FACTS:

On the night of June 21, 1988, a vehicular collision occurred at the intersection of Ortigas Avenue and Columbia Street in Mandaluyong City. The collision involved a Mitsubishi Super Saloon driven by petitioner Larry V. Caminos, Jr., and a Volkswagen Karmann Ghia driven by Arnold Litonjua. According to Patrolman Ernesto Santos, who was called to the scene as a traffic investigator, petitioner's car rammed into Arnold's car from the right-hand side while Arnold was making a left turn at the intersection. Both vehicles sustained damage as a result of the impact.

Arnold testified during the trial that his vehicle was at a full stop at the intersection when the incident occurred. Antonio Litonjua, Arnold's father, also testified about the estimated cost of repairs for the car.

Petitioner was subsequently charged with reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property. The trial court found petitioner guilty based on a sketch made by the traffic investigator, which depicted the post-collision positions of the vehicles, and the finding that petitioner failed to notice the other vehicle at the intersection. The trial court ordered petitioner to pay civil indemnity and a fine.

The Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner's conviction but mitigated the award of civil indemnity, finding that the other driver was also negligent in maneuvering a left turn. Petitioner filed a petition for review seeking acquittal, arguing that the negligence of the other driver should defeat any claim for damages. The Office of the Solicitor General argued that petitioner's negligence was the proximate cause of the collision, and the other driver's negligence was contributory. Petitioner's petition was denied.

The petitioner contends that at the time of the collision, he was driving his car carefully on second gear with a speed between 25 and 30 kph, which he deems safe and manageable. However, the Traffic Accident Investigation Report (TAIR) noted that petitioner's speed was beyond what is lawful. The physical evidence, particularly the photographs of the other car involved in the collision, shows that the extent of the damage could not have been caused by the petitioner's car running at the claimed speed.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner can be held liable for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property.

2. Whether the petitioner has shown a conscious indifference to the consequences of his conduct.

3. Whether petitioner breached the standard of care required of a responsible, prudent, and reasonable motorist.

4. Whether the negligence of the other driver, Arnold, was the principal determining factor that caused the collision.

5. Whether the right of way rule applies to the case.

6. Whether the right of way accorded to vehicles approaching an intersection is absolute or affected by the relative distances of the vehicles from the point of intersection.

7. Whether two vehicles are considered to be approaching the intersection at the same time based on which vehicle enters the intersection first.

8. Whether a driver on the left is required to come to a dead stop before yielding the right of way to a vehicle on his right.

9. Whether the negligence of the injured party constitutes a defense in a prosecution for reckless or dangerous driving.

10. Whether the facts support a finding that the driver executing a left turn was negligent in keeping a proper lookout.

11. Whether or not the failure of the prosecution to present photographs of the unlawful overtaking of the vehicle is fatal to the case.

12. Whether or not the absence of physical evidence showing the significant distance to the opposite lane established that the accused did not commit the offense.

13. Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.

RULING:

1. The petitioner can be held liable for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property. The Revised Penal Code does not specifically detail what acts constitute reckless imprudence, but it is a question that must be addressed by the facts and circumstances unique to each case. The speed at which the petitioner was driving, in connection with other circumstances, is a principal consideration in determining whether a motorist has been reckless. The photographs of the damage to the other party's car clearly show that the extent of the damage could not have been caused by the petitioner's car running on second gear at a speed of 25-30 kph. The force of the collision indicates a speed beyond what the petitioner claimed.

2. The petitioner has not shown a conscious indifference to the consequences of his conduct. The physical evidence on record, such as the extent of the damage caused and the force of the impact, contradicts the petitioner's assertion that his speed was within a safe and manageable range.

3. The court ruled that petitioner breached the standard of care required of a responsible, prudent, and reasonable motorist. It was established that petitioner did not exercise caution and failed to observe the traffic before entering the intersection. Moreover, he approached the intersection at a speed that did not allow him to stop and avoid a collision. Petitioner had inexcusably fallen short of the standard of care and breached his duties as a responsible driver.

4. The court ruled that the negligence of Arnold was not the principal determining factor that caused the collision. Petitioner admitted that he did not see Arnold's car making a left turn at the intersection, even though it had already taken two feet of the other lane and moved beyond the median line. Petitioner's failure to observe the traffic and exercise caution was the primary cause of the collision.

5. The court ruled that the right of way rule applies to the case. Under Section 42 of Republic Act No. 4136, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right when two vehicles approach or enter an intersection at approximately the same time. It becomes the duty of the other vehicle approaching the intersection to proceed with sufficient care to allow the exercise of the right of way without danger of collision.

6. The right of way accorded to vehicles approaching an intersection is affected by the relative distances of the vehicles from the point of intersection.

7. Two vehicles are considered to be approaching the intersection at the same time if it would appear that a collision is likely to occur if both vehicles continue on their courses at their speed.

8. A driver on the left is not required to come to a dead stop, but is only required to approach the intersection with his vehicle under control and yield the right of way when it is reasonably safe to proceed.

9. The negligence of the injured party does not constitute a defense in a prosecution for reckless or dangerous driving.

10. The facts do not support a finding that the driver executing a left turn was negligent in keeping a proper lookout.

11. The failure of the prosecution to present photographs of the unlawful overtaking of the vehicle is not fatal to the case. It is not necessary for the prosecution to present photographs for the purpose of establishing a prima facie case. The court can rely on the testimonial evidence and other pieces of evidence presented to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.

12. The absence of physical evidence showing the significant distance to the opposite lane does not establish that the accused did not commit the offense. Even without physical evidence, the testimonial evidence and other circumstances surrounding the case can be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

13. The accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, while driving the vehicle, overtook another vehicle in an unsafe manner and collided with the victims' vehicle, causing their deaths. The accused failed to exercise the necessary precaution and diligence required to ensure the safety of other road users.

PRINCIPLES:

• Speeding is indicative of imprudent behavior because a motorist is expected to exercise ordinary care and drive at a reasonable rate of speed that enables them to keep the vehicle under control and avoid injury to others using the highway.

• The restriction on speed assumes more importance when a motorist is approaching an intersection. A motorist approaching an intersection is under a duty to be vigilant, have the vehicle under control, and be able to stop at the shortest notice. This duty is even more crucial when the intersection is blind and the view is obstructed.

• The degree of care and attention required of a driver must be commensurate with the dangers anticipated and the injuries likely to result from vehicle use.

• A motorist is charged with what they should have observed if they had exercised the required care.

• A driver must exercise caution and prudence in observing the traffic before entering an intersection.

• The right of way rule governs the precedence of vehicles at an intersection.

• The right of way accorded to vehicles approaching an intersection is affected by the relative distances of the vehicles from the point of intersection.

• Two vehicles are considered to be approaching the intersection at the same time if a collision is likely to occur if both vehicles continue on their courses at their speed.

• A driver on the left is not required to come to a dead stop before yielding the right of way, but must approach the intersection with his vehicle under control and yield when it is reasonably safe to proceed.

• The negligence of the injured party does not constitute a defense in a prosecution for reckless or dangerous driving.

• The measure of a motorist's duty is commensurate with the dangers anticipated and the injuries likely to result from the use of the vehicle.

• The failure to present photographs as evidence does not automatically render the prosecution's case weak or fatal.

• It is not necessary to establish physical evidence to prove a crime, as testimonial and circumstantial evidence can be sufficient.

• Drivers have the duty to exercise caution and diligence in operating their vehicles, taking into consideration the circumstances and conditions of the road.