Worth more than thousands of words

In a vehicular collision, both drivers involved usually point to each other as the guilty party. They have their own version of what happened. But there are many ways of determining which of them is telling the truth. This case between Mando and Doro illustrates this point.

Mando was the driver of an Isuzu six wheeler truck owned by Mr. Yu doing business under the name and style of MEI. Doro was the driver of the passenger jeepney owned and operated by Ted, his brother. Mando was driving the truck towards Malolos while Doro was driving the jeepney towards Manila. The accident happened at about 2:30 p.m.

The Isuzu six-wheeler truck was following a passenger bus along the McArthur Highway. After the bus had passed by another passenger jeepney which was still on the shoulder of the highway, Mando tried to follow and overtake the jeepney also. At that time on the opposite side of the highway about ten meters away was Doro’s jeepney about to stop on the left shoulder of the road with part of its body still on the asphalted portion of the main highway. Mando however was caught by surprise when the jeepney he intended to overtake started moving alongside his vehicle causing him to hesitate and step on his brake pedal but the truck skidded and bumped the jeepney driven by Doro.

The incident resulted in the death of Doro the driver of the passenger jeepney and three of his passengers. Seven other passengers likewise suffered serious physical injuries.

As expected, the incident spawned the filing of civil suits by the heirs of those who died and by the injured victims against Mando, Mr. Yu and MEI. Ted, the owner of the passenger jeepney was also sued by two of the injured passengers for breach of contract of carriage. Aside from the civil suits, a criminal case was filed against Mando for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and serious physical injuries and damage to property.

For his part, Mando claimed that the passenger jeepney he was trying to pass immediately started moving alongside forcing him to apply the brakes of the Isuzu truck which skidded as a result. It was then that the truck bumped Doro’s jeepney at the other side of the highway because as he was overtaking, Doro also suddenly climbed onto the asphalted portion of the highway. Were it not for this sudden movement of Doro’s jeepney, he would not hit him and pin him to death as he was then driving slowly because his speedometer was not working.

The evidence gathered particularly the photographs showed the severe damage to the front left portion of Doro’s passenger jeepney. The sketch prepared by the police likewise illustrated the relative positions of the vehicles immediately after the accident confirming more pieces of broken glass on the shoulder of the road than there were on the highway itself. Based on this evidence was Mando’s version credible?

No. Evidence tending to illustrate the relative positions of the vehicles immediately after the accident tends to throw light on the issue of speed and direction of the vehicles’ movements prior to and at the time of, the accident. It confirms that only a small portion of Doro’s passenger jeepney was positioned on the asphalted portion of the highway itself while the remainder of the body was still on the shoulder of the road. Given Mando’s testimony that the two passenger jeepneys were far from one another, there was more than ample road space within which he could have maneuvered the truck instead of bumping into the passenger jeepney and pinning Doro to death. The fact that he was unable to do so and in the end lost control of the truck indicate that Mando was unreasonably fast in traversing that portion of the road despite his insistence that he was driving slowly because his speedometer was not functioning.

Equally damning to Mando are the photographs of the two vehicles. These photographs are admissible as evidence in motor vehicle accident cases when they appear to have been accurately taken and are proved to be a faithful and clear representation of the subject which cannot be produced, and are of such nature as to throw light upon a disputed point. The severe damage to the front left portion of the passenger jeepney as shown by the pictures gives rise to the inevitable conclusion that the truck driven by Mando was running fast before it smashed into the jeepney. Such destruction could not have resulted had Mando been driving his truck slowly for then the impact would not have been as severe. The very fact of speeding is indicative of imprudent behavior. A motorist must exercise ordinary care and drive at a reasonable rate of speed commensurate with the condition encountered which will enable him to keep the vehicle under control and avoid injury to others using the highway (Manzanares et. al vs. People et. al, G.R. 153760-61, October 12, 2006)

E-mail at: [email protected] or [email protected]