FACTS ADDENBROOK is charged with Homicide through reckless imprudence 9 January 1960, 3:15pm front bumper of Stanvac Service Truck driven by Addenbrook, came into contact with the body of pedestrian RISALDO who fell (abrasions on left forehead, contusions w/ lacerations on face, left arm, right thigh, knee joints, and right buttocks and waist and fracture of the skull) and was DOA when he arrived in PGH taken there by accused Addenbrook and his helper. Victim rolled 15 paces, established by 2 sets of blood stains as observed by Patrolman GUZMAN Addenbrook himself said his view of the street was partly blocked by a parked car and that he did not blow his horn despite of it. CA: Addenbrook FAILED to observe the reasonable care required Addenbrook assails the credibility of Patrolman GUZMAN
ISSUE 1: W/N Patrolman GUZMAN was a credible witness? YES, he is.
Foremost, Credibility of witnesses is a question of fact and therefore not reviewable by the Supreme Court.
BUT Either way, the objection to patrolman GUZMANs competency because he was not presented as an expert witness nor did he see the incident actually happen is untenable. What he testified to was what he saw in his ocular investigation, facts derived by his own perception.
ISSUE 2: W/N Addenbrook observed the reasonable care required? NO, he did not.
The Court of Appeals gave no credence to the claim that the deceased suddenly darted from behind the parked car. Neither did the trial court do so, considering the lack of corroboration of petitioner's version, and the circumstance that the victim, being a grownup man, and not a child, would not have ignored the noise of the oncoming vehicle, there being no reason shown for his disregarding the obvious danger.
While the general rule is that a driver is not held accountable just because he failed to take the wisest choice in a sudden emergency, the rule does not apply where the emergency is of the driver's own creation or devising.