Ten (10) Essential Points on Quasi-Offenses

or Criminal Negligence

1. Imprudence or negligence may be a means of committing a

felony and a crime in itself. [Quizon v. Justice of the Peace of
Bacolor, Pampanga, 97 Phil. 342 (1955)]

A felony may be committed through culpa or through

imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill, in
which case, it is called a culpable felony. [REV. PEN. CODE, art.
3]

Imprudence or negligence itself is the crime defined and

punished in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. [REV. PEN.
CODE, art. 365]

2. Quasi-offenses under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code are

distinct and separate crimes and not mere modalities in the
commission of a crime [Quizon v. The Justice of the Peace of
Pampanga, et.al., 97 Phil. 342 (1955) and Sevilla v. People,
G.R. No. 194390, 13 August 2014]

3. 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. Much of the confusion has arisen from the common
use of such descriptive phrases as "homicide through reckless
imprudence," and the like; when the strict technical offense is,
more accurately, "reckless imprudence resulting in homicide";
or "simple imprudence causing damages to property". [Quizon
v. Justice of the Peace of Bacolor, Pampanga, 97 Phil. 342
(1955)]

4. Structurally, there are nine paragraphs in Article 365 of the

Revised Penal Code, which are collapsible into four sub-
groupings relating to (1) the penalties attached to the quasi-

Quasi-Offenses Dan P. Calica

 2

offenses of "imprudence" and "negligence" (paragraphs 1-2); (2)

a modified penalty scheme for either or both quasi-offenses
(paragraphs 3-4, 6 and 9); (3) a generic rule for trial courts in
imposing penalties (paragraph 5); and (4) the definition of
"reckless imprudence" and "simple imprudence" (paragraphs
7-8). [Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, 17
November 2010]

5. There are two kinds of criminal negligence punished in Article

365 of the Revised Penal Code, namely: (a) reckless
imprudence; and (b) simple imprudence or negligence.

Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without

malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on
the part of the person performing of 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. [REV. PEN.
CODE, art. 365]

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. [REV.
PEN. CODE, art. 365]

The two are distinguished only as to whether the danger that

would be impending is easily perceivable or not. 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.

6. The test for determining whether or not a person is negligent

in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person
or property of another is this: Would a prudent man in the
position of the person to whom negligence is attributed foresee
harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the
course about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes the duty
on the doer to take precaution against its mischievous results

Quasi-Offenses Dan P. Calica

 3

and the failure to do so constitutes negligence. [Hedy Gan v.

Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 44264, 19 September 1988, 165
SCRA 378 (1988)]

7. There are four specific crimes punished in Article 365 of the

Revised Penal Code:

(a) Committing through reckless imprudence any act which,

had it been intentional, would constitute a grave or
less grave felony or light felony

(b) Committing through simple imprudence or negligence an

act which would otherwise constitute a grave or a less
serious felony

(c) Causing damage to the property of another through

reckless imprudence or simple imprudence or negligence

(d) Causing through simple imprudence or negligence some

wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted
a light felony [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 365, par. 1 and 2]

8. The last paragraph of Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code

provides for the qualifying circumstance of failure to lend on
the spot to the injured parties such help as may be in his
hands to give. The penalty imposed shall be the penalty next
higher in degree. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 365, par. 9]

This qualifying circumstance in Article 365 of the Revised

Penal Code should be differentiated with the crime of
abandonment of one’s own victim which is punished in Article
275(2) of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:

(a) The cause of the injury in Article 275(2), RPC is accident

as defined under Article 12(4), RPC; in Article 365, RPC,
the cause of the injury is imprudence or negligence.

(b) If a person caused injury to another through accident

under Article 12(4) of the RPC, he is not criminally liable,

Quasi-Offenses Dan P. Calica

 4

but if he fails to render assistance to the victim, he will

be liable under Article 275(2), RPC. In Article 365, RPC,
offender will be criminally liable for the injury caused.

(c) Abandonment in Article 365, RPC is a qualifying

circumstance where the penalty is the penalty next
higher. Abandonment in Article 275, RPC is a crime with
its own penalty. [Leonor D. Boado, Notes and Cases on
the Revised Penal Code, 2012, p. 766]

9. Careless act is single and the offense is one and the same. As
such, a prosecution for a specific act of reckless imprudence
cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions. [People
v. Buan [22 SCRA 1387 (1968)] Double jeopardy will thus
apply as there is just one offense.

10. In an extensive ruling in Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R No.

172716, 17 November 2010, the Supreme Court held that
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to acts
penalized under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. Article
48 is incongruent to the notion of quasi-crimes under Article
365. It is conceptually impossible for a quasi-offense to stand
for (1) a single act constituting two or more grave or less
grave felonies; or (2) an offense which is a necessary means for
committing another.

Hence, we hold that prosecutions under Article 365 should

proceed from a single charge regardless of the number or
severity of the consequences. In imposing penalties, the judge
will do no more than apply the penalties under Article 365 for
each consequence alleged 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.” [Ivler v.
Modesto-San Pedro, G.R No. 172716, 17 November 2010]

However, in Gonzaga v. People, G.R. No. 19567121 January

2015, the Supreme Court held that Gonzaga was charged with
the offense of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide with
Double Serious Physical Injuries and Damages to Property

Quasi-Offenses Dan P. Calica

 5

under Article 365 in relation to Article 263 of the Revised

Penal Code, a complex crime. Article 48 of the ROC provides
that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime,
in this case, Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide, shall
be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

This issue is thus far from being resolved.

Quasi-Offenses Dan P. Calica