding
procedural rules, it cannot simply allow a man to be incarcerated without his conviction
being reviewed due to the negligence of his counsel. To note, Curammeng, a public
utility vehicle driver and his family's sole breadwinner, is appealing his conviction for the
crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide where he stands to be sentenced
with imprisonment for the indeterminate period of four (4) months and one (1) day of
arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
as maximum, among others. In view of these circumstances, as well as his counsel's
eventual - albeit irregular - compliance with the technical rules of appeal, the CA should
have disregarded the rules and proceeded to make a full review of the factual and legal
bases of Curammeng's conviction, including the attendance of modificatory
circumstances (e.g., the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender which
Curammeng argues to be existent in his case), if any, pursuant to the principle that an
appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review.28

In sum, the Court deems it appropriate to relax the technical rules of procedure in order
to afford Curammeng the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his appeal, rather
than to deprive him of such and make him lose his liberty on procedural blunders which
he had no direct

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy