Local Area news.

No, you are reading that right and that is how it works here. I once read an article where a guy on a motorcycle was passing a large truck around a blind corner and then when he was half way past the truck a car came around the corner and then the motorcycle driver swerved back into the right land (going under the truck) and, obviously, got ran over by the truck and killed.......they arrested the truck driver and pressed charges. (Now if any of these charges actually get convictions or not I don't know....but I imagine some money is paid out by the owner of the truck since they are likely the person with more money.)

But the arrest really doesn't make any sense to me at all. This article points out that all blame should have been on the motorcycle driver because:

1. They had 4 people on the scooter....stupid and illegal.
2. The driver didn't have a license....stupid and illegal.
3. The driver was drunk.....stupid and illegal.
4. They blew through an intersection on the national highway....stupid and illegal.
5. They weren't wearing helmets....stupid and illegal.
6. The two girls were minors and out past cerfew (10PM)....maybe not stupid but it certainly is illegal in Cebu.

I really don't think that a court would convict the truck driver. (Assuming that the version of events in the article are correct and the driver didn't actually do something stupid himself)

But here is the charge he is actually facing:

Just in case anyone was wondering (as was I):

So if I am reading this right the truck driver could be put in jail for a maximum 4 months in prison . I'm sure what he (and the truck owner) is really worried about is the civil liabilities....but the actual court hearings can take around 10-20 years to complete.

Example:

Spoiler: Manantan vs CA (Started in 1982 - Finished in 2001)

Manantan vs CA : 107125 : January 29, 2001 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division
The accident happened in 1982 and it appears the last appeal was exhausted in.....2001. And considering that the Regional Court in that case were completely incompetent it's a good thing they did continue to appeal. Here is my simplified version of the chain of events in the linked case to show how idiotic/corrupt the courts can be here.....and to show that just because you had one retarded judge it doesn't mean that the next 4 will be.

1982 - Prosecution's version of events:

1. Ambrocio decided to catch shrimps.
   
2. He invited his buddy Nicolas (this doesn't end well for Nicolas).
3. But neither of them had a car so they called up Manantan to ask if they could borrow his.
4. Mantanan insisted he go too and drive since it was his car.
5. So they go meet Manantan at the Manantan Technical School. (I bet you can already figure out if the Regional Court found Manantan guilty of anything or not. )
6. They all have a couple beers at the school before going to the farm.
7. While trying to catch shrimps they drank a case of beer.
8. They all go home.
9. Couple hours later Ambrocio and Nicolas go back to Manantan's house with a duck. (I guess ducks are much easier to catch than shrimp while drunk? )
10. They ate the duck and drank another case of beer.
11. They all decided to go bowling but when they got there there were no lanes were open. Can you guess what they did for 40 minutes while they waited for a lane to open up? If you guessed "drank water" you are wrong.
12. They got tired of waiting so decided to go to a night club instead......to drink more beer.
13. They decide to drive home.....on the wrong side of the wrong, doing 90kph, then hit a jeepney, rolled over twice and Nicolas was took a long, permanent, nap.

Manantan's version:

1. Yeah, that's exactly what happened.......but I didn't have any beer that night.....and I was only going 30kph......and the jeepney swerved into my lane. (Witnesses all disagree with this version.)

So what was the Regional Court's Decision....that was given 6 years later in 1988? Not guilty. Gee, I wonder why the guy that shares a name with a local tech school was found not guilty?

One week later Nicolas' wife say that's complete BS and files an appeal on the basis that if Manantan is not criminally liable the he should have to pay her some serious duckets.

Four year later in 1992 the appeals court decides the Regional Court must have been smokin' some sh*t when the made that ruling and said Manantan was most certainly civilly liable because it was blatantly obvious Manantan was telling some porky pies in his version of events and most certainly was drunk. Manantan is ordered to pay P174,400.00 by the appeals court.

Manantan wouldn't have any of that so he filed for an appeal to the appeal.....but the appeals court told him to go suck it and denied it.

Manantan doesn't like that and files a request for reconsideration in 2001 (almost 9 years later?! I'd bet he hasn't paid anything in those 9 years as well. ). Reading the reconsideration letter it seems that Manantan fired his lawyer and wrote the thing himself because the court gives him a 14 paragraph explanation on why he thinks he shouldn't pay is idiotic and not even close to how the law actually works.

TL:DR version:

• 1982 - Drunk driver has accident and kills passenger.
• 1983 - Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide charges filed against drunk.
• 1988 - Regional Courts find him not guilty.
• 1988 - Widow files for appeal.
• 1992 - Appeals says Regional Court was full of it and finds drunk civilly liable.
• 1992 - Drunk calls BS and appeals the appeal.
• 1992 - Appeals Court denies his appeal.
• 2001 - Drunk files a petition for reconsideration.
• 2001 - Appeals Court tell him to buggar off.

Drunk never served any time in prison but had to dish out P170k to widow in the end. And it only took 18 years, 4 months and 5 days to get to the end of that nonsense.

I think the moral of the story here is: just pay the d*mn family off if you have an accident and someone gets injured or killed, even if it isn't your fault (especially if they have brought any charges up on you).....unless giving all your money to lawyers is a hobby of yours. Being a stubborn, cheap and prideful *ss like the drunk above will do nothing but cost you a lot more money, time and headaches.

 

A couple additional comments:

Why does the contents of the truck make the slightest bit of difference? Is this bit of information critical to determining how this accident happened? Maybe they were trying to imply that the truck was very heavy and couldn't have stopped in time?

and

So the driver didn't have time to step on the brakes but he had time to honk his horn(s?) and swerve? Not saying it would have made a bit of difference but.....ugh, who cares. Probably just crap reporting.

 

I think in poor Countries (2 seat) (4 seat) (6 seat) vehicles , just seem to have no meaning. Over loaded vehicles, #1 problem many places.