Reckless Imprudence

What is Reckless Imprudence?

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.
Nature of Criminal Negligence
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.

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.

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 be without malice;
Material damage results;
There is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into
consideration:
1. His employment/occupation;
2. Physical condition;
3. Degree of intelligence;
4. Other circumstances regarding the persons, time and place
Is Reckless Imprudence under
Art. 365 a felony under Art.3?
Yes! Reckless Imprudence is a Quasi-offense.
Under Article 3, culpa is merely a modality of
committing a crime, while in Article 365 culpa itself is the
crime punished and the penalty is based on the result of
that imprudence.
Does the principle of complex crimes
apply to Reckless Imprudence?
Yes! If a reckless, imprudent, or negligent act
results in two or more grave or less grave felonies. If one
offense is light, there is no complex crime. The light
felony may be treated as separate or it may be absorbed
by the grave felony.
Does subsidiary penalty apply
to Reckless Imprudence?
Yes! If the offender cannot pay the fine for damage
to property from the negligence, he will suffer
subsidiary imprisonment provided that the same is
expressed in the sentence. Under Article 39, if the
offense is grave or less grave, subsidiary imprisonment
should not be more than 6 months; if light felony, not
more than 15 days.
Penalties of Reckless Imprudence
under Article 365
Grave Felony
Arresto Mayor in its maximum period to Prision Correccional in its medium period
Less Grave Felony
Arresto Mayor in its minimum and medium periods
Light Felony
Arresto Menor in its maximum period
Only Damage to Property
Fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such
value, but which shall in no case be less than twenty-five pesos.
The penalties provided in art. 365 are not applicable
in the following 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.

Reodica v. CA, G.R. No. 125066
On the evening of October 17, 1987, Isabelita Reodica was driving a van and
because of her recklessness, her van hit the car of Norberto Bonsol. As a result,
Bosol sustained physical injuries, while the damage to his car amounted to
P8,542. Thus, on October 20, 1987, Bosol filed an Affidavit of Complaint against
Reodica. On January 13, 1988, an information was filed before the RTC of Makati
charging Reodica with "Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property
with Slight Physical Injury." Upon arraignment, Reodica pleaded not guilty of the
charge.
Reodica was convicted by RTC of Makati and sentenced to 6 months of Arresto
Mayor and to pay P13,542(includes medical expenses) to Bosol.
Reodica appealed to the Court of Appeals, but it was denied for lack of merit .
Reodica v. CA, G.R. No. 125066
Contention of the Accused:
Petitioner avers that 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 a complex
crime. Two light felonies, she insists, do not rate a single penalty
of arresto mayor or imprisonment of six months, citing Lontok v.
Gorgonio.
Reodica v. CA, G.R. No. 125066
Issues:
I. Whether the penalty imposed on petitioner is correct.
II. Whether the quasi offenses of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property in the
amount of P8,542.00 and reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries are light
felonies.
III. Whether the rule on complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code applies to
the quasi offenses in question.
IV. Whether the duplicity of the information may be questioned for the first time on appeal.

Two tests of Double Jeopardy
Whether or not the second offense charged necessarily includes
or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former
complaint or information (Rule 113, Sec. 9).

Whether the evidence which proves one would prove the other
that is to say whether the facts alleged in the first charge if
proven, would have been sufficient to support the second
charge and vice versa; or whether one crime is an ingredient of
the other.
Double Jeopardy Clause
Reason and precedent both coincide in that once convicted or acquitted of a
specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for
that same act. For the essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence under
article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or
negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law
penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of
the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty, it does not
qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the
injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the offense (criminal
negligence) remains one and the same, and can not be split into different crimes
and prosecutions. (Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Buan Case)
In Re: Ivler Case
Jason Ivlers was charged before the MeTC of Pasig with two separate offenses: (1)
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries; and (2) Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property.
The petitioner pleaded guilty to the offense of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Slight Physical Injuries and was meted out the penalty of public censure. Petitioner
moved to quash the Information in Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide
and Damage to Property for placing him in jeopardy of second punsihment for the
same offense of reckless imprudence.
The MeTC refused quashal, finding no identity of offenses in the two cases.
The RTC affirmed MeTC's decision and forfeited the motion of the petitioner.
In Re: Ivler Case
Issue:
Whether petitioners constitutional right under the Double
Jeopardy Clause bars further proceedings.
In Re: Ivler Case
Ruling:
Prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from a single crime regardless
of the number of severity of the consequences. In imposing penalties, the
judge will do no more than apply the penalties under Article 365 for each
consequence allged and proven. In short, there shall be no splitting of charges
under Article 365, and only one information shall be filed in the same first level
court.