REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 47, Pasay City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Criminal Case No. 00-1988
-versus- For: Reckless Imprudence Resulting
In Homicide
DANILO BASA,
Accused.
x-------------------------------------------x

DECISION

A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it
is his duty to be cautious, careful, and prudent, if not from instinct, then through
fear of incurring punishment. He is responsible for such results as anyone might
foresee and for acts which no one would have performed except through culpable
abandon. Otherwise his own person, rights and property, all those of his fellow-
beings, would ever be exposed to all manner of danger and injury.1 Did the herein
accused commit inexcusable lack of precaution resulting to the death of one of its
passengers?

THE CHARGE

Accused Danilo Basa stands charged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting In

Homicide in an Information, the accusatory portion of which reads as follows:

That on or about the 8th day of March, 2000 in Pasay City, Metro Manila,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, DANILO T. BASA, being then the driver and person in charge of Saulog
Transit Plate No. TB-DVS-379, owned and operated by SAULOG TRANSIT INC.,
without taking the necessary precaution to avoid accident to person and damage to
property and without due regard to the traffic law, rules and ordinances of this city and
in violation of the motor vehicle law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously drive, manage and operate the said vehicle along EDSA Avenue near corner
Zamora St., this city, in reckless, negligent and imprudent manner and as a result of
such recklessness, negligent and imprudence hit and ran over ELENITA BLANCAS, who
as a consequence, sustained serious physical injuries on her person which caused her
death. The accused knowing that the vehicle he was driving hit and ran over ELENITA
BLANCAS, failed to lend on the spot to said victim such help as might in his hand to
give.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

1 US vs. Maleza 14 Phil. 468, 470 (1909).

1
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

During the arraignment, accused Danilo Basa, assisted by Atty. Ricky Jones
Macabaya, entered a plea of not guilty.2 On February 21, 2001, the pre-trial was reset
to April 4, 2001. On June 20, 2001, the pre-trial was terminated. The trial on August
15, 2001 and September 17, 2001 were reset to October 30, 2001. Private
complainant Luisito Blancas testified on direct examination and identified Exhibits A
to F with their sub-markings.3 The trial on January 28, 2002 was reset to March 6,
2002. Private complainant Luisito Blancas was cross-examined.4 Witness Adorado
Dela Cruz testified on direct examination, cross examination, re-direct examination and
re-cross examination as well as identified his Sinumpaang Salysay as Exhibit H.5 The
continuation of trial on July 23 2002 was reset to August 19, 2002. Trial on August
19, 2002 was reset to September 23, 2002; the trial on September 27, 2002 was reset
to October 16, 2002; the trial on October 16, 2002 was reset to November 6 2002; the
trial on November 6, 2002 was reset to December 11 2002; the trial on December 11,
2002 was reset to January 28, 2003; trial on January 28, 2003 was reset. On March 3,
2003, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the following : (1) the testimony of
PO3 Diomedes Mampusti; (2) the existence of Traffic Accident Investigation Report
(TAIR)prepared by him on March 8, 2000 and on the second paragraph of the brief
narration regarding the incident; (3) the entry thereof was received on March 14, 2000;
and (4) that he has no personal knowledge of the case. The TAIR was marked as Exhibit
J and the signature of Po3 Diomedes Mampusti as Exhibit J-1; the Spot Report
dated March 8, 2000 as Exhibit K and the signature of PO3 Diomedes Mampusti as
K-1.6 Assistant City Prosecutor Juliet Garcia formally offered the prosecutions
documentary exhibits marked as Exhibits A to K with their respective sub-markings.
On January 27, 2004, the defense counsel, Atty. Omar Mayo, waived the filing of his
comment or opposition to the prosecutions formal offer of evidence. The Court
admitted Exhibits A to K with their respective sub-markings.7 On April 21, 2003,
the defense presentation of its evidence was reset to July 22, 2003. The trial was reset
to March 15, 2004. On June 21, 2004, the accused Danilo Basa testified on direct
examination and identified Exhibit 1. On October 4, 2004, the accused continued
his direct testimony and identified Exhibits 2 and 3 with sub-markings. The
prosecutions motion to strike off testimony of accused Danilo Basa was granted and
his right to present defense was waived for his failure to attend the hearing despite
notice.8 On July 1, 2005, the accused motion for reconsideration was granted by the
Court. The trial was reset to August 2 2005 then reset to September 13, 2005. The
trial on October 10, 2005 was reset. On January 30, 2005, accused testified on cross-
examination, re-direct examination and re-cross examination. The trial scheduled on
March 28,2006, August 1, 2006, September 26, 2006, October 9, 2006, November 13,
2006, December 13, 2006, February 20, 2007, March 28, 2007, and May 22 2007 were
all reset. On August 21, 2007, Salvador Andres testified and identified Exhibit 4 with
sub-marking.9 Eduardo Truya on direct examination and identified Exhibit 3 and
Exhibit 5 . Reynaldo Amerna testified on direct examination and identified Exhibits
6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11,12,13 and 14. On January 26, 2010, the defense formally
offered its documentary exhibits. Assistant City Prosecutor John Giselher Imperial filed

