ARTICLE 365 - IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE Quasi-offenses punished:
(1) Committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave or less grave felony or light felony;
(2) Committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would otherwise constitute a grave or a less serious felony;
(3) Causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence or negligence;
(4) Causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.
Imprudence Negligence
Both indicate a deficiency of action Failure in precaution Failure in advertence
Imprudence or negligence is not a crime itself; it is simply a way of committing a crime.
The rules for graduating penalties (under Art. 64) based on mitigating and aggravating circumstances are NOT applicable to offenses punishable thru criminal negligence.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: failure to render immediate assistance to the injured party. This qualifying circumstance must be distinguished from the punishable OMISSION under Article 275.6
6 Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one's own victim. — The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon:
1. Anyone who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself, unless such omission shall constitute a more serious offense.
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured.
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said child to the authorities or to his family, or shall fail to take him to a safe place.
If the danger that may result from the criminal negligence is clearly perceivable, the imprudence is RECKLESS. If it could hardly be perceived, the criminal negligence would only be simple.
Criminal negligence is only a modality in incurring criminal liability. This is so because under Article 3, a felony may result from dolo or culpa. THEREFORE, even if there are several results arising from ONLY ONE CARELESSNESS, the accused may only be prosecuted under one count for the criminal negligence. Otherwise, double jeopardy would arise.
Reckless Imprudence:
(1) The offender does or fails to do an act
(2) The doing of or the failure to do the act is voluntary
(3) It be without malice (4) Material damage results
(5) There is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into consideration:
(a) His employment/occupation (b) Physical condition
(c) Degree of intelligence
(d) Other circumstances regarding the persons, time and place
NOTE:
(1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide (2) Resulting in Physical Injuries
Inexcusable lack of precaution
Factors to be considered in determining inexcusable lack of precaution:
1) Employment or occupation
2) Degree of intelligence and physical condition of the offender; and
3) Other circumstances regarding persons, time, and place.
Simple Imprudence
(1) There is lack of precaution on the part of the offender
(2) The damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest.
Test of negligence: Would a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence, foresee harm as a result of the course actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of the actor to take precautions against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence.
The measure of the damage should be the difference in value of property immediately before the incident and immediately after the repair.
Art. 64 relative to mitigating and aggravating circumstances is not applicable to crimes committed through negligence.
The penalties provided in art. 365 are not applicable in the ff. cases:
1) when the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided in the first two paragraphs of art. 365, in which case the courts shall impose the penalty next lower in degree that that which should be imposed, in the period which they may deem proper to apply.
2) When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, the death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendant shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
When death or serious bodily injury to any person has resulted, the motor vehicle driver at fault shall be punished under the Penal Code.
Contributory negligence is not a defense. It only mitigates criminal liability.
Doctrine of last clear chance
The contributory negligence or the party injured will not defeat the action is it be shown that the accused might, by exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party.
Emergency rule
An automobile driver who, by negligence of another and not by his own negligence, is suddenly placed in an emergency and compelled to act instantly to avoid collision or injury is not guilty of negligence if he makes such a choice which a person of ordinary prudence placed in such situation might make even though he did not make the wisest choice.
Violation of a rule or regulation or law is proof of negligence. But negligence cannot be predicated upon the mere fact of minority or lack of an operator’s license.
The penalty next to higher in degree is imposed if the offender fails to lend on the spot help to the injured parties.
(5) Failing to lend help is a qualifying circumstance.
Jurisprudence:
The gravamen of SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE is the failure to exercise the diligence necessitated or called for by the situation which was NOT immediately life-destructive BUT which culminated, as in the present case, in the death of a human being 3 days later.
[Carillo v. People (1994)]
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, which is a form of negligence, consists in the failure of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances (this is the test applied). [Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio (1997)]
Elements involved in medical negligence cases:
(D.B.P.I.) (1) Duty (2) Breach (3) Injury
(4) Proximate causation
Requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur:
(1) The accident was of a kind which does NOT ordinarily occur UNLESS someone is negligent;
(2) The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person in charge; and
(3) The injury suffered must NOT have been due to any voluntary action or contribution of the person injured.
Ordinarily, only physicians and surgeons of skill and experience are competent to testify as to whether a patient has been treated or operated upon with a reasonable degree of skill and care.
HOWEVER, testimony as to the statements and acts of physicians and surgeons, external appearances, and manifest conditions which are observable by any one may be given by non-expert witnesses. [Reyes v.
Sis. of Mercy Hospital (2000)]
While playing one day, a child-Honey Fe heard a commotion from a nearby house and went to investigate. She saw Randy Luntayao being tortured and killed by Alexander Sibonga, Reynario Nuñez, Eutiquia Carmen, Delia Sibonga, and Celedonia Fabie. Apparently it was a ritual supposed to cure him of demonic possession. The father of the boy filed charges against the participants, and the child who witnessed the macabre incident testified as to what she saw. The trial court convicted the participants of murder.
HELD: It would appear that accused-appellants are members of a cult and that the bizarre ritual performed over the victim was consented to by the victim's parents. With the permission of the victim's parents, accused-appellant Carmen, together with the other accused-appellants, proceeded to subject the boy to a "treatment" calculated to drive the "bad spirit" from the boy's body. Unfortunately, the strange procedure resulted in the death of the boy.
Thus, accused-appellants had no criminal intent to kill the boy.
Their liability arises from their reckless imprudence because they ought that to know their actions would not bring about the cure. They are, therefore, guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and not of murder.
Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, states that reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, 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 such act.
