QUASI-OFFENSES

(Title Fourteen)

Criminal Negligence

The principal factor in said offenses is the negligence itself and not the effects thereof. (Pabular v.
Palarca, 21 SCRA 769)  As the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should affect one
person or several persons, the offense remains one and the same.  It cannot be split into different
crimes and prosecutions. (People v. Buan, 65 OG 6127)
Reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself but is simply a way of committing a crime and it merely
determines a lower degree of criminal liability.  Negligence becomes a punishable act when it results
in a crime. (Lontok v. Gorgonio, 37396, April 30, 1979)
IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
Any person who, by reckless imprudence, or by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit any
act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, less grave felony, or a light felony.
When the execution of the act shall have only resulted in damage to property of another, the offender
shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to 3 times
such value. (Art. 365)
Kinds:
Reckless Imprudence consists in voluntary, 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 or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation,
degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
Simple Imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage
impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
The penalty is next higher in degree if the offender fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such
help as may be in his hands to give. (As amended by RA 1790, June 21, 1957)
The test of negligence – Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care
and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation ?  If not, then he
is guilty of negligence.
In crimes committed by culpa, the act is voluntary but the criminal result is not willed.  It is essential,
however, that the act performed be lawful; otherwise, any result intended will be punished according
to the provision of Art. 4. (People v. Rabas, 67 Phil. 255)  The exception is the violation of the
automobile law or a special law.
Penalty to be imposed depends upon the discretion of the court. (RA 384) Mitigating or aggravating
circumstances are not considered. (People v. Agito, 54 OG 7393)
A person is guilty of homicide with serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, where, by
his own recklessness and unreasonable fast driving and by carrying a number of passengers in
excess of what is permitted by law and regulation, his car collided with another as a result of which a
passenger dies and another is seriously injured, he violates the provisions of Section 67, par. (d) of
the Revised Motor Vehicle Law. (People v. Olefernes, 40 OG 765)
In accordance with the doctrine of “last clear chance” the contributory negligence of the party injured
will not defeat the action if it be shown that the accused might, by exercise of reasonable care and
prudence, have avoided the consequence of the negligence of the injured party.  At most, such
contributory negligence would merely be considered as a mitigating circumstance. (People v.
Quinones, 44 OG 1520)
A professional driver who permits any unlicensed person to drive the car placed under his
responsibility violates the provision of Act 3992 (Revised Motor Vehicle Law) which imposes a specific
requirement to omit to do a definite act, is negligence per se.
The presumption of negligence of the surgeon cannot arise or is not available simply because the
operation was not successful. (Abaya v. Favis, 3 CAR, 450) There must be proof of breach of duty on
his part and the causal connection between such breach and the resulting death of the patient.