This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-01-28 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In Dumayag v. People,[43] the Court held: Section 37 of R.A. No. 4136, as amended, mandates all motorists to drive and operate vehicles on the right side of the road or highway. When overtaking another, it should be made only if the highway is clearly visible and is free from oncoming vehicle. Overtaking while approaching a curve in the highway, where the driver's view is obstructed, is not allowed. Corollarily, drivers of automobiles, when overtaking another vehicle, are charged with a high degree of care and diligence to avoid collision. The obligation rests upon him to see to it that vehicles coming from the opposite direction arc not taken unaware by his presence on the side of the road upon which they have the right to pass.[44] (Citations omitted and emphasis ours) | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In order to establish a motorist's liability for the negligent operation of a vehicle, it must be shown that there was a direct causal connection between such negligence and the injuries or damages complained of. To constitute the offense of reckless driving, the act must be something more than a mere negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle a willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is required.[41] Willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others within the meaning of reckless driving statutes has been held to involve a conscious choice of a course of action which injures another, either with knowledge of serious danger to others involved, or with knowledge of facts which would disclose the danger to any reasonable person. Verily, it is the inexcusable lack of precaution or conscious indifference to the consequences of the conduct which supplies the criminal intent and brings an act of mere negligence and imprudence under the operation of the penal law, without regard to whether the private offended party may himself be considered likewise at fault.[42] | |||||
|
2014-07-07 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The findings by the CA are controlling on the Court. Indeed, the findings of both lower courts on the circumstances that had led to the injuries of Ferdinand fully converged except for the RTC's conclusion that malicious intent had attended the commission of the offense. Such findings cannot be disturbed by the Court in this appellate review, for it is a well-settled rule that the findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon the Court.[8] | |||||
|
2014-06-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. And more comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.[22] | |||||