After attending a party, Boy and Abet were enroute home at abour 11:00 p.m. with Boy driving. Along the way, the cross joint of the car was detached so repair was necessary before they could proceed home. Since the defect was a major one, the reapir lasted up to five o’clock that next morning. The lack of sleep, the long wait, the attention to the repair as well as the strains of the party the night before must have taken their toll on the two boys, especially on Boy who wanted to be home quick for a much needed sleep. Under this physical and mental condition, they figured in an accident when their car collided with a passenger bus at about 6:15 a.m. while Boy was trying to overtake a preceding vehicle.
As a result of the collision the left side of Boy’s car was severely damaged while Boy and Abet were seriously injured. Boy lapsed into a coma after being rushed to the hospital and died five days later. Abet survived but he became blind on the left eye which had to be removed.
Subsequently their parents filed a suit for damages against the bus company which in turn filed a counterclaim against Boy’s mother, the registered owner of the vehicle. According to the bus comnpany it was Boy who was negligent and it had pictures to prove it. The pictures taken of the two vehicles an hour and fifteen minutes after the collision by the bus company’s inspector show clearly that the bus was in its proper lane while Boy’s car was positioned diagonally on the highway with its two front wheels occupying the bus’ lane. Abet on the other hand testified and claimed that the collision took place because the bus invaded their lane. But the trial court relied more on the photographs rather than on Abet’s testimony. So it rendered judgment dismissing both cases filed against the bus company.
Was the lower court correct?
Yes.
The lower court was justified in relying on the photographs rather on Abet’s testimony which was obviously biased and unsupported by any other evidence. Physical evidence is a mute by an eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. In criminal cases such as murder or rape where the accused stands to lose his liberty if found guilty, physical evidence has been relied upon principally in ascertaining the truth. Where the physical evidence on record ran counter to the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the physical evidence should prevail.
In this case the positions of the two vehicles as shown in the photographs dispute Abet’s self serving testimony that the two vehicles collided because the bus invaded the lane of Boy’s car and clearly shows that the case is exactly the opposite of what he claimed happened. Contrary to Abet’s testimony, the photographs show quite clearly that the bus was in its proper lane and that it was Boy’s car which usurped a portion of the opposite lane. This negates the claim that the bus was overtaking another vehicle and in so doing encroached on the opposite lane occupied by the car.
If the bus was overtaking, it necessarily had to accelerate and the acceleration of its speed and its heavy load would have greatly increased its momentum so that the impact of the collision would have thrown the smaller car to a considerable distance from the point of impact. The photograph however shows that the car’s smashed hood was only about on a two meters from the bus’ damaged left front. So the bus could not have been overtaking another vehicle (Jose et al. vs. Court of Appeals et. al. G.R. No. 118441-42 January 18, 2000).