PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON (BRANCH VII), GODOFREDO

ARROZAL AND LUIS FLORES
G.R. No. L-46772 February 13, 1992


When an accused invokes in a motion to quash the ground that the facts charged do not constitute
an offense (Rule 117, Sec. 2 [a] Rules of Court), the sufficiency of the Information hinges on the
question of whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, meet the essential elements of the
offense defined in the law (People v. Segovia, 103 Phil. 1162 [1958]; People v. Abad, L-55132,
August 30, 1988, 165 SCRA 57).

------------



DR. NINEVETCH CRUZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LYDIA UMALI
G.R. No. 122445, November 18, 1997

Reckless imprudence; elements

The elements of reckless imprudence are: (1) that the offender does or fails to do an act; (2) that the
doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary; (3) that it be without malice; (4) that material damage
results from the reckless imprudence; and (5) that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of
the offender, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition, and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

------------


PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES vs. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN,
G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013

Motion to quash, nature

As defined in Antone, "a motion to quash information is the mode by which an accused assails the
validity of a criminal complaint or information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of
law, or for defects which are apparent in the face of the information." It is a hypothetical admission of
the facts alleged in the information. The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the material
averments in an Information is whether or not the facts alleged therein, which are hypothetically
admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime defined by law. Evidence aliunde or
matters extrinsic of the information are not to be considered.

Motion to quash; basis

To be sure, a motion to quash should be based on a defect in the information which is evident on its
fact. Thus, if the defect can be cured by amendment or if it is based on the ground that the facts charged
do not constitute an offense, the prosecution is given by the court the opportunity to correct the defect
by amendment. If the motion to quash is sustained, the court may order that another complaint or
information be filed except when the information is quashed on the ground of extinction of criminal
liability or double jeopardy.

What must be raised in a motion to quash?

xxx matters of defense cannot be raised in a motion to quash. It is not proper, therefore, to resolve the
charges at the very outset without the benefit of a full blown trial. The issues require a fuller
examination and it would be unfair to shut off the prosecution at this stage of the proceedings and to
quash the information on the basis of the document presented by respondent. With the presentation of
the court decree, no facts have been brought out which destroyed the prima facie truth accorded to the
allegations of the information on the hypothetical admission thereof.

------------

TEODORO B. CRUZ, JR., vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Fifteenth Division,
G.R. No. 83754 February 18, 1991

It is axiomatic that a complaint or information must state every single fact necessary to constitute the
offense charged; otherwise, a motion to dismiss/quash on the ground that it charges no offense may be
properly sustained. The fundamental test in considering a motion to quash on this ground is whether
the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, will establish the essential elements of the offense as
defined in the law. 4

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, a reading of the informations will disclose that the essential
elements of the offense charged are sufficiently alleged. It is not proper therefore to resolve the charges
at the very outset, in a preliminary hearing only and without the benefit of a full-blown trial. The issues
require a fuller examination. Given the circumstances of this case, we feel it would be unfair to shut off
the prosecution at this stage of the proceedings and to dismiss the informations of the basis only of the
petitioner's evidence, such as it is.

------------





JASON IVLER y AGUILAR vs. HON. MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, Judge of the Metropolitan
Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City, and EVANGELINE PONCE,
G.R. No. 172716 November 17, 2010

Reckless Imprudence is a Single Crime, its Consequences on Persons and Property are Material Only to
Determine the Penalty
Xxx
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 correccional in its medium 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
period shall be imposed.
Xxx
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.
Xxx
Indeed, the notion that quasi-offenses, whether reckless or simple, are distinct species of crime,
separately defined and penalized under the framework of our penal laws, is nothing new. As early as
the middle of the last century, we already sought to bring clarity to this field by rejecting in Quizon v.
Justice of the Peace of Pampanga the proposition that "reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself
but simply a way of committing it x x x"
17
on three points of analysis: (1) the object of punishment in
quasi-crimes (as opposed to intentional crimes); (2) the legislative intent to treat quasi-crimes as
distinct offenses (as opposed to subsuming them under the mitigating circumstance of minimal
intent) and; (3) the different penalty structures for quasi-crimes and intentional crimes:
The proposition (inferred from Art. 3 of the Revised Penal Code) that "reckless imprudence" is not a
crime in itself but simply a way of committing it and merely determines a lower degree of criminal
liability is too broad to deserve unqualified assent. There are crimes that by their structure cannot be
committed through imprudence: murder, treason, robbery, malicious mischief, etc. In truth, criminal
negligence in our Revised Penal Code is treated as a mere quasi offense, and dealt with separately
from willful offenses. It is not a mere 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, lack of care or foresight, the
imprudencia punible. x x x x
xxx
This explains why the technically correct way to allege quasi-crimes is to state that their commission
results in damage, either to person or property.
19