2 See Order dated January 17, 2001.

3 See Order dated October 30, 2001.
4 See Order dated on March 6, 2002
5 See Order dated on May 15 2002.
6 See Order dated March 3, 2003.
7 See Order dated January 27, 2004.
8 See Order dated May 3, 2005.
9 See Order dated August 21, 2007.

2
his comment and opposition thereto. On April 27, 2010, the Court admitted defenses
Exhibits 1 to 16. Thereafter, the case was submitted for decision.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

Testimonial Evidence

LUISITO BLANCAS, the brother of the victim Elenita Blancas, testified that
he learned of the vehicular accident involving his sister Elenita Blancas from Adorado
Dela Cruz on March 10, 2000.10 According to the eyewitness Adorado Dela Cruz, on
March 8, 2000, his sister was bumped and ran over by Saulog Transit bus with body
no. 618 driven by accused Danilo Basa along Pasay Rotonda Edsa resulting to her
instant death. After learning the incident from the said eyewitness, he went to Pasay
Traffic Police in order to file a complaint.11 The Hoy Gising crew was with them when
they went to the Saulog Transit office. The vehicular accident involving his sister was
feature by ABS-CBN.12 The expenses with receipt they incurred for the wake amounted
to Seventy-Six Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P76,500.00). Without receipt, the
expenses totalled to One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (P120,000.00), and less
expenses in all the expenses with receipts is Ninety Nine Thousand Pesos
(P99,000.00).13 His sister is single and she was Thirty (30) years old when she died.
She was working with Star cinema as a checker earning more or less Three Thousand
Five Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00) per week.14 He spent Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00)
transportation expenses in attending the hearing from Nueva Ecija to Pasay City. He has
travelled Twenty Five (25) times to attend the trial.

During his cross-examination, he was asked by Atty. Omar Mayo, defense counsel,
if he has a proof that his sister Elenita Blancas earned more or less Three Thousand Five
Hundred Pesos (P3,500.00) a week, he answered that he has no proof.15

ADORADO DELA CRUZ testified that on March 8 2000, on or about 3:40

a.m. along Edsa near Rotonda, Pasay City, he was a passenger of Saulog Transit bus
with body no. 618, coming from Olongapo going to Cavite. Near Rotonda Pasay, he
alighted from the bus immediately next after victim Elenita Blancas.16 More or less
Two (2) meters away, he saw the victim Elenita Blancas in front of the bus, who was
trying to fix her belongings. She was bumped and ran over by the same Saulog bus
driven by the accused Danilo Basa.17 He shouted at accused Danilo Basa telling him
PARA PARA to call his attention that he bumped Elenita Blancas.18 The accused
Danilo Basa shouted back at him, WALA NA PATAY NA YAN.19 He speeded away the
bus.20 The victim Elenita Blancas died on the spot. She was ran over by two wheels in
the head.21 When she was hit by a front wheel of the bus, she was still alive and she tried

10 See Affidavit dated April 4, 2000; TSN dated October 30, 2001, p. 6; TSN dated March 6, 2002, p. 6.
11 TSN dated October 30, 2001, p. 6
12 TSN dated October 30, 2001, p. 7.
13 TSN dated October 30, 2001, pp. 8 and 9.
14 TSN dated October 30, 2001, p 11.
15 TSN dated March 6, 2002, p. 8.
16 TSN dated April 22, 2002, p. 8.
17 TSN dated April 22, 2002, p. 7.
18 TSN dated April 22, 2002, p.9.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
21 TSN dated April 22, 2002, p. 10.

3
to get up.22 She was hit again by the propeller, then her head was hit also by the wheels
at the back of the same.23 Policeman came. They examined the dead body of Elenita
Blancas.24 He, together with his son, left the place because they were frightened. He did
not reduce into writing what he witnessed nor report it to the police.25 He went to
Admiral Cinema because of his suspicion that the victim Elenita Blancas works in a
cinema since she was holding a film at that time. He was bothered by his conscience of
what he has witnessed that time.26 He asked from the people in the cinema if they have
an employee who went to Manila. He was told so positively. He narrated the incident.
His name and address were asked. Then, one of the co-employees of the victim named
Connie went to his place. He was fetched to go to the cinema. There, he saw the relatives
of the victim. He executed his Sinumpaang Salaysay before the police.27 He can
positively identify the accused Danilo Basa because he was seated right behind the same
accused inside the Saulog Transit Bus.28

