"Charges should be filed based on who is at fault, not on who has the superior vehicle."
Last month, I ran across a post on social media regarding a vehicular accident involving a motorcycle and an SUV. The accident claimed the life of the female rider when her motorcycle rammed into the SUV, sending her flying meters above the ground, landing on the concrete pavement, her protective fear failing to save her.
Automatically, the investigator of the case sent the poor driver of the SUV, who had voluntarily surrendered, to jail, since, according to police investigators themselves, it was standard operating procedure for them to send the driver of the vehicle who figures in a vehicular accident where the other party gets hurt.
And that’s where the law, which is supposed to protect the innocent, turns out to be unfair.
In that particular incident, as based on video clips picked up from the CCTV of the barangay which has jurisdiction where the accident happened, it appears the rider, who later turned out to be a school principal, was actually at fault.
The CCTV video showed a black SUV starting to move slowly as the traffic light turned green, when all of a sudden, the motorcycle, coming from the left side, obviously trying to beat the red light, slammed the SUV, throwing the rider over the SUV.
This was actually the second vehicular accident involving a motorcycle that I have encountered on social media in recent weeks. The first one involved a driver who had his truck parked on one side of the street as he was having his lunch when a rider hit his truck hard from the rear, resulting in his death. The truck driver, who was not even behind the wheels when the accident happened, landed in jail.
The irony of it all is that the family of the riders in both instances, feel that they have been wronged as they have lost a loved one. But what about the lives of the other parties whom their loved ones have also endangered and who were forced to spend nights in jail for being in the most unfortunate situation when their reckless loved ones took the streets?
About three years ago, I asked a medico legal, who also happened to be a lawyer, who was then investigating the accident involving Pampanga congressman Juan Miguel Arroyo. Arroyo figured in a vehicular accident which claimed the life of the driver of a car who slammed their vehicle head-on when it ate into their lane.
Just like in the cases I have discussed earlier, Arroyo’s driver was sent behind bars even if the driver of the other vehicle was clearly at fault. According to the medico legal whom I talked to, the law provides the automatic filing of cases against the superior vehicle in case of accidents, no matter whose fault it is.
If a pedestrian is hit by a bicycle, it should be the biker slapped with a case. If a bicycle is hit by a motorcycle, the motorcycle rider would be charged. If a motorcycle is hit by a car, the driver of the car would be held responsible. And so on and so forth.
If an accident occurs and results in death, the driver who survives in the mishap would be charged. And that is what is being applied to Mikey’s driver.
Actually, one need not be directly involved in the death of someone to be included in a charge sheet in a vehicular accident. The medico legal explains that if someone commits suicide by jumping on the 15th floor of a building and lands on the street as a car is passing by, the driver of the car would have to be charged for the death of the suicide victim.
Someone has to be charged in a vehicular accident particularly in instances when someone dies, according to him.
And that was what happened to the poor driver whom I have discussed earlier.
That is not as simple as it looks. If it is simply for formality’s sake, fine. But for the inconvenience of the person who would be slapped with a barrage of charges arising from an accident of which he or she is not at fault, it would be so unfair.
First, the case reckless imprudence leading to homicide would entail a bail bond of no less than P30,000. Then the driver would have to hire a lawyer to defend him which cost him another few thousand pesos. And of course, he has to attend hearings which would force him to be absent from work, costing him a few thousand pesos more.
It’s about time Congress gave time to Iligan Congressman Frederick Siao’s bill seeking to revamp the country’s road laws and protect law-abiding drivers from being initially culpable or fully at fault in road accidents.
Siao’s House Bill No. 1987 or the proposed “Philippine Responsible Driving and Accountability Act” states that the driver of a vehicle would be presumed not fully at fault for an accident if any of the following applies to the situation: (a)The victim is intoxicated or under the influence of drugs; (b) The victim was not crossing the street at a pedestrian lane or road intersection; (c) The victim crossed a street or highway instead of using a footbridge; (d) The victim is a bike rider not wearing protective gear or wearing dark clothing; (e) The victim is operating a motorcycle, tricycle, or bicycle traveling on a national highway under the minimum speed limit or not on the rightmost lane; (f) The victim is a driver who did not have right of way; (g) The driver did not flee the scene of the incident; (h) The driver was suffering a medical emergency, like a heart attack or stroke, at the time of the accident; and, (i) The driver of the other vehicle has non-functional headlights, taillights, or other warning devices.
More importantly, the proposed bill also states that a driver involved in a road accident is presumed initially culpable when: (a)The driver flees from the scene of the road safety accident; (b)The driver was driving at high speed according to recorded eyewitnesses’ accounts taken at the scene of the road safety accident; (c) The driver had just committed at least one serious traffic violation; (d) The driver is intoxicated or under the influence of illegal drugs or prescription medication; (e) The driver does not have a driver’s license or has an expired driver’s license; and (f) The victim is a child younger than 15 years of age.
The proposed measure, meanwhile, considers the following as mitigating circumstances in driving violations:
Siao notes that under “current laws and procedures, drivers or motorists in road safety incidents and traffic violations are presumed at fault even when pedestrians and/or other motorists are at fault or also share fault.”
“This bill seeks to make our laws also fair to the drivers who were not at fault,” Siao stresses.
Rightly said.
Not because they are supposedly weaker would mean they should be always protected by laws as they could also be on the wrong side. What about the rights of the ones on the supposedly superior vehicles whose lives are also being endangered by the irresponsibility of the supposedly weaker ones?
Isn’t Lady Justice blindfolded because the law is supposed to be blind and not take sides? Both sides need protection.
It’s about time the laws governing vehicular accidents were revisited to provide protection for all sides. The filing of charges should be based on who should be faulted on the accident and not based on the supposed superiority of the vehicles involved.
Laws should be based on objectivity.