Art. 365 - Quasi-Offense

8/10/2019 Art. 365 - Quasi-Offense

1/3

USJ-R CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW BY: DANIEL MARTIN G. ORAL Page | 1

TITLE FOURTEEN

QUASI-OFFENSE

Art. 365IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE -

NOTE: for the accused to be held liable under Art. 365, he must be performing a LAWFUL ACT without due care,

meaning he was negligent or imprudent. And his negligence or imprudence resulted in injuries or damage to

property. He must not be performing a felonious act.

The quasi-offense under art. 365 are committed in four ways:

1. By committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a

grave or less grave felony or light felony

2. By committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would otherwise constitute a grave

or a less serious felony

3. By causing damage to property of another through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence or

negligence

4.

By causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have

constituted a light felony.

A.

CULPA

CULPA requires the concurrence of three requisites:

1. CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCEon the part of the offender, that is, the crime was the result of negligence, reckless

imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill;

2. Freedom of action on the part of the offender, that is he was not acting under duress; and

3. Intelligence on the part of the offender in performing the negligent act.

Between dolo and culpa, the distinction lies on the criminal intent and criminal negligence. If any of these requisites

is absent, there can be no dolo or culpa. When there is no dolo or culpa, a felony cannot arise.

Note: Discussion ni Judge:GR: crime committed by dolo (intentional felony) is severe than those of culpable felonies.

Exception: IMPORTANT

The crime of MALVERSATION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE, the law provides for the same penalty though it is a crime

committed by culpa. You cannot be held under art. 365 but under the provision of malversation.

NEGLIGENCE VS IMPRUDENCE

Negligence Imprudence

In negligence there is deficiency of

action. Lack of foresight.

In Imprudence, there is deficiency of

perception. Lack of skill.

RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE vs SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE

RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE

Consist 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.

Consist 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.

Example:

1.

You are driving car beyond speed limit. Then you run over a pedestrian. What is the crime committed?

Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.

2.

You are a policeman, you chase a snatcher in colon. While chasing the snatcher in the presence of so many

people, you fired your gun towards the snatcher, but you did not hit the snatcher. It hit a bystander and

died. What is the crime committed? reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. you are reckless in firing

your gun in the presence of many people.


2/3


3. You forgot to lock up your dog in his cage. It was able to roam around in your subdivision. Nakapaak ang

imong iro. Can you be held liable kung makapaak imong iro? YES. for reckless imprudence resulting in

homicide kung namatay ang napaakan.

4.

Kung imong iro g.hiktan. unya naay bata nisulod sa inyoha unya niduol jud ang bata sa iro ug g.hikap ang

iro. Gpa.ak sa iro ang bata. Could you be held liable? Answer is NO. the mother of the child should be

faulted or blamed.

5.

You are driving your car in a moderate speed and suddenly a 2 year old boy suddenly run into your lane. Itwas too late in your part to apply brake. You ran over the boy. The boy died. Are you liable? Answer is no.

that is considered by mere accident. That if you are driving your car in a moderate speed. Are you civilly

liable? Answer is no. because that is by mere accident. Par. 4 art. 13any person who, while performing a

lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it shall be

exempt from criminal liability as well as civil liability.

6.

About if you are driving your car beyond speed limit, you hit a pedestrian. You saw the pedestrian who is

still alive lying down the streets. You immediately back up your car and ran over again the pedestrian and

then speed up and hit the pedestrian ran over the pedestrian and left. The pedestrian died. What is the

crime committed? MURDER with treachery.

7.

IMPORTANT:A quack doctor who treated a sick man, resulting in the latters death is guilty of homicide

through reckless imprudence.there was no intent to kill. PP vs CARMEN - 355 SCRA 267

NOTE: is there a crime of RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING IN ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE? answer is NO. it could

only be SERIOUS or LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY. Because there is no intent to kill

What about if NAGARAS LANG. that would be RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING IN SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES.

What about if the act resulted only to damage to property of another, what is the penalty? There is no

imprisonment but only fine equal to the value of said damage to 3 times of such value. If the consequence of

negligence or imprudence is only damage to property.

IMPORTANT: the mitigating and aggravating circumstances will not apply under this provision. So bisan pa

muvoluntary surrender or plea guilty, that will not apply. You dont have to apply mitigating or aggravating

circumstances.

Legal basis: 5th

par of art. 365in the imposition of these penalties, the courts shall exercise their sound

discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in article 64.

DOES Art. 48 apply to acts penalized under Art. 365 penalizing quasi-offenses

Jason Ivler vs Hon. Modesto, Nov. 17,2010in this case, AccusedJason Ivler figured in a vehicle collision. He was

charged with 2 separate offenses/information:

1.

Reckless imprudence resulting in Slight Physical Injuries2.

Reckless imprudence resulting Homicide and Damages to Property

He pleaded guilty to the charged of reckless imprudence resulting to Physical Injuries. Eventually, he was convicted

as charged in that criminal case. With this conviction, he moved to quash the information for reckless imprudence

resulting in Homicide and Damages to Property on the ground of double jeopardy.

The Solicitor General opposed contending that there is no double jeopardy because 2 offenses can be filed

separately. The separate filing of the 2 offense is allowed because

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code allows only

the complexing of grave or less grave felonies. In the case at bar, the crime of Slight Physical Injuries through

reckless imprudence is a light felony and the crime of Homicide and Damages to Property through reckless

imprudence is a grave felony. As it cannot be joined in one information, therefore, double jeopardy does not bar

the second prosecution.

Ruing: the information for reckless imprudence must be quashed on the ground of double jeopardy. The contention

of the Solicitor General is without merit. Art. 48 does not apply to quasi-crime. The prosecution must have

proceeded under a single charged.

There shall be no splitting of charges under Article 365, and only one

information shall be filed in the same first level court.

Furthermore, art. 48 finds its application only when the law did not expressly provide for a penalty regarding a

commission of a single act constituting two or more grave or less grave felonies or when an offense is a necessary


3/3


means of committing the other. In the case at bar, Art. 365 expressly provide penalties regarding the commission

of a quasi-crime, therefore, the penalties provided in art. 365 must be imposed not those of Art. 48.

ILLUSTRATION:

You are driving your car. You hit a motorcycle. The driver of the motorcycle died but his backrider suffered only

slight physical injuries and the motorcycle was a complete damage. What crimes did you commit?

1. You committed first reckless imprudence resulting in HOMICIDEsomebody was killed

2.

Reckless imprudence resulting in Physical Injuriesas regards to the back rider

3.

Damage to property as regard to the motorcycle

There could be 3 crimes, but these three crimes should be alleged in one information.

You have learned under art. 48 that light offense cannot be complex with a grave or less grave offenses, so it has to

be filed separately. But that rule will not apply in cases falling under art. 365. According to the SC in that case of

Jason Ivler vs Hon. Modesto, Nov. 17,2010, there should only be one information that has to be filed against the

accused and the court has to imposed penalties on each crime proved.

So if the accused is convicted of that 3 crimes above mentioned, he shall suffer 3 penalties. But he shall only be

charged under one information.

Art. 365 - Quasi-Offense

Documents

Transcript of Art. 365 - Quasi-Offense