During his cross-examination, he confirmed that the head of the lady (Elenita
Blancas) was ran over by the rear tires of the bus. He saw her head destroyed and the
brain came out or splattered.29

During his re-direct examination, he was showed with the drawing made by the
traffic investigator which he testified that it was not the right sketch.30 The position of
the victim was, her head is going to the position on the right side and the feet was near
the fence of the MRT. So, the sketch is not correct.31

During his re-cross examination, he was asked how far was the body of the lady at
its resting position from MRT fence, he replied it to be more than Three (3) meters.32

PO3 DIOMEDES MAMPUSTI testified that he prepared the Traffic Accident

Investigation Report (TAIR) on March 8, 2000. He narrated that accident in the TAIR.
The entry thereof was received on March 14, 2000. He has no personal knowledge of the
case.

Documentary Evidence

The prosecution offered the following exhibits which were admitted by the
Court : (1) Sinumpaang Salaysay of Luisito Blancas as Exhibit A with sub-marking ;
(2) Rizal Funeral Homes Inc. Official Receipt no. 8738 dated March 23, 2000 in the
amount of P38,000 as funeral service for the late Elenita Blancas as Exhibit B; (3)
Munoz Memorial Garden, Official Receipt No. 2783 dated April 8, 2000 in the amount
of P33,000 as payment for the memorial lot of the late Elenita Blancas as Exhibit B-1;
(4) J.B. Carbonell Memorial Service Official Receipt No. 1950 dated April 8, 2000 in the
amount of P2,500 as additional memorial service on the late Elenita Blancas in
Munoz,Nueva Ecija as Exhibit B-2; (5) Summation of expenses dated October 30,

22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 TSN dated April 22, 2002, p. 11.
25 Ibid.
26 TSN dated April 22, 2002, p. 12.
27 TSN dated April 22, 2002, p. 13.
28 TSN dated April 22, 2002, p. 14.
29 TSN dated April 15, 002, p. 15.
30 TSN dated May 15, 2002, p. 19.
31 Ibid.
32 TSN dated May 15, 2002, p. 20.

4
2001 prepared by Luisito Blancas in the total amount of P99,000 as Exhibit B-4; (6)
Post mortem examination of the late Elenita Blancas as Exhibit C with sub-markings;
(7) Bunch of tickets representing transportation expenses amounting to P2,500 as
Exhibit D; (8) Certificate of Death of the late Elenita Blancas as Exhibit E; (9)
Sunlife Assurance Co. Insurance claim form filed by Luisito Blancas as Exhibit F with
sub-marking; (10) ID picture of victim Elenita Blancas as employee of Star Cinema as
Exhibit G; (11) Certification of Employment from Start Cinema as Exhibit G-1; (12)
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Adorado Dela Cruz dated March 10, 2000 as Exhibit H with
sub-marking; (13) Sketch made by Adorado Dela Cruz on May 15, 2002 regarding the
incident as Exhibit I; (14) Traffic Accident and Investigation Report dated March 8,
2000 as Exhibit J; and (15) Spot Report of Pasay City Traffic Enforcement Unit dated
Mar 8,2000 as Exhibit K.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

Testimonial Evidence

DANILO BASA is a driver of Saulog Bus Transit Inc. since 1997.33 On March
8, 2000, he was driving Saulog bus with body no. 618 and with plate no. DVS-379.34
His assigned trip at that time was from Olongapo to Cavite City. He left from Olongapo
at 1:20 a.m. with more or less Fifteen (15) passengers. A female passenger whom he
identified as Elenita Blancas, carrying a baggage containing movie films, boarded the
bus he was driving. The said baggage was placed near the door of the bus because it was
heavy. The passenger Elenita Blancas alighted from the Saulog Bus in Pasay City before
reaching the stop light within the vicinity, which he was referring to be Pasay Rotonda.35
The bus was at the curb side of EDSA before reaching the stop light.36 The passenger
Elenita Blancas has no companion. The Saulog bus conductor Manuel Linen helped in
the carrying of Elenita Blancas baggage. He saw Manuel Linen placed the baggage at the
gutter side of the road.37 Thereafter, their bus proceeded to its trip to Cavite City. He did
not notice any unusual incident on that day. He did not hear any unusual sound that
indicate of a person or object hit he bus.38 On March 10, 2000, he was placed on hold by
the police. He was investigated. The subject bus was impounded to see if there are
blood stains or if there are anything inside.39 He remember a passenger who boarded
from San Benito who is referred by the defense counsel to be prosecutions witness
Adorado Dela Cruz. He denied hearing the shouting of PARA PARA by witness
Adorado Dela Cruz.

