QUASI-OFFENSES PUNISHED:

• Committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute
a grave or less grave felony or light felony;
• Committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would otherwise constitute a
grave or less serious felony;
• Causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence or
negligence
• Causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong which, if done maliciously, would
have constituted a light felony.
 THE DIFFERENCE
• IMPRUDENCE • NEGLIGENCE
• Lack of skill • Lack of Foresight
• Deficiency of Action • Deficiency of Perception
• Failure in Precaution • Failure in Advertence
 KEEP IN MIND THAT. . .
• Imprudence or negligence is NOT A CRIME ITSELF; it is simply a way of committing a crime. It
becomes punishable only when it results in a crime.
• The rules for graduating penalties (Under Article 64) based on mitigating and aggravating
circumstance 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.
• 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.
 CONTINUATION. . .
• 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
criminal negligence. Otherwise, double jeopardy would arise. (Explained further in the discussion
of cases)
• Once malice is proven, recklessness disappears (People vs. Agliday 2001)
• When the death or serious bodily injury to any person has resulted, the motor vehicle driver at
fault shall be punishable under the penal code.
• Contributory negligence is not a defense. It only mitigates criminal liability.
 IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
 Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which had it been intentional,
would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of Arresto mayor in its maximum period
to Prision correctional in its minimum period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the
penalty of Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it would have
constituted a light felony, the penalty of Arresto menor in its maximum periodical shall be
imposed.
 Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise
constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of Arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
periods; if it would have constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of Arresto mayor in its
minimum period shall be imposed.
 IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
 When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the
property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the
value of the said damages to three times such value, but which shall in no case be less than
twenty-five pesos.
 A fine not exceeding two-hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by
simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have
constituted a light felony.
 In the imposition of these penalties, the courts shall exercise their sound discretion, without
regard to the rules prescribed in article 64.
 THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THIS
ARTICLE SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE:
 When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided in the first two
paragraphs of this article, in which case the courts shall impose the penalty next lower in degree
than that which should be imposed in the period which they may deem proper to apply.
 When, by imprudence or negligence and with violations of the Automobile Law, the death of a
person shall be caused, in which case the defendant shall be punished by Prision correctional in
its medium and maximum periods.
 SECTION 59 OF ACT 3992
(REVISED MOTOR VEHICLE LAW)
• The law gives the right of way to the driver coming from the right of another, when both are
travelling on intersecting streets of the same class. The grant of right of way does not relieve the
motorist from the duty of keeping a lookout for motorists entering the intersection from his left or
right.
 ELEMENTS
• Reckless Imprudence consists n 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 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 next higher to those provided for in this article shall be imposed upon the offender
who fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may be in his hands to give.
 ELEMENTS OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
• The offender does or fails to do an act
• The doing of or the failure to do the act is voluntary
• It is without malice
• Material damage results
• There is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into consideration:
• His employment/occupation
• Physical condition
• Degree of intelligence
• Other circumstances regarding the person, time and place
 INEXCUSABLE LACK OF PRECAUTION
• Factors to be considered in determining inexcusable lack of precaution:
• Employment or occupation
• Degree of intelligence and physical condition of the offender; and
• Other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
 FORCE MAJEURE
• Force majeure is an event which cannot be foreseen, or which being foreseen is inevitable; it
implies an extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the actor.
 RES IPSA LOQUITUR
• The fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an
interference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and
present a question of fact for the defendant to meet with an explanation (Ramos vs. CA 1999)
 RES IPSA LOQUITUR
REQUISITES
• The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur UNLESS someone is negligent
• The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under exclusive control of the person in
charge
• The injury suffered must NOT have been due to any voluntary action contribution of the person
injured
 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 consequences of the
negligence of the injured party.
 EMERGENCY RULES
(ACTS ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS RECKLESS)
• An automobile driver who, by negligence if 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.
• One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to
consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have a
better method unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own
negligence (Gan v. CA 1988)
 REODICA VS. COURT OF APPEALS
242 SCRA 87

Court rendered
Convicted on the Petitioner decision on
Incident Case was Filed Charges Appealed January 31, 1996
affirming the
appealed decision
 REODICA VS. COURT OF APPEALS
242 SCRA 87

