- Petitioner
- Jr.
- Respondent
- People
- Citation
- G.R. No. 264250
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decided
- March 29, 2023
Whether allowing a hitchhiker to board the unsafe back portion of a truck constitutes reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
Summary
Francisco Grumo, Jr., a truck driver, was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide after allowing Edric Dela Umbria to hitchhike on the unsafe back portion of his tractor head. On November 6, 2013, while driving along Marcos Road in Manila, Grumo permitted Edric to board the rear of his truck despite knowing this violated company policy and traffic regulations. Edric slipped and fell, was run over, and died from traumatic injuries. The Supreme Court affirmed Grumo's conviction, finding he acted with inexcusable lack of precaution and conscious indifference to consequences. The Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of 1 year 8 months to 3 years 6 months 21 days, and increased monetary awards to PHP150,000 total (civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages). The case establishes that violating traffic regulations creates a presumption of negligence under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, and demonstrates criminal liability for reckless imprudence when safety violations directly cause death.
Focus of dispute
Whether allowing a hitchhiker to board the unsafe back portion of a truck constitutes reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
Legal facts
On November 6, 2013, around 12:15 AM, truck driver Francisco Grumo, Jr. was driving a KEN WORTH tractor head with trailer along Marcos Road near Pier 12, North Harbour, Tondo, Manila. Edric Velilia Dela Umbria flagged down the truck and asked to hitchhike. Grumo allowed Edric to board at the back portion of the tractor head while standing with nothing to hold on to. While the truck was moving, Edric slipped and fell to the ground and was run over by the vehicle, sustaining traumatic abdomen injuries that caused his death. Grumo admitted he knew company policy and traffic rules prohibited hitchhiking, and that the back of the vehicle was unsafe for passengers.
Judgement and reasoning
Court of Appeals (CA): Denied Petition for Review and affirmed RTC Decision. Concluded Grumo was negligent in allowing Edric to hitchhike despite knowing vehicle was not intended to carry passengers and violated company policy and traffic rules. Applied Article 2185 of Civil Code and Section 51 of RA 4136. Found that despite knowledge of dangers, Grumo allowed Edric to ride in standing position with nothing to hold on and moved truck without proper care and caution. Denied Motion for Reconsideration.
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC): Found Grumo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Sentenced him to imprisonment of one year, seven months and eleven days to two years, ten months and twenty days. Ordered to pay PHP50,000.00 as death indemnity. Court found Grumo was careless, reckless, and negligent in allowing victim to board at the back of the vehicle and allowing him to stand there while truck was moving. Grumo conceded company policy and traffic rules did not allow hitchhiking and admitted it was his mistake.
Regional Trial Court (RTC): Denied Grumo's appeal for lack of merit. Ruled that totality of evidence showed proximate cause of incident was Grumo's reckless negligence in allowing Edric to ride on outside of rear end of tractor head, contrary to Section 51 of RA 4136. Found Grumo knew or should have known back of vehicle was unsafe for human transport and not passenger-worthy, putting Edric in imminent danger. Applied Article 2185 of Civil Code establishing negligence by violation of traffic regulation. Denied Motion for Reconsideration.
Supreme Court (SC): Denied Petition for Review on Certiorari with modification of penalty and monetary awards. Affirmed conviction but modified sentence to indeterminate penalty of one year and eight months (minimum) to three years, six months, and twenty-one days (maximum). Modified monetary awards to PHP50,000.00 civil indemnity, PHP50,000.00 moral damages, and PHP50,000.00 temperate damages with 6% legal interest per annum. Court found all elements of reckless imprudence established and direct causal connection between negligence and injury. Applied Article 365 of Revised Penal Code and noted violation of Automobile Law warranted higher penalty range.