G.R. No.

147437

May 8, 2009

LARRY V. CAMINOS, JR., Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Summary: Reckless imprudence resulting in damage to propertyagainst petitioner Larry V. Caminos,
Jr yet the latters civil liability was reduced on account of the finding that the negligence of Arnold
Litonjua, the private offended party, had contributed to the vehicular collision subject of the instant case.
Facts:
On the night of 21 June 1988 at the intersection of Ortigas Avenue and Columbia Street in
Mandaluyong City, right in front of Gate 6 of East Greenhills Subdivision a Mitsubishi Super Saloon,
driven by Caminos who was a company driver in the employ of Fortune Tobacco, Inc. assigned to drive
for the company secretary, Mariano Tanigan, who was with him at the time of the incident, plus a
Volkswagen Karmann Ghia (Litonjua) were involved in a vehicular accident. Arnold was passing by
Ortigas Avenue towards Edsa and was about to make a left yet petitioners car rammed into him from the
right side.
Arnold then summoned Ernesto Santos who was a traffic enforcer of the Mandaluyong police
force who then interrogated both Arnold and the petitioner. The report revealed that at the time of the
collision, Arnolds car, which had "no right of way, was "turning left" whereas petitioners car was "going
straight" and was "exceeding lawful speed." It also indicated that the vision of the drivers was obstructed
by the "center island flower bed." Caminos (petitioner) was then charged with reckless imprudence
resulting in to damage of property. Upon cross-examination, Arnold admitted that that he had brought his
car to a full stop before turning left but that the front portion thereof was already two (2) feet into the
other lane of Ortigas Avenue. Antonio who was Arnolds father mentioned that the cost of the repairs of
the Volkswagen was P139,294.00.
Caminos adheres to the fact that it was Arnold who bumped his car and not the other way around.
He suggests that Arnolds car was in motion or in the process of making a turn. Trial court then concluded
that petitioner, by reason of his own admission that he did not notice Arnolds car at the intersection, is
solely to be blamed for the incident especially absent any showing that there was any obstruction to his
line of sight. He was ordered to pay P139,294.00 as well as a fine in the same amount. The Court of
Appeals agreed with the factual findings of the trial court however lowered the civil indemnity since
Arnold had failed to look out for vehicles which could have possibly been entering the road.
Petitioner however was still unsatisfied with this ruling and maintained that Arnolds own
negligence was the principal cause for the accident and that he (petitioner) must be free of all payments of

damages. He believes that the appellate court misapplied the principle of last clear chance 1. Thus the case
was brought up to this Court

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of reckless imprudence and if his fine shall be lowered.

HELD:
The Court held that reckless imprudence generally was defined in our penal law as 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.
Thus something more than mere negligence is necessary in order to commit reckless imprudence.
Also, in a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt particularly in one wherein damage to property in
terms of automobiles requires the concurrence of the following elements:
1. that the offender has done or failed to do an act
2. that the act is voluntary
3. that the same is without malice
4. that material damage results
5. that there has been inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender.
Petitioners contention that the speed of his car was 25-30kph was unfounded since Antonios car was
violently thrown across the street and on the opposite lane of Ortigas Avenue. It can be plainly seen that
the petitioner had not acted with all possible precautions in his mind while driving at that moment.
Physical evidence and the fact that petitioner had not seen Arnolds car at the intersection (because he was
driving very fast) show this. It can only be surmised at this point that petitioner had inexcusably fallen
short of the standard of care in a situation which called for more precaution on the highway in failing to
1
The doctrine that excuses or negates the effect of the plaintiff's contributory Negligence and per
mits him
or her to recover, in particular instances, damages regardless of his or her own lack of ordinary
care.

make an observation in the interest at least of his own safety whether or not it was safe to enter the
crossing.
He clings to the fact that the right of way belonged to him yet this was not proven to be the case. The
Court then ruled that concurring negligence was still in effect in the case due to the lack of evidence to the
contrary they then ruled that the amount of damages to be paid was the same as what the trial court
ordered (P139,294.00 as well as a fine in the same amount) thus reversing the lower amount Ordered by
the Court of Appeals
Petition Denied