Petitioner subsequently Reversal of the decision May 24, 1996, the CA Present petition for
filed a motion for remains possible on denied petitioner’s review on certiorari
reconsideration raising grounds of prescription motion for under Rule 45 of the
new issues or lack of jurisdiction reconsideration for lack Rules of Court
of merit
• Respondent COURT OF APPEALS decision dated January 31, 1996 and more so its resolution dated
May 24, 1996, are contrary to law and grossly erroneous in that they imposed a penalty excess of
what is authorized by law for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries
on the basis of a clerical error in a secondary source.
• Penalty was copied from a secondary source People v. Aguilar
 REODICA VS. COURT OF APPEALS
242 SCRA 87
• Contention of the Petitioner:
• The courts below should have pronounced that there were two separate light felonies involved, namely:
(1) reckless imprudence with slight physical injuries; and (2) reckless imprudence with damage to
property, instead of considering them as a complex crime. Two light felonies, she insists, do not rate a
single penalty of arresto mayor or imprisonment of six months.
• The offense of slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence, being punishable only by arresto
menor, is a light offense; as such, it prescribes in two months.
 ERRORS
• The courts misquoted not only the title, but likewise the ruling of the case cited (with regard to the
penalty imposed)
• The courts should have pronounced that there were two separate light felonies
• The offense is only punishable by arresto menor which is two months.
• The petition was filed in the wrong court, since Regional Trial Courts do not deal with arresto
menor cases.
 ISSUES
• Whether the penalty imposed is correct
• Whether the quasi offenses are light felonies
• Whether the rule on complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code applies to the quasi
offenses in question
• Whether the duplicity of the information may be questioned for the first time on appeal
• Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the offenses in question
• Whether the quasi offenses in question have already prescribed.
 ON PENALTY IMPOSED. . .
• The proper penalty for reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries is public censure
(being the penalty lower in degree to arresto menor)
• The proper penalty for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property amounting to
P8,542.00 would be arresto mayor in minimum and medium periods.
 CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES INVOLED. . .
• Reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries is a light felony.
• Reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property is a less grave felony
 RULE ON COMPLEX CRIME
• Taking into consideration Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
 ARTICLE 48 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
• Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. –When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies, or when an offense is necessary a means for committing the other, the penalty for
the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
 RULE ON COMPLEX CRIME
• Taking into consideration Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
• Both offenses cannot constitute a complex crime because reckless imprudence resulting to slight
physical injuries is not either a grave or less grave felony. Therefore each felony should be filed as
a separate complaint subject to distinct penalties.
RIGHT TO ASSAIL DUPLICITY OF INFORMATION
• Rule 120, section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that when two or more offenses are charged in
a single complaint and the accused fails to object against it before the trial, the court may convict
the accuse to as many offenses as charged and impose a penalty for each of them. Complainant
failed to make objection before the trial court therefore the right to object has been waived.
 RULE ON COMPLEX CRIME
• Taking into consideration Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
• Both offenses cannot constitute a complex crime because reckless imprudence resulting to slight
physical injuries is not either a grave or less grave felony. Therefore each felony should be filed as
a separate complaint subject to distinct penalties.
 JURISDICTION
• Jurisdiction of the court is determined by the duration of the penalty and the fine imposed as
prescribed by law to the offense charged. Reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries
and reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property is within the jurisdiction of the MTC not
the RTC.
 DECISION
• The instant petition is granted.
• The challenged decision of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 14660 is SET ASIDE as
the Regional Trial Court, whose decision was affirmed therein, had no jurisdiction over Criminal
Case No. 33919.
• Criminal Case No. 33919 is ordered DISMISSED
• No pronouncement as to costs.
• SO ORDERED.
 IVLER VS. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO & PONCE
G.R. NO. 172716
• Crime: Reckless imprudence resulting to homicide and damage to property & Reckless imprudence
resulting in slight physical injuries

• Facts: Following the vehicular accident in August 2004, Jason Ivler was charged of the following
crimes for the injuries sustained by Evangeline Ponce and the death of Nestor Ponce including the
damage to the spouses Ponce’s vehicle.
 IVLER VS. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO & PONCE
G.R. NO. 172716
• Contention of the Accused:
• Pleaded guilty on reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries of Evangeline Ponce but
moved to quash the information on reckless imprudence resulting to homicide and damage to property
of Nestor Ponce, placing him in jeopardy if second punishment for the same offense of reckless
imprudence.
 IVLER VS. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO & PONCE
G.R. NO. 172716
• Ruling:
• The protection afforded by the Constitution shielding petitioner from prosecutions placing him in
jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense bars further proceedings in the case at bar.
• We find merit in the petitioner’s submission that the lower courts erred in refusing to extend in his
favor the mantle of protection afforded by the double jeopardy clause.
 IVLER VS. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO & PONCE
G.R. NO. 172716
• Decision:
• We grant the petition.
• We reverse the orders dated February 2, 2006 and May 2, 2006 of the RTC of Pasig City.
• We dismiss the information in the criminal case reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage
to property on the ground of double jeopardy.