SALVADOR ANDRES is the roving inspector of Saulog bus transit. He testified

that he was assigned to the Saulog bus with body no. 618 driven by accused Danilo
Basa.40 There were Fifteen (15) passengers inside the same bus. He noticed a female
passenger (Elenita Blancas) carrying a heavy luggage, containing film. The bus
conductor extended help when she boarded at around 3:30 a.m. at Olongapo. She got off

33 TSN dated June 21, 2004, p. 4.

34
TSN dated June 21, 2004, p. 5.
35 TSN dated June 21, 2004, p. 11.
36 TSN dated June 21, 2004, p. 12.
37 TSN dated June 21, 2004, p. 14.
38 Counter-affidavit of the accused Danilo Basa.
39 TSN dated June 21, 2004, p. 17.
40 TSN dated May 22, 2007, p. 5.

5
from the bus at the bus stop of Edsa Pasay Rotonda.41 Accused Danilo Basa asked the
bus conductor to help the said passenger carrying a baggage. The bus was more or less
five (5) steps away from the head of the sidewalk at the bus stop. The bus conductor
placed the baggage beside her. Accused Danilo Basa asked the bus conductor if it is
cleared. The bus conductor replied that it was cleared. The bus started to run.42 He did
not see anything unusual among the passengers inside the bus. Their bus was not
stopped by the traffic enforcers or policemen from Edsa Rotonda to Cavite City.

During his cross-examination, he admitted to Assistant City Prosecutor Roque

Rosales that he did not execute any affidavit in connection with this case.43

EDUARDO TRUYA is a mechanic of Saulog Bus Transit Inc. since 1980. He

examined the Saulog bus with body no. 618 driven by accused Danilo Basa in March
2000 at their Paranaque main office. He made a sketch and a drawing showing the
distance of the bus propeller during the Court hearing.44 He testified that contrary to the
testimony of prosecution witness Adorado Dela Cruz that the bus is made up of front
wheels, followed by a propeller then the rear wheels in that order, the bus is actually
ordered to be front wheels first, followed by the rear wheels and finally the propeller.45

During his cross-examination, he admitted to Assistant City Prosecutor Clarence

Espanol that he is not familiar with the weight of the Saulog bus. He agreed that any
person who was ran over by the front wheel of a bus and later by the back wheel, hitting
his spinal portion, is fatal.46

REYNALDO AMEMA, the operations manager of Saulog Bus Transit Inc.

since 1992, testified that accused Danilo Basa was their bus driver with a tour of duty
from Olongapo to Cavite on March 8, 2000. He did not know of any unusual incident
during the assignment of accused Danilo Basa that day. He did not receive unusual
reports from the dispatchers and line inspectors of their bus company. Accused Danilo
Basa submitted all the requirements for his employment with Saulog Bus Transit Inc.
He took the written and actual driving exams administered by the maintenance of the
bus company.47 He also went to the legal department for briefing about some
precautions in avoiding an accident.48 A final briefing about the rules and regulations
and proper behaviour was given to all applicants. After submission of the documents for
employment, the drivers were given their assignment.49

Documentary Evidence

The defense offered the following exhibits which were admitted by the Court: (1)
Counter-affidavit of accused Danilo Basa as Exhibit 1 with sub-markings,; (2)
Diagram of frame attachment as Exhibit 2 with sub-marking; (3) Sketch or drawing of

41 TSN dated May 22, 2007, p. 9.

42 TSN dated May 22, 2007, p. 1.
43 TSN dated February 10, 2007, p. 3.
44 TSN dated February 13, 2008, p.7.
45 TSN dated February 13, 2008, p.10.
46 TSN dated May 14, 2009, p.5.
47 TSN dated July 7,2009, p. 13.
48 TSN dated July 7, 2009, p. 22.
49 TSN dated July 9, 2009 , p. 23.

6
the main engine, transmission, propeller assembly, differential housing of Saulog
Transit bus with no. 618 as Exhibit 3, (4) Pictures of propeller shaft of the subject bus
as Exhibits 3 to 3-a, ; (5) Sketch of the relative positions of Elenita Blancas, Saulog
Transit bus with no. 618 and the location of the alleged incident as testified by witness
Salvador Andres as Exhibit 4 with sub-markings; (6) Drawing of the bus as Exhibit
5 to 5-c, (7) Bio data of accused Danilo Basa as Exhibit 6 to 6-a with sub-
marking; (8) Birth certificate of accused Danilo Basa as Exhibit 7; (9) NBI clearance
of accused Danilo Basa as Exhibit 8; (10) Barangay clearance of accused Danilo Basa
as Exhibit 9; (11) Official Receipt of LTO license of accused Danilo Basa as Exhibit
10; (12) CTC of accused Danilo Basa as Exhibit 11 with sub-marking; (13) Written
exam of accused Danilo Basa as Exhibit 12; (14) Written exam of accused Danilo Basa
as Exhibit 13; (15) Accomplishment sheet of accused Danilo Basa as Exhibit 14 with
sub-marking; (16) Entry of shop training as Exhibit 14-b ; (17) Certificate of health of
accused Danilo Basa as Exhibit 15 with sub-marking; (18) Apprentice paper of accused
Danilo Basa filed on January 26, 2010 as Exhibit 16 with sub-marking.

