How committed: 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 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.
If the act performed would not constitute a grave or less grave felony or light felony under any RPC provision which defines intentional felony, Art. 365 is not applicable.
Imprudence or negligence is not a crime in itself; it is simply a way of committing a crime. Imprudence or negligence becomes punishable only when they resulted to a crime.
Intentional crimes v. Negligence or imprudence 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 or lack of care or foresight; the imprudencia punible.
Negligence in RPC vs. Negligence in CC A negligence act causing damage may produce civil liability arising from crime or create an action for quasi-delict under the CC. Injured party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant (Art. 2177 CC) Negligence in Civil Law may arise from a contract or from a tort.
Imprudence vs. Negligence
Imprudence Negligence Deficiency of action Deficiency of perception Failure in precaution Failure in advertence May be avoided by taking the necessary precaution to avoid injury or damage once these are foreseen. May be avoided by paying proper attention and using due diligence in foreseeing injury and damage impending to be caused. Voluntary; without malice Voluntary; without malice Reckless imprudence It 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 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.
Elements: 1. That the offender does or fails to do an act. 2. That the doing of or the failure to do that act is voluntary. 3. That it be without malice. 4. That material damage results. 5. That there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into consideration a. His employment or occupation; b. Degree of intelligence, physical condition; c. Other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
Reckless imprudence vs. force majeure Reckless imprudence Force majeure Foreseeable and preventable Cannot be foreseen, or which being foreseen, is inevitable; extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the actor.
Simple imprudence It 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.
Elements: 1. That there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender. 2. That the damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest. 3. Test of negligence Would a prudent man foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course or to take precaution against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence.
Violation of rule, regulation or law is proof of negligence.
Material damage must result.
Basis for determining the inexcusable lack of precaution 1. Employment or occupation 2. Degree of intelligence and physical condition of the offender 3. Other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
When the execution of the act covered by this article resulted in damage to the property of another, the penalty is only fine.
Damages If property is just partially damaged, the measure of the damage should be the difference in value of the property immediately before the incident and immediately after the repair.
If property is wholly destroyed, the basis for the fine is the market value of the property at the time and place of its destruction.
Penalties Art. 64 relative to mitigating and aggravating circumstances is not applicable to crimes committed through negligence. Because what we penalize in Art. 365 is the carelessness, imprudence or negligence which characterizes the wrongful act as may vary from one situation to another, in nature, extent and resulting consequences. To have a fair and just application of the penalty, courts must have ample discretion in its imposition, without being bound by the formula in Art. 64.
Penalties 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. a. 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. b. To preserve the difference between an act wilfully performed from one committed through negligence. 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.
Contributory negligence only mitigates liability.
The penalty next higher in degree will be imposed if the offender fails to lend on the spot help to the injured parties.
Concurrent proximate cause of two negligent persons Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission of two or more persons, although acting independently of each other are, in combination, the direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, and it is impossible to determine in what proportion each contributed to the injury, either is responsible for the whole injury, even though his act alone might not have caused the entire injury. Reason: the negligence of one person is in no sense justified by the concurring negligence of another.
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 the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party.
Emergency rule An automobile driver who, by the negligence of another and not by his own negligence, is suddenly placed in an emergency and compelled to act instantly to avoid a collision or injury is not guilty of negligence if he makes such a choice which a person of ordinary prudence place in such a position might make even though he did not make the wisest choice. This applicable only where the situation which arises to confront the actor is sudden and unexpected, and is such as to deprive him of all opportunity for deliberation.
United States v. Luz Medina, Silverio Polanco, Franklin Marmolejo, Juan A. Mata, Franklin Marmolejo, Silverio Polanco and Juan A. Mata, 944 F.2d 60, 2d Cir. (1991)