Compared to intentional felonies, such as homicide or murder, what takes the place of the element of malice or intention to commit a wrong or evil is: the failure of the offender to take precautions due to lack of skill taking into account his employment, or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
The elements of reckless imprudence are apparent in the acts done by accused-appellants which, because of their lack of medical skill in treating the victim of his alleged ailment, resulted in the latter's death. As already stated, accused-appellants, none of whom is a medical practitioners, belong to a religious group, known as the Missionaries of Our Lady of Fatima, which is engaged in faith healing. [People v. Carmen (2001)]
The trial court found the accused "guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Double Homicide Through Reckless Imprudence with violation of the Motor Vehicle Law (Rep. Act No. 4136)."
HELD: There is no such nomenclature of an offense under the Revised Penal Code. Thus, the trial court was misled to sentence the accused "to suffer two (2) indeterminate penalties of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of prision correccional, as maximum."
This is erroneous because in reckless imprudence cases, the actual penalty for criminal negligence bears no relation to the individual wilful crime or crimes committed, but is set in relation to a whole class, or series of crimes. Unfortunately, we can no longer correct this judgment even if erroneous, as it is, because it has become final and executory.
Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal negligence "is treated as a mere quasi offense, and dealt with separately from wilful offenses. It is not a question of classification or terminology. In intentional crimes, the act itself is punished; in negligence or imprudence, what is principally penalized is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, and lack of care or foresight, the imprudencia punible.
Much of the confusion has arisen from the common use of such descriptive phrase as 'homicide through reckless imprudence', and the like; when the strict technical sense is, more accurately, 'reckless imprudence resulting in homicide'; or 'simple imprudence causing damages to property'." [Rafael Reyes Trucking v People (2000)]
FACTS: Ireneo, Abundio and Lourdes Mangruban were with their paralyzed aunt at a bus terminal.
Lourdes Mangruban was tasked to accompany their paralyzed aunt to Butuan City. A dispatcher informed them that a bus bound for Tacloban via Cebu and Butuan was about to leave. They were told to wait as the bus maneuvered to its proper position prior to departure. The said bus, driven by Teofilo Abueva, came to a full stop in front of the terminal building. As they negotiated their way towards the back of the bus, Lourdes, with luggage in hand, was waiting on the first stepboard when the bus suddenly moved. Due to the sudden movement, according to the witness, Lourdes fell off the bus and hit her head on the cement pavement below.
According to the witness, the driver did not disembark to assist Lourdes, while a dispatcher of the bus company assured them that there was nothing to worry about because the victim was not bleeding. Petitioner continued driving per his scheduled trip.
Lourdes was taken to the San Pedro Hospital where a brain scan revealed the presence of a blood clot that needed immediate surgery. The bus company refused to give financial assistance to the Mangrubans. On their own, the family raised the amount required by the hospital as downpayment
for the operation. Surgery was performed but Lourdes never regained consciousness and expired five days later. The trial court convicted Teofilo Abueva for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide.
HELD: After a careful review of the records, the Court agrees with the factual findings of the lower courts showing that the victim, Lourdes Mangruban, fell rather than jumped off the bus.
The prosecution has provided sufficient, clear and convincing basis for the conclusion that Lourdes fell off the bus due to the reckless act of the petitioner.
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code states that reckless imprudence consists in:
(1) voluntarily, but without malice,
(2) doing or failing to do an act from which (3) material damage results
(4) by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act,
(5) taking into consideration:
(a) his employment or occupation;
(b) his degree of intelligence;
(c) his physical condition; and
(d) other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
Petitioner herein is a professional driver who has been in the employ of the bus company for 18 years 26 and has undergone training courses and seminars to improve his skills as a driver. He is expected to be well aware of his responsibilities to his passengers.
Not only must he make sure that they reach their destinations on time, he must also ensure their safety while they are boarding, during the entire trip, and upon disembarking from the vehicle. [Abueva v.
People (2002)]
FACTS: "In the evening of February 16, 1990, Pat.
Domingo Belbes and Pat. Jose Pabon were assigned to maintain peace and order at the Junior and Senior Prom of Pili Barangay High School. Around 9:00 p.m. while Teacher-In-Charge Mila Ulanca, Pat.
Pabon and Belbes were watching the dance, two students approached Mrs. Ulanca and said "Ma'm, it seems that there is somebody making trouble." Pat.
Belbes and Pat. Pabon, armed with an Armalite rifle and a .38 caliber revolver, respectively, responded forthwith. Moments after the two police officers left, bursts of gunfire filled the air.
Fernando Bataller, a graduating student was hit on different parts of his body and died. The accused Pat.
Belbes stated that they acted in self defense. The
trial court convicted Pat. Belbes of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
HELD: The offense is definitely not reckless imprudence resulting in homicide because the shooting was intentional.
Illustrations of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide are: (1) exhibiting a loaded revolver to a friend, who was killed by the accidental discharge brought about by negligent handling; or (2) discharging a firearm from the window of one's house and killing a neighbor who just at the moment leaned over the balcony front; or (3) where the defendant, to stop a fist fight, fired his .45 caliber pistol twice in the air, and, as the bout continued, he fired another shot at the ground, but the bullet ricocheted and hit a bystander who died soon thereafter. In this case, appellant intended to fire AT the victim, and in fact hit ONLY the victim. [People v.
Belbes (2000)]
Effect of Victim’s Contributory Negligence
Finally, as to petitioners’ argument that Jesus Basallo (Victim; deceased) should be presumed negligent because he was driving with an expired license and the passenger jeepney owned by his brother Teodorico did not have a franchise to operate, we hold that the same fails to convince. “The defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases committed through reckless imprudence, since one cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his own negligence.” [Manzanares vs. People (2006)]