ISSUE

The issue is whether or not accused Danilo Basa is guilty as charged.

APPLICABLE LAW

Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 179050 providing:
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.

50 Approved on June 21, 1957.

7
 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.

RULING

Reckless imprudence consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do, without malice,

an act from which material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act.51 The test
to determine the existence of negligence is whether or not the accused use reasonable
care and caution which an ordinary and prudent person would have use in the situation,
otherwise, he is negligent. After a painstaking evaluation and analysis of all the
testimonial and documentary evidence, the prosecution failed to discharge its duty in
proving the guilt of the accused Danilo Basa beyond reasonable doubt.

The testimony of prosecution witness Adorado Dela Cruz is materially

inconsistent. A witness who changes his statements, like a chameleon that changes
colour, does not inspire confidence, and when his testimony is likewise incompatible
with his conduct immediately after the crime in question, it has little probative value.52

The relative position of witness Adorado Dela Cruz vis-a-vis the victim Elenita
Blancas and the Saulog Bus with body no. 618 varies due to inconsistent statements
made in the Traffic Accident and Investigation Report (TAIR), the Sinumpaang Salaysay
dated March 10, 2000 and the testimony of the same witness in open court.

The Traffic Accident and Investigation Report53 stating the date of happening to
be on 08 March, 2000, Wednesday at 3:40 a.m. briefly narrated:

At about 5:00 A.m. 08 March, 2008 member of the Rescue team appeared before
this office informing this investigator that a victim of vehicular accident Hit And
Run was found at the middle of EDSA, near corner Zamora St., of this City
(Pasay). Immediately, the investigator proceeded to the scene of incident and found a
lifeless lying at the said road, that same was rushed to Dr. Cacawa doctor assigned at
emergency room of the hospital at about 6:00Am of the same date. That during
investigation at the scene, nobody could give any information regarding the said
accident.

That on March 10, 2000 at about 11:00 p.m. one Adorado De La Cruz personally
appeared to this office accompanied by one Luisito Blancas, 37 years old, married,
farmer and residing at Brgy. Pandalla, Munoz, Nueva Ecija, the brother of the victim,
that Adorado Dela Cruz manifested that he saw and witness the same incident. That
according to Dela Cruz he and the victim were both passenger of Saulog Bus with body

51 Gaid vs. People, G.R. No. 171636, April 7, 2009.

52 See People vs. Go Lee 53 SCRA 306 (1973).
53 See Exhibit J.

8
number 618 from Olongapo City to Pasay City, they both alighted to the same bus,
wherein he claimed that he crossed the said EDSA at the center island of
EDSA while the victim was still at the right side of the road fixing her
belongings and at that juncture, witness claimed that he saw the victim hit and
bumped by the right front end portion of the said bus and ran over by the right front and
rear tire of the said bus, and further claimed that he called the attention of the said bus
by shouting out you hit somebody but seemingly he was unheard and said bus continue
running towards west direction of EDSA.

On the other hand, witness Adorado Dela Cruz testimony in open court did not
state that he crossed the said EDSA at the center island as stated in the TAIR
and neither did he state in the TAIR that she (Elenita Blancas) was ran over by
the bus when the traffic light turned green or Go, to quote:

ACP Dante Angel Marcos: What happened next if any?

Adorado Dela Cruz: When the bus reached Pasay Rotonda, one of my lady co-
passengers alighted the bus, sir.

Q: Will you please tell us, Mr. Witness, what happened next, if any, when the woman
alighted?

A:When the lady alighted from the bus, she was trying to fix her belongings because
she has plenty of belongings with her. While she was doing the fixing , she was ran
over by the bus when the traffic light turned green or Go, Sir.

Q: Will you please tell us, Mr. Witness, what are those things or belongings that the
victims were trying to fix?

A: She was fixing then, one (1) can of films, a plastic bag and her hand bag, sir.

Q: And will you please tell us, Mr. Witness, what is the description of the can where the
film was kept?

