HEDY GAN y YU, Petitioner , v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. Respondents. [G.R. No. L!!"#!. Se$te%&e' (), ()**.+
#ront $arts! an the truck sustaine scratches at the wooen $ortion o# its rear. *he &oy o# 4sioro 4sioro Casino Casino was immeiately &rought to the hos$ital &ut was 5$ronounce6 ea on arri'al.
Dot'-ne EMERGENCY RULE. — A corollary rule is what is known in the law as the emergency rule. "Uner that rule! one who suenly ns himsel# in a $lace o# anger! an is re%uire to act without time to consier the &est means that may &e ao$te to a'oi the im$ening anger! is not guilty o# negligence! i# he #ails to ao$t what su&se%uently an u$on re(ection may a$$ear to ha'e &een a &etter metho! unless the emergency in which he ns himsel# is &rought a&out &y his own negligence."
I005e 7i the CA erre in holing that when the $etitioner saw a car tra'elling irectly towars her! she shoul ha'e ste$$e on the &rakes immeiately or in swer'ing her 'ehicle to the right shoul ha'e also ste$$e on the &rakes or lessene her s$ee! to a'oi the eath o# a $eestrian8
P'-o' P'oeed-n/0 CFI 1an-2a Gan 3a0 onv-ted o4 Ho%--de th'5 Re62e00 I%$'5dene. CA 75d/%ent %od-8ed, Ho%--de th'5 0-%$2e -%$'5dene. SC Reve'0ed CA, a95-tted Gan. Fat0 o4 the Ca0e )ey Ca0e )ey Gan was ri'ing a *oyota car along North +ay +oule'ar! *ono! *ono! Manila. ,hile in #ront o# house no. -/ o# North +ay +oule'ar! there were two 'ehicles! a truck an a 0ee$ney $arke on one sie o# the roa! one #ollowing the other a&out two to three meters #rom each other. As the car ri'en &y the accuse a$$roache the $lace where the two 'ehicles were $arke! there was a 'ehicle coming #rom the o$$osite irection! #ollowe &y another which trie to o'ertake o'ertake an &y$ass the one in #ront o# it an there&y encroache the lane o# the car ri'en &y the accuse. *o a'oi a hea1on collision with the oncoming 'ehicle! the e#enant swer'e to the right an as a conse%uence! conse%uence! the #ront &um$er o# the *oyota Crown 2ean hit an ol man who was a&out to cross the &oule'ar #rom south to north! $inning him against the rear o# the $arke 0ee$ney. 0ee$ney. *he #orce #orce o# the im$act im$act cause the $arke 0ee$ney to mo'e #orwar hitting the rear o# the $arke truck ahea o# it. *he $eestrian was in0ure! the *oyota *oyota 2ean was was amage on its #ront! #ront! the 0ee$ su3ere amages on its rear an
He2d and Rat-o YES. *he test #or etermining etermining whether or not not a $erson is negligent in oing an act where&y in0ury or amage results to the $erson or $ro$erty o# another is this9 ,oul a $ruent man in the $osition o# the $erson to whom negligence is attri&ute #oresee harm to the $erson in0ure as a reasona&le reasona&le conse%uence o# the course a&out to &e $ursue8 4# so! the law im$oses the uty on the oer to take $recaution against its mischie'ous results an the #ailure to o so constitutes negligence. A$$lying the emergency rule 5as ene a&o'e6! $etitioner is not guilty o# the crime. *he amount o# time a3ore to the $etitioner to react to the situation she was in shoul &e taken into account #or it is unenia&le that the suggeste course o# action $resu$$oses su:cient time #or a$$ellant to analy;e the situation con#ronting her an to $oner on which o# the i3erent courses o# action woul result in the least $ossi&le harm to hersel# an to others. Uner the circumstances narrate &y $etitioner! we n that the a$$ellate court is asking too much #rom a mere mortal like the $etitioner who in the &link o# an eye ha to e
$etitioner was real an imminent! threatening her 'ery e
there#ore rule that the "emergency rule" enunciate a&o'e a$$lies with #ull #orce to the case at &ar an conse%uently a&sol'e $etitioner #rom any criminal negligence in connection with the incient uner consieration.
