G.R. No. 128474 - ARNEL GABRIEL, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding the accused Arnel Gabriel guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Double Homicide and Damage to Property, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years also of prision correccional as maximum and to make the following indemnifications: 1. To Dr. Philip Plantilla: a) For the expenses he incurred during his hospitalization at the Makati Medical Center P181,613.00 b) For reimbursement of his gifts to the doctors and nurses who attended to him at the Makati Medical Center 10,000.00 c) For actual damages of his Volkswagen car which was a total wreck 50,000.00 2. To the heirs of the deceased Fernando Pitargue, Sr.: a) For loss of life of the deceased Fernando, Sr. P50,000.00 b) For transfer fee of the cadaver of Fernando Pitargue 15,000.00 c) As reimbursement for payment of the casket and funeral services 13,500.00 d) For the grave site 491.00 e) For the loss of earning 129,360.00 3. To the heirs of the deceased Carlos Asistido: a) For the loss of the life of Carlos Asistido P50,000.00 b) For the expenses during the wake 3,000.00 c) For the casket and funeral services 12,000.00 d) For loss of earnings 9,000.00 The Court of Appeals sustained the RTC except in two respects. The appellate court found that the RTC failed to consider that Gabriel was also liable for the death of Isabela Banes, and thus found Gabriel guilty of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Multiple Homicide , instead of Double Homicide. [17] The Court of Appeals awarded Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to the heirs of Banes. [18] Finally, the appellate court found no basis for the lower courts award of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to Dr. Plantilla by way of reimbursement of his gifts to the medical staff who attended to him. [19] His appeal having failed, Gabriel now resorts to the present petition in an attempt to free himself of liability. In his petition, Gabriel makes the broad claim that the RTC decision is not in accord with law, jurisprudence and the record of the case, with the Court of Appeals similarly in error with its departure from the generally accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings. [20] More particularly, he asserts that the RTC erred in finding that his negligence was the proximate cause of the collision; in giving full credence to the testimony of Macabuhay; in lending weight to the erroneous sketch prepared by Patrolman Laguras; and in failing to give credence to the testimonies of Marquez and Gonzales, particularly their assertions that the first collision took place on the Quezon-bound lane not the San Pablo-bound lane. Gabriel also raises questions on the damages awarded by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Finally, Gabriel asserts that the Court of Appeals should not have awarded damages for the death of Isabela Banes, considering that he was not charged i