A: It is a round thing, like that of a drum set, sir.54

Moreover, in the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Adorado Dela Cruz , he alleged to

have gone over in front of the bus which is different from what he stated in the TAIR,
to quote:

Ako po ay pasahero ng isang bus na Saulog galing Olongapo at papuntang Cavite, na

pagdating po sa may malapit sa Rotonda Pasay City, ako po ay bumaba, na sa bandang
likuran ko po ay may isang babae na bumababa rin, umikot po ako sa bandang
unahan ng nasabing Saulog bus at tumigil gawing tabi paharap sa aking
sinasakyan na bus, ng akin pong nakita na ang babaeng nasa aking likuran ay
mabunggo ng nasabing bus at kitang kita kop o na ang nasabing babae ay natumba at
nagulunga ng gulong ng nasabing bus

54 TSN dated April 22, 2002, pp. 7 and 8.

9
 The afore-quoted statement from his Sinumpaang Salaysay is different from his
testimony in open court, to wit:

Q: What about you, Mr. Witness? At that exact moment, where were you?

A: I was on the pavement, sir.

COURT: Did you alight on the same place where the lady passenger was alighted?

WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.

COURT: Who alighted first, Mr. Witness? You or the lady?

A: The woman, Your honor.

COURT: And you immediately followed, Mr. Witness?

A: Yes, You Honor.

COURT: And while the woman was fixing her belongings or things, where were you?

A: I was just on the pavement, Your Honor.

COURT: And how far were you from the woman who was then fixing her belongings?

A: More or less two (2) meters.

COURT: And in relation to that lady or woman passenger, how were you positioned?
A: I was facing her, Your Honor.55

In his Sinumpaang Salaysay, he alighted first than the victim Elenita Blancas but
in his testimony, it was the other way around. It was established that he and the victim
Elenita Blancas alighted from the same bus to the same pavement which is referred to
as a curb by accused Danilo Basa. However, the sketch drawn by the same witness
showed the lying body of the victim Elenita Blancas, occupying the first and second
lanes, in a horizontal position with her feet pointing, at less three (3) meters, towards
near the MRT fence at EDSA road going to Baclaran which is materially inconsistent
with his testimony in open court. In fact this sketch of witness Adorado Dela Cruz is
strikingly different from a sketch made by PO3 Diomedes Mampusti that showed the
lying body of the victim Elenita Blancas in a diagonal position with her head pointing
towards the MRT fence at EDSA road going to Roxas Boulevard. Her body was at the
second lane from MRT fence. This sketch of PO3 Diomedes Mampusti formed part of
the courts record. As between the sketch of the prosecution witness Adorado Dela Cruz
and PO3 Diomedes Mampusti, the latter has more weight because of the presumption of
the regular performance of official duty.56 Police officers are presumed to have
performed their official duties regularly, absent of the convincing proof to the contrary.57

The testimony of prosecution witness Adorado Dela Cruz is incredible. For

testimonial evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a

55 TSN dated April 22, 2002, pp. 7 and 8.

56 Rule 131, Section 3(m), Revised Rules of Court.
57 People vs. Ladjaalam 340 SCRA 617.

10
credible witness but must also be credible in itself such that a common experience and
observation of mankind lead to the inference of its probability under the
circumstances.58

Prosecution witness Adorado Dela Cruz testified in this wise:

ACP Dante Angel Marcos: For clarification, Mr. Witness, will you please tell us right
after she was hit by the bus, what happened to that woman?

A: When she was hit by the front wheel, she was still alive and she tried to get up.
While she was trying to get up, the woman was again hit by the propeller and was hit
again by the wheels at the back and was hit also on the head, sir.59

xxxx xxxx xxxx

COURT: You said that the victim was bumped and fell down and then you said she
tried to stand and she was hit again. What hit her?

A: Yung umiikot na bagay, Your Honor.

COURT: And where is that you said, Umiikot na bagay?

A: Underneath the bus, your Honor?

COURT: So the lady was underneath the bus?

A: Because she fell down, Your Honor.60

This testimony given by prosecution witness Adorado Dela Cruz is contrary to

Sir Isaac Newtons First Law of Motion providing :

An object at rest will remain at rest, and an object in motion will

remain in motion, at a constant velocity unless or until outside forces act
upon it.

As applied to the subject Saulog bus, when it moves forward at a speed, its
tendency is to remain in motion unless some outside force changes its velocity so that
when it bumped victim Elenita Blancas, the latter will never have an opportunity to
stand up. A person ran over by a bus cannot anymore stand up due to the above-stated
principle of motion.

