Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code

(Quasi-Offenses)
Presented by: PCpl Jaycee A Palattao
PCpl Jerome J Rallos

Article 365 of REVISED PENAL CODE

Approved: June 21, 1957

QUASI-OFFENSES PUNISHED:
 Committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had it been intentional,
would constitute a grave or less grave felony or light felony;
 Committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act which would
otherwise constitute a grave or less serious felony;
 Causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or
simple imprudence or negligence
 Causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong which, if done
maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.
The difference
IMPRUDENCE NEGLIGENCE
 Lack of skill  Lack of Foresight
 Deficiency of Action  Deficiency of Perception
 Failure in Precaution  Failure in Advertence

 Imprudence or negligence is NOT A CRIME ITSELF; it is simply a way of

committing a crime. It becomes punishable only when it results in a crime.
 The rules for graduating penalties (Under Article 64) based on mitigating and
aggravating circumstance are NOT applicable to offenses punishable thru
criminal negligence.
 QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: failure to render immediate assistance to the
injured party. This qualifying circumstance must be distinguished from the
punishable OMISSION under article 275.
 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.
 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 criminal negligence. Otherwise,
double jeopardy would arise. (Explained further in the discussion of cases)
 Once malice is proven, recklessness disappears (People vs. Agliday 2001)
 When the death or serious bodily injury to any person has resulted, the motor
vehicle driver at fault shall be punishable under the penal code.
 Contributory negligence is not a defense. It only mitigates criminal liability.
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 correctional in its minimum 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 periodical shall be
imposed.
 Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which
would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of Arresto
mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less
serious felony, the penalty of Arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be
imposed.
 When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in
damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine
ranging from an amount equal to the value of the said damages to three times
such value, but which shall in no case be less than twenty-five pesos.
 A fine not exceeding two-hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any
person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong
which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.
 In the imposition of these penalties, the courts shall exercise their sound
discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in article 64.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:
 When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those
provided in the first two paragraphs of this article, in which case the 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.
 When, by imprudence or negligence and with violations of the Automobile Law,
the death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendant shall be
punished by Prision correctional in its medium and maximum periods.
Section 59 of Act 3992 (Revised Motor Vehicle Law)
 The law gives the right of way to the driver coming from the right of another,
when both are travelling on intersecting streets of the same class. The grant of
right of way does not relieve the motorist from the duty of keeping a lookout for
motorists entering the intersection from his left or right.
Elements
 Reckless Imprudence consists of 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.
 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.
 The penalty next higher to those provided for in this article shall be imposed upon
the offender who fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may
be in his hands to give.
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 is without malice
 Material damage results
 There is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into
consideration:
 His employment/occupation
 Physical condition
 Degree of intelligence
 Other circumstances regarding the person, time and place
INEXCUSABLE LACK OF PRECAUTION
 Factors to be considered in determining inexcusable lack of precaution:
 Employment or occupation
 Degree of intelligence and physical condition of the offender; and
 Other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
Additional rulings, doctrines and other relevant laws
FORCE MAJEURE
 Force majeure is an event which cannot be foreseen, or which being foreseen is
inevitable; it implies an extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the
actor.
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
 The fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding
circumstances, may permit an interference or raise a presumption of negligence,
or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a question of fact for the
defendant to meet with an explanation (Ramos vs. CA 1999)
RES IPSA LOQUITUR (Requisites)
 The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur UNLESS someone is
negligent
 The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under exclusive
control of the person in charge
 The injury suffered must NOT have been due to any voluntary action contribution
of the person injured
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 exercise of reasonable care and prudence,
have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party.
EMERGENCY RULES (acts are not considered as reckless)
 An automobile driver who, by negligence if another and not by his own
negligence is suddenly placed in an emergency and compelled to act instantly to
avoid collision or injury is not guilty of negligence if he makes such a choice
which a person of ordinary prudence placed in such situation might make even
though he did not make the wisest choice.
 One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act
without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the
impending danger, is not guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what
 subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have a better method unless the
emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence
(Gan v. CA 1988)
CASES
REODICA VS. COURT OF APPEALS 242 SCRA 87
 Contention of the Petitioner:
 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 as a complex crime. Two light felonies, she
insists, do not rate a single penalty of arresto mayor or imprisonment of six
months.
 The offense of slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence, being
punishable only by arresto menor, is a light offense; as such, it prescribes
in two months.

ERRORS
 The courts misquoted not only the title, but likewise the ruling of the case cited
(with regard to the penalty imposed)
 The courts should have pronounced that there were two separate light felonies
 The offense is only punishable by arresto menor which is two months.
 The petition was filed in the wrong court, since Regional Trial Courts do not deal
with arresto menor cases.
ISSUES
 Whether the penalty imposed is correct
 Whether the quasi offenses are light felonies
 Whether the rule on complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
applies to the quasi offenses in question
 Whether the duplicity of the information may be questioned for the first time on
appeal
 Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the offenses in question
 Whether the quasi offenses in question have already prescribed.
ON PENALTY IMPOSED. . .
 The proper penalty for reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries is
public censure (being the penalty lower in degree to arresto menor)
 The proper penalty for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property
amounting to P8,542.00 would be arresto mayor in minimum and medium
periods.
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES INVOLED. . .
 Reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries is a light felony.
 Reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property is a less grave felony
DECISION
 The instant petition is granted.
 The challenged decision of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
14660 is SET ASIDE as the Regional Trial Court, whose decision was affirmed
therein, had no jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 33919.
 Criminal Case No. 33919 is ordered DISMISSED
 No pronouncement as to costs.
 SO ORDERED.
IVLER VS. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO & PONCE G.R. No. 172716
 Crime: Reckless imprudence resulting to homicide and damage to property &
Reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries
 Facts: Following the vehicular accident in August 2004, Jason Ivler was charged
of the following crimes for the injuries sustained by Evangeline Ponce and the
death of Nestor Ponce including the damage to the spouses Ponce’s vehicle.
 Contention of the Accused:
 Pleaded guilty on reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries
of Evangeline Ponce but moved to quash the information on reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide and damage to property of Nestor
Ponce, placing him in jeopardy if second punishment for the same offense
of reckless imprudence.
 Ruling:
 The protection afforded by the Constitution shielding petitioner from
prosecutions placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same
offense bars further proceedings in the case at bar.
 We find merit in the petitioner’s submission that the lower courts erred in
refusing to extend in his favor the mantle of protection afforded by the
double jeopardy clause.
 Decision:
 We grant the petition.
 We reverse the orders dated February 2, 2006 and May 2, 2006 of the
RTC of Pasig City.
 We dismiss the information in the criminal case reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide and damage to property on the ground of double
jeopardy.