TITLE FOURTEEN

QUASI-OFFENSE
Art. 365 IMPRUDENCE 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 NEGLIGENCE on 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 In Imprudence, there is deficiency of
action. Lack of foresight.
perception. Lack of skill.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE vs SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE
Consist in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or Consist in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases
failing to do an act from which material damage results in which the damage impending to be caused is not
by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
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.
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.
USJ-R CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW BY: DANIEL MARTIN G. ORAL Page | 1

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. It
was 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. 13 any 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. 365 in 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. 17,2010 in this case, Accused Jason Ivler figured in a vehicle collision. He was
charged with 2 separate offenses/information:
1. Reckless imprudence resulting in Slight Physical Injuries
2. 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
USJ-R CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW BY: DANIEL MARTIN G. ORAL Page | 2

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 HOMICIDE somebody was killed
2. Reckless imprudence resulting in Physical Injuries as 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.

USJ-R CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW BY: DANIEL MARTIN G. ORAL Page | 3