People vs.
Vistan RULING:
GR NO. 17218
SEPTEMBER 8, 1921
eamtrinidad | Group 5
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Defendant-Appellant: Narciso Vistan
TOPIC:
Quasi-delicts
Negligence
CASE SUMMARY: Vistan, a conductor of a streetcar, was receiving
passengers, and allegedly signaled the motorman to go ahead
without taking into account that Borromeo was about to board the
car. Borromeo was thrown off the car and his foot was crushed. He
then charged Vistan with serious physical injuries through reckless
imprudence. The SC said that he was only guilty of simple, and not
reckless imprudence, and differentiated the two (see Holding).
PRECEDENTS:
US vs. Gomez: The accused was the motorman of a street
car that collided with a carabao, and was convicted for
homicide due to reckless negligence.
FACTS:
Vistan was charged at the CFI Manila of the crime of
serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence and
sentenced to imprisonment.
Vistan was the conductor-in-charge of street car no. 203 of
Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co.
When he was receiving the passengers on the streetcar, he
allegedly signaled the motorman of the streetcar to go
ahead without minding and without taking into account that
Hugo Borromeo was at that very moment about to board
the car with one foot on the running board.
(Note: Borromeo was boarding after his two sons had
already boarded.)
Borromeo was then thrown off of the moving car, and his
foot was crushed by the rear wheels of the car. He wasnt
able to go to work for more than 90 days, and his left foot
had to be amputated.
Defense of Vistan:
o tried to prove that the street car being in motion,
the offended party ran after it and attempted to
board it, but unfortunately missed the running
board and upon falling down one of his feet was
caught by the wheels of the car.
SC believes it to be clear that at the time of boarding the
car, the offended party was watching the man who gave
the signal to start, that is, the conductor, and the latter,
who, had his eyes toward the door, seeing the nobody was
alighting or boarding the car, rang the bell, whereupon the
car started. It is not improbable that when the accused saw
the last passenger with both hands clinging to the holding
device of the car and one foot on the running board, he
thought that the passenger had completely boarded the car
and that is why he gave the signal to start.
ISSUES:
WON the accused acted with reckless negligence as
alleged in the information NO.
1st issue: NO. Only simple negligence.
o The term "rash imprudence," as used in the
Spanish Code, would seem to be approximately
equivalent to the "gross negligence" of the
common law.
In common usage the word "rash"
seems sometimes to imply a wanton
disregard of consequences, indicative
of a state of mind bordering upon
deliberate intention to inflict a positive
injury.
o The Court differentiated reckless and simple
negligence.
o RECKLESS NEGLIGENCE:
where immediate personal harm,
preventable in the exercise of
reasonable care, is threatened to a
human being by reason of a course of
conduct which is being pursued by
another, and the danger is visible and
consciously appreciated by the actor,
the failure to use reasonable care to
prevent the threatened injury
o SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE:
mere lack of prevision in a situation
where either the threatened harm is
not immediate or the danger is not
openly visible
o Taking into consideration all the circumstances of
the case at bar, we are of the opinion that the act
of the accused in giving the order to start the car,
when the offended party had his hands already
on the holding devices of the car and his foot on
the running board, constitutes carelessness or
negligence, but does not show grave fault
amounting to reckless imprudence and the
accused having acted with simple imprudence or
negligence, has incurred the penalty provided by
article 590, case No. 4, of the Penal Code.
DISPOSITION:
The judgment appealed from is modified, and the accused and
appellant is sentenced to pay a fine of 60 pesetas and to suffer the
corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to
censure, with the costs of this instance de oficio. So ordered.
PROVISIONS:
RPC Art. 365 (current law)
Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence. Any person who,
by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it
been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall
suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its medium period; if it would have
constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto
mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be
imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the
penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be
imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall
commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave
felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its
 medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted
a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum period shall be imposed.
When the execution of the act covered by this article shall
have only resulted in damage to the property of another,
the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an
amount equal to the value of said damages to three times
such value, but which shall in no case be less than twenty-
five pesos.
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall
be imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence
or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done
maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.
In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise
their sound discretion, without regard to the rules
prescribed in Article sixty-four.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be
applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or
lower than those provided in the first two paragraphs of this
article, in which case the court shall impose the penalty
next lower in degree than that which should be imposed in
the period which they may deem proper to apply.
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of
the Automobile Law, to death of a person shall be caused,
in which case the defendant shall be punished by prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without
malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution
on the part of the person performing of 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.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution
displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to
be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly
manifest.
The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in
this article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to
lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may be
in this hand to give. (As amended by R.A. 1790, approved
June 21, 1957).