Title 14 Notes Criminal Negligence

Disclaimer dli ni tanan mu gawas sa test guro ni justice. Im just being

thorough kay gamitun ni nako pang review sa bar.
1. Art. 365 Imprudence and negligence - jurisdiction of first level court
Any person who (had it been intentional or malicious) Art. 9
a. By reckless imprudence:
b. constitute grave felony arresto mayor max pc med
c. Constitute a less grave felony arresto mayor min and med
d. Constitute a light felony- arresto menor max
2. By simple imprudence or negligence:
a. Grave felony arresto mayor med and max
b. Less serious felony arresto mayor in its minimum period
c. Light felony fine of 200 pesos and censure
3. Resulted on in damage of property of another fine equal to value to
3x the value of the property BUT cannot be less than 25 pesos.
This article will not be applicable in the following circumstances:

Penalty for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided in the first
two paragraphs. Courts shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than
that which should be imposed in the period they deem proper.
o Ex. Less serious physical injuries penalty is arresto mayor. Thats less
grave felony, so if you follow art. 365, arresto mayor ghapon so dapat
arresto menor to show the difference between intentional from
culpable felony.
o So if slight physical injury, should be public censure nlng instead of
arresto menor.
Through imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile
Law, death results, punish with PC med and max period.

Elements of Reckless Imprudence: (used reyes.) Do Volunteer Must Damage

Lack of precaution
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Offender does or fails to do an act;

Voluntary
Without malice
Material damage results
Inexcusable lack of precaution taking into consideration:
a. His employment or occupation;
b. Intelligence, physical condition; and
c. Other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

Elements of Simple Imprudence: LD lactate dehydrogenase

1. Lack of precaution; and

2. Damage impending is not immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest.
Whats the difference between reckless imprudence and simple
imprudence?

In reckless imprudence, the impending damage is immediate and the

danger manifest. In simple imprudence, the danger isnt manifest and
the damage isnt immediate.
According to Boado, the gravamen of the offense of simple negligence is the
failure to exercise the diligence necessitated or called for by the situation
which was not immediately life-destructive but which culminated in the death
of a person 3 days later.

Test of negligence would a prudent man foresee harm to the person injured as a
reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued?
Additonal Notes on Reckless Imprudence/negligence:

Force majeure is an event which cannot be foreseen, or which being foreseen

is inevitable. It is an extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the
actor.
Tire blowout is not a fortuitous event when a thorough inspection of the
vehicle would show the mechanical defect.
Failure to detect mechanical defects is negligence only when they had
duty or assumed the duty to inspect the vehicle. So if driver is unaware
of the defect of the brakes and he did not have the duty to inspect, then not
liable.
Must be voluntary and without malice.
Material damage must be present
Take into account the occupation of the offender, degree of intelligence
and physical condition, and other circumstances regarding persons,
time and place. So you have to take into account whether or not he was on
the right side of the road, whether he was speeding and etc.
Right of way vehicle on the highway must yield right of way to vehicle
going onto the highway (not controlling) especially when vehicles
approach the intersection approximately at the same time (controlling
in this scenario).
Doctrine of Pre-emption. Generally, vehicle crossing a (through) a street is
supposed to wait and let another vehicle pass before crossing. However, if
the vehicle crossing had already reached the middle, the driver traveling
along the street has the duty to stop to avoid collision.
However, right of way does not relieve driver from duty of keeping a lookout
for motorist entering the intersection.

Cannot use defense of right of way when vehicle, making a left turn into
another street, cuts corners. (no warning whatsoever given to others)
Firetruck going to and from scene of fire has right of way over all vehicles
even if responding to a false alarm. But, this must be exercised with due
regard to rights of others.
Overtaking can also be recklessness.
Speedlimit is not a guaranty of due care.
Professional driver who permits any unlicensed person to drive a vehicle
placed in his responsibility is negligence.

Additional notes on simple negligence:

Placing loaded pistol inside ones pocket where it fell when the wallet was
taken out is not negligence. Accused was merely safekeeping the pistol and
the dropping of the same was considered an independent intervening cause.
The act must be VOLUNTARY.
If only property is destroyed, market value of the property at the time,
or if only partially damaged, difference in value before damage and
after repair + any expenses incurred inorder to restore the property.
-> but if uncertain gane, court has discretion.

Others:

Court is not bound by Article 64 (aggravating or mitigating circumstances)

because the circumstances usually vary from one incident to another and the
court should have ample discretion in its application. Even if two
mitigating and no aggravating circumstances.
Contributory negligence is only a mitigating circumstance. Cannot allege
negligence of another to evade effects of ones own negligence.
o But if negligence of victim was the proximate cause of his death,
accused is not liable.
o If both are negligent and no way to determine the proportion of
contribution to the injury, either is responsible for the injury.
Negligence of one is not justified by concurrent negligence of another.
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance contributory negligence of the injured party
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. -> not sudden
Emergency rule a driver who is suddenly placed in an emergency situation
due to the negligence of another is not guilty of negligence when he acts
instantly to avoid a collision or injury is not guilty of negligence. But when
there is negligence, cannot use this as a defense.
Violation of a law is proof of negligence. But mere fact that he didnt have a
license is not negligence when he was found not to be negligent in driving.

Penalty next higher for offender who failed to lend on-the-spot to

help victims of his act of negligence. (qualifying circumstance) -> must be
alleged in the information apil sad abandonment of the victim but if failed to
allege, not barred by double jeopardy because abandonment is a distinct
crime.
Not liable for death or injuries of his negligence to trespassers whose
presence in the premises he was not aware of.
Quack doctor whose treatment of a man causes his death is guilty of reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide.
Plaintiff has burden of proving negligence as well as the causal connection of
such breach resulting to the death of the patient. Physicians usually dont
have a fixed rule to follow and thus in absence of showing that the surgeon
has been grossly negligent, the reasonableness and urgency of the
employment of such care and diligence and skill expected of him is all that is
necessary. (preponderance of evidence) -> medical malpractice suit.
o However, needs an expert witness to attest to whether or not liable
Except when the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is invoked by the
plaintiff because the injury itself provides proof for negligence.
There can be a complex crime in reckless imprudence. But if resulting
offenses only amount to light felony, no complex crime -> treated as
separate or absorbed by the grave felony. So if slight physical injuries and
damage to property from single act of imprudence, cannot be charged in a
single information. They are separate offenses with distinct penalties.
If the information states double homicide through reckless imprudence with
violation of the automobile law, not a crime because actual penalty for
criminal negligence is different from a willful crime. So must be separate
despite law saying that negligence with violation of automobile law is
punished with pc med and max.

Cases
Wolina, Bonifacio et al. v. GR 184800 may 5, 2012 art 360 where to file charge for
libel and implied recognition that libel can be committed in the internet (implied.)
Jose jesus v. secretary of justice GR no. 203335 feb 11, 2014 legality of anticybercrime; discussed about ____ rule; subjudise rule?