UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

A few days ago, an allegedly drunk motorcycle rider entered the Skyway 3, counter-flowed and crashed head-on into an oncoming SUV. He instantly died on the spot from the impact. The incident was captured on CCTV and was flashed across social media and news outlets.

In spite of the obvious cause of the accident, which was the willful crossing over into the opposite direction of a drunk motorist, the driver of the other vehicle was detained and charged with vehicular homicide through reckless imprudence. Fortunately, the family of the deceased motorcycle rider filed a motion for desistance and the incarcerated driver, who was totally innocent, was released from detention. 

In the first place, the SUV driver should not have been charged with homicide. But the police, in their own wisdom, decided to charge him because “somebody died.” If that’s how justice is dispensed in this country, we are in a pickle here.

When an accident happens, the first thing to do is to try to save the involved persons by applying first aid while awaiting emergency responders. The accident scene should have been cordoned off and an investigation started. The cause of the accident has to be determined and only then can someone be charged with committing a crime, if any.

In this instance, it is obvious that the accident was solely caused by the reckless and intoxicated motorcycle driver who died in the accident. The other party was an unwilling participant and was obviously driving legally in the right direction and from the video, appeared to be driving within the legal speed limit. Therefore, it should have been ruled an accident. Or as a netizen commented, it was “suicide by counterflow.” Ergo, it is not vehicular homicide. 

But it seems our police authorities operate on a different wavelength. Oftentimes, I’ve heard from friends who had similar accidents gripe that even if the accident was caused by the other party, the police will tell them that since the other party is poor, they have to pay for the poor guy’s medical bills and compensate them for their damaged vehicles and/or loss of income, notwithstanding the circumstances. Are we then responsible for the recklessness or stupidity of others?

I have had my own incident of a similar nature. Once, I was at a traffic intersection and when the light turned green for our side, I proceeded to make a valid left turn, only to see an oncoming motorcycle hit my vehicle head-on. Fortunately, I was driving slowly and managed to hit the brakes to a complete stop so his impact was purely due to his acceleration. 

Upon checking, the motorcycle rider suffered minor injuries but feigned much more pain and injury until a medic arrived and administered first aid. Upon being taken to a police station, I was told I had to shoulder the other party’s expenses as he was being evaluated at the emergency room of the East Avenue Medical Center emergency room. To add insult to injury, I was told to compensate the guy for the days of work he will lose due to his injuries!
There were other stories of motorcycle riders crashing into the rear of a truck and dying for which the poor truck driver was arrested for homicide through reckless imprudence. Go figure!

For reference, the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines Article 365 states: “Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary but without malice, doing or failing 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 or intelligence, physical condition, and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.”

The above-described incidents do not fulfill the requirements of “voluntary” since the involved parties did not will the event to happen. Yet, “reckless imprudence” is the catchword of police in detaining persons involved in accidents not of their voluntary actions.

Going through references online, I came across an article on autoindustriya.com penned by Vince Pornelos about incidents like these and he had this to say: …”the issue is the arbitrary and illogical application of principles like reckless imprudence, last clear chance of avoidance and …presumption of culpability.”

It's time the law gets revised to make accountability for motor vehicle accidents realistic, fair and rational. Justice should be for all, rich or poor, intelligent or not. It should not be based on a person’s capacity to pay or his/her station in life. The dictum: “Those who have less in life should have more in law” seems to be what police authorities have taken to heart. But that is more for jurisprudence where there is doubt. Otherwise, it is a pure travesty of justice.