More favorable explanation

If the inculpatory facts against an accused are capable of two explanations – one consistent with a lesser degree of liability and the other consistent with graver responsibility, that with a lesser degree of liability should be adopted because it is more favorable to the accused. This is the rule applied in the case of Gerry who was charged with multiple murder, multiple frustrated murder and multiple attempted murder.

Gerry was a young college graduate with a pregnant wife and three very young kids. To support his family he would sometimes use his Isuzu Elf to transport people or goods for a fee. For this particular incident, a group of band members hired Gerry to bring them to another town together with their instruments in connection with a festival.

Gerry and his travelling companions left at about 12 midnight. At the time, Gerry had consumed three bottles of beer waiting for the entire group to be completed. Gerry drove slowly because the road was slippery. The vicinity was very dark and foggy, there was no moon or stars. As they proceeded towards the city of their destination, a group of 65 police trainees were also on the last phase of their "endurance run" towards the city. They were divided into three columns running on the right lane of the highway, the same direction being traversed by Gerry. All of them were wearing black T-shirts, black short pants and black and green combat shoes. Two rear security guards at each column were jogging backwards facing the oncoming vehicles and giving hand signals to take the left lane.

As Gerry was negotiating a left curve downwards travelling on the right lane, he saw a very bright and glaring light coming from the opposite direction. Gerry blinked his lights as signal for the other vehicle to dim its lights, but it did not. So Gerry was forced to dim his lights and reduced speed from 80 to 60 kph. It was while the truck was cruising at this speed that Gerry heard and felt bumping thuds. He put his right foot on the brakes, but the impact was so sudden that he was astonished and afraid that he could not see in the dark what was being bumped. Confusion and fear engulfed him that he immediately proceeded home and there saw for the first time the damage to his vehicle.

It turned out that what he hit were the police trainees. He didn’t see the waving hands of the rear security for him to take the other side of the road and just kept his speed hitting the joggers who fell like dominoes. 12 trainees were killed on the spot, 11 others were seriously injured while 10 sustained minor injuries. That was 3:30 in the early morning.

The trial court found Gerry guilty as charged. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. The court said that Gerry intentionally rammed and hit the jogging trainees because he continued to accelerate his vehicle instead of applying the brakes despite the first bumping thuds. The court said that in the exhilaration of the night breeze and having drunk at least three beers, Gerry was driven by mischief and dare-devilness to scare the rear guards and see them scamper way with the sight of an oncoming vehicle ramming them down.

Was the trial court correct?

No.

The trial court should have been more scrupulous in weighing the evidence considering that death penalty is involved. If Gerry merely wanted to scare the rear guards, then intent to kill was wanting. In the absence of criminal intent he cannot be held liable for an intentional felony like murder. The incident, tragic though it was in the light of the number of persons killed and seriously injured, was an accident and not an intentional felony. The place was dark and foggy. The victims were wearing black and were occupying the wrong lane. Gerry was momentarily blinded by the very bright and glaring light of an oncoming vehicle. Gerry had no axe to grind against the police trainees that would drive him into deliberately hitting them with intent to kill. It would have been inconceivable for him then a young college graduate with a pregnant wife and three young kids to have deliberately hit the group when instinct tells one to stop or swerve to a safe place the moment he sees even a cat or a dog on the road, much more so a person.

Neither is there a showing of a political angle of a leftist sponsored massacre of police elements disguised as a vehicular accident. Even if there is such an evidence, i.e. that the motive of the killing was in furtherance of a rebellion movement, Gerry cannot be convicted because if such were the case, the proper charge would be rebellion, not murder.

Gerry should have applied his brakes or swerve immediately after hearing the first bump. The road was slippery and going downwards and the place was foggy and dark. He should have observed due care of a reasonably prudent man by slackening his speed, applying the brakes or turning to the left side there being no oncoming vehicle. Gerry therefore showed inexcusable lack of precaution and is guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide with serious and less serious physical injuries. He should be sentenced instead to four years minimum up to 10 years maximum imprisonment; and ten counts of slight physical injuries of two months imprisonment for each count, plus payment of P50,000 indemnity for each of those who died (People of the Philippines vs. de los Santos 355 SCRA 415).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]