After the crash with the human body, the bus motion will be stopped for a split
second, and quite abruptly after responding to inertia, it will continue to move forward.
The driver of the bus, accused Danilo Basa as well as all the bus passengers, will feel the
impact of bumping a human body because they will also continue to move forward in
response to inertia. Though the bus has been stopped by an outside force of hitting

58 People vs. Domingcil 419 SCRA 291; Litton Mills Inc. vs. Sales 437 SCRA 488.
59 TSN dated April 22, 2002, p. 10.
60 TSN dated May 15, 2002, p. 11.

11
someone on the road, those inside the bus will experience that force indirectly, and in
the fragment of time after the bus itself halted, they all continue to move forward inside
the bus with the possibility of hitting the bus dashboard or windshield by those who sat
in front.

Considering the impact that will be produced when a bus hit a human body, the
passengers inside will be the eyewitnesses of such accident encountered by victim
Elenita Blancas. Yet, no passenger on board the subject Saulog bus, testified in this case.

The delay in reporting the accident by herein prosecution witness is not

plausible. It is contrary to common experience. To quote:

ACP Dante Angel Marcos: And what happened next, Mr. Witness?

A: When the policeman arrived to examine the body and investigate the incident, as I
have said, we leave the place because I was frightened already.61

It is worth noting that said witness shouted PARA PARA at the bus driver to point
out the gruesome accident that showed his concern to the victim yet reacted differently
to the policemen who investigated the accident by being silent to them and opted to go
away from them. In addition The afore quoted testimony is inconsistent with the
following testimony of the same witness who said that it was his son who was frightened
not him. To quote:

Atty. Omar Mayo: How many policeman arrive?

A: There were two policemen, sir.

Q: And when they arrive, you did not intimate any information to them, Mr. Witness?

A: No, Sir.

Q: You did not even volunteer right then and there to give them the number of the bus
considering that you are a passenger of the said bus and the bus number is written or
reflected in the ticket?

A: No, because when they arrived my son was already afraid, sir.62

Also, there is a flimsy reason of not reporting the incident to the police. To quote:

Q: In connection with the incident that you witnessed on May 8, 2000, were you able
to reduce it into writing or report it to the police?

A: No, sir. Because as I have said after the incident, I went to Baclaran and I do not
know the real name of the victim as well as her address sir.63

61TSN dated April 22, 2002, p. 11.

62 TSN dated May 15, 2002, p. 11.
63 TSN dated April 22, 2002, p. 11.

12
 Said prosecution witness does not know the victims name at the time of accident
yet later on he went to the place where said victim may be working which is again
contrary to common experience. Thus:

Atty. Omar Mayo: Tell us, Mr. Witness, when did you know the name and address of
the victim?

A: I went to Admiral Cinema because I suspected that the woman is working in

cinema, because of the film she was holding during the said incident, and I was
bothered by my conscience of what I witnessed during that time, sir.64

Also, it is suspicious as to why Adorado Dela Cruz alighted at Rotonda Pasay,

when the Saulog bus he boarded will go to Cavite thus it will pass Baclaran or near to it.
Equally suspicious is why he will bring his four (4) year old son from Olongapo City to
buy his merchandise somewhere in Baclaran at an unholy hour on May 8, 2000. Thus:

Atty. Omar Mayo: How old was that child, Mr. Witness?

A: 4 years old.65

xxxx xxxx xxxx

Atty. Omar Mayo: What time was that Galleria, Baclaran opened?

A: If childrens wear, its opened 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, sir.

Q: The store itself opens at 2:00 oclock in the morning?

A: Yes, sir.66

Moreover, it is doubtful that accused Danilo Basa will answer back to prosecution
witness Adorado Dela Cruz, to quote:

Q: And you also said that when you shouted PARA, PARA you heard the driver
answered you back, WALA, PATAY NA YAN. Am I right, Mr. Witness?

A: Yes, Sir.67

In the Sinumpaang Salaysay of prosecution witness Adorado Dela

Cruz, he did not mention the answer of accused Danilo Basa to be WALA,
PATAY NA YAN instead he averred, Sabi kop o para, para pero tuloy
tuloy po siya na parang hindi nya napansin ang nangyari. Moreover, the
prosecution failed to refute the contention of the defense that the bus was air

64 TSN dated April 22, 2002, p. 12.

65 TSN dated May 15,2002, p. 6.
66 TSN dated May 15, 2002, p. 4.
67 TSN dated May 15, 2002, p. 10.

13
conditioned with an engine at the right side of the bus near its door making it difficult
for a driver to hear someone outside.68

The prosecution witness Adorado Dela Cruz description of the Saulog bus
location of its propeller that hit and ran over the victim is different from the physical
description of it as shown by the pieces of documentary evidence which were
uncontroverted by the prosecution. To quote:

Atty. Omar Mayo: Mr. Witness, despite the low ground clearance of the bus you were
able to see that revolving thing which you referred to as the propeller and despite the
fact that its about 3:45 early in the morning?

