7/27/2019 PEOPLE VS LOPEZ_final.doc

1/2

PEOPLE VS. CORNELIO LOPEZ

44 Official Gazette 2, 584 (1947)Defendant and Appellant: Cornelio Lopez

Plaintiff and Appellee: People of the Philippines

Ponente: J. Felix

FACTS:

Dignidad Prescincula, a 14 year old girl, happened to be one of the passengers of truck

Baes No. 1 at about 2:30 in the afternoon of March 3, 1946. Upon reaching the market of the

town of Banate, the truck parked on the left side of the road in front of Rosario Arroyos store.

Since it was then raining heavily, Dignidad Prescincula with another passenger named SocorroVargas, alighted from behind the truck and tried to cross the street to get shelter in the said

market. As they crossed the street, Socorro Vargas reached the other end successfully while

Dignidad Prescincula was not able to do so, because the passengers truck called Solinap,

driven by Cornelio Lopez, came along rushing through the street. The truck was loaded withfresh fish and should reach Iloilo within the earliest time possible; struck and threw her away at a

distance of six to eight meters from the point of collision. The collision caused several damagesin the body of Dignidad Prescincula and had caused fracture of her cranium, which resulted to

her immediate death.

According to the witness, Pedro Baes, a passenger in the Solinap truck sitting behindthe defendant, Cornelio Lopez failed to blow his horn, which caused the deceased unaware and

bumped away. Furthermore, a number of people who were present in the commission of the

crime, stated that the driver himself proceeded on his way refusing to see on what he has caused

and to report the said incident to the local authorities.On the other hand, Cornelio Lopez claimed that he only drove his car in a minimal

distance away from the point of impact yet still planned to pick up the girl. Unfortunately, uponseeing many people who were armed with clubs, he proceeded in his way instead. Neither he norhis passengers know where the municipal was so he was not able to report the said incident. He

even established that the truck Solinap was not moving too fast and was travelling 5

kilometres per hour, based on mathematical computation, since he started from Barotac Viejo at1:30 pm and reached the place where the accident has occurred at 2:30 pm in the same day, was

covered at same distance of 5 kilometres as well. Thus, claiming and defending his ten years

of irreproachable service without being prosecuted in any road violations. He also contends that

the truck Baes No. 1 was parked on the wrong side causing him to adjust as to the case.

ISSUE:

Whether the appellant is accurately charged of homicide through reckless imprudence

while driving the truck Solinap on the said incident

DECISION:

Yes, based on the facts given, it could be directly derived that the defendant has no

intention at all to cause harm or injury to the deceased. However, he should have taken theobligatory steps in reporting the incident to the local authorities and do necessary driving

precautions in consideration of external variables such as condition of the road and weather.

Unfortunately, the established claim made by the defendant of his reputation has nopractical bearing on the court. Neither the travelling speed of the truck that time has no record or

evidence to be proven true; nor the contention that the truck Baes No. 1 was parked at the

wrong side, under the principle of the last chance rule.

Hence, SC affirmed the decision of the lower court to the appellant. However, instead of

imposing the provision in article 365 of the Revised Penal Code; the charge of homicide throughreckless driving under article 67(d) of Act No. 3992, known as the Revised Motor Vehicle Law

7/27/2019 PEOPLE VS LOPEZ_final.doc

2/2

will be imposed. Giving the penalty of two months to one year and one day imprisonment with

subsidiary and an amount of P2, 000 will be charged to indemnify the heirs of the deceased.