G.R. No. 221981, November 04, 2020 LAST CLEAR CHANCE LEONEN

RAUL OFRACIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE?

The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so is chargeable with the loss.

WHAT ARE THOSE 2 SCENARIOS THAT THE DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE CONTEMPLATES?

The doctrine of last clear chance contemplates two (2) possible scenarios.

First is when both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one party happens later in time than the negligent act of the other party.

Second is when it is impossible to determine which party caused the accident.

When either of the two (2) scenarios are present, the doctrine of last clear chance holds liable for negligence the party who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the resulting harm or accident but failed to do so.

Bustamante v. Court of Appeals ^{further explains:}

The practical import of the doctrine is that a negligent defendant is held liable to a negligent plaintiff, or even to a plaintiff who has been grossly negligent in placing himself in peril, if he, aware of the plaintiff's peril, or according to some authorities, should have been aware of it in the reasonable exercise of due care, had in fact an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident.

WHAT IS THE RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE UNDER ART. 365 OF THE RPC?

Reckless imprudence "consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time[,] and place."

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE?

It has the following elements:

(1) that the offender does or fails to do an act;

(2) that the doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary;

(3) that it be without malice;

(4) that material damage results from the reckless imprudence; and

(5) that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and other circumstances regarding persons, time[,] and place.

Gonzaga v. People ^{instructs that the prosecution must show the "direct causal connection between such negligence and the injuries or damages complained o” to establish a motorist's liability for negligence.}

Gonzaga likewise stressed that mere negligence is not enough to constitute reckless driving, rather, the prosecution must prove that the motorist acted in utter disregard of the consequence of his or her action, as 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."

The Constitution requires the prosecution to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt in recognition of the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the accused. People v. Ganguso^[52] expounds:

An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees. Unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted. This reasonable doubt standard is demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution which protects the accused from conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and unless it discharges that burden the accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf, and he would be entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not, of course, mean such degree of proof as excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The conscience must be satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense charged.^[53]