A: Yes, I saw it.

Q: You saw it while you were in standing position, Mr. Witness? That revolving thing?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Is it not that the bus 618 or any other Saulog Bus for that matter has its engine at
the back?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: And was there any other revolving thing aside, on the front portion of the bus if the
engine is mounted at the rear portion of the bus, Mr. Witness?

A: I do not know, Sir.

Q: But you agree with me that this bus 618 has its propeller at the back between the
engine and the rear differential, Mr. Witness?

A: It was in the middle.

Q: Meaning, in front of the rear tires or at the back of the rear tires or behind the rear
tires?

A: It was at the back. The tire closed together.

Q: So, you are now changing your answer that the propeller is in front because you
said before the propeller was in front, now you are changing that it was at the back of
the rear tires?

A: No, the propeller is in front of the bus. She was hit. It was long, sir.69

The above-quoted testimony is contrary to the physical evidence presented by

the defense that the propeller is at the back of the bus.

68 TSN dated June 21, 2004, p. 22.

69 TSN dated May 15, 2002, p. 13.

14
 Our Supreme Court upheld the primacy of physical evidence over biased and
uncorroborated testimony of witnesses.70

In addition, there was no physical evidence presented by the prosecution that the
bus driven by the accused Danilo Basa has blood splattered at its front portion or there
are blood stains inside its propeller or blood in the wheels nor there was a dent on
the bus front portion which are the necessary results of bumping and running over a
person like the victim Elenita Blancas in this case. Police failed to obtain incriminating
evidence when they impounded the same Saulog bus on the strength of the complaint
made by Luisito Blancas. If the bus has blood all over its front portion, this will not go
unnoticed when it proceeded its trip from Pasay, rotunda to Cavite, its final destination.

Also, the certificate of post mortem examination of the victim Elenita Blancas
showed Traumatic injuries, multiple not Cranio-celebral injuries to support the
testimony of prosecution witness Adorado Dela Cruz that the head of the former was
crushed quoted as follows:

Atty. Omar Mayo: And you will again confirm that the head of that lady was actually
run over by the rear tires of the bus?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And despite the fact that the head was actually directly hit by the two rear tires, the
head was not severe or damage?

A: Her head was destroyed and the brain came out or splattered.71

The testimony of the prosecution witness Adorado Dela Cruz quoted hereunder
created the gravest doubt as to the culpability of the accused Danilo Basa:

Atty. Omar Mayo: You said that when a lady alighted from the bus, she was trying to
fix her belongings because she has plenty of belongings with her. While still doing that
she was ran over by the bus. Would you mean this, Mr. Witness, to tell the Court that
the lady was still fixing her belongings at that time that the bus proceed again when
the light turn green?

A: No, Sir.

Q: But this is what you stated in your direct examination , which is which now, Mr.
Witness?

A: The lady passenger was in a stoop position trying to get hold of her belongings
when the light turned green and the bus moved forward.

Q: And at that precise time, where was the lady now?

70 Li vs. People 427 SCRA 217.

71 TSN dated May 15, 2002, p. 15.

15
A: She was in front of the bus, Sir.

Q: Mr. Witness, isnt it that when you get down from the bus you get down on the right
side?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: How could the bus hit her if she was on the right side?72

It is difficult to imagine how the victim Elenita Blancas was hit by the front of
the bus and thereafter ran over by it when she alighted at the right side of the bus. No
better test has been found to measure the weight of a witness testimony and his
credibility than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind.73

In criminal cases, every doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused.74 In the
end, it is better to acquit a man upon the ground of reasonable doubt, even though he
may, in reality, be guilty, than to confine in prison an innocent person.75

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds accused Danilo Basa
NOT GUILTY for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
and he is hereby ACQUITTED of the charge of Reckless Imprudence Resulting In
Homicide.

SO ORDERED.

Pasay City, May 14, 2010.

ELIZA B. YU
Judge

Copy furnished:
ACP John Giselher Imperial
City Prosecutors Office
Hall of Justice, Pasay City

Atty. Antonnette Talon

Counsel for the Accused
Batino Law Offices
4th floor, Oakridge Plaza,
San Antonio St., Paseo De Magallanes,
Makati City

72TSN dated May 15, 2002, pp. 7 to 8.

73 See People vs. Ortillas 428 SCRA 659.
74 People vs. Obar 253 SCRA 288.
75 People vs. Manoji 68 Phil 47.

16
Luisito Blancas
Brgy. Pandalla, Munoz, Nueva Ecija

Danilo Basa
Accused
21 Rosete St., Mabayuan, Olongapo City

17