8/12/2019 Notes on Quasi Offenses

1/2

TITLE FOURTEEN: QUASI-OFFENSES

Art. 365. Imprudence and Negligence.

How committed:1. Committing, through reckless imprudence , any act which, had it been

intentional, would constitute a grave or less grave felony or light felony;

2. Committing, through simple imprudence or negligence, an act which wouldotherwise constitute a grave or less serious felony;

3. Causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence orsimple imprudence or negligence;

4. Causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong which, ifdone maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.

If the act performed would not constitute a grave or less grave felony or light felonyunder any RPC provision which defines intentional felony, Art. 365 is not applicable.

Imprudence or negligence is not a crime in itself; it is simply a way of committing a

crime. Imprudence or negligence becomes punishable only when they resulted to acrime.

Intentional crimes v. Negligence or imprudenceIn intentional crimes, the act itself is punished; in negligence or imprudence, what isprincipally penalized is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerousrecklessness or lack of care or foresight; the imprudencia punible.

Negligence in RPC vs. Negligence in CC A negligence act causing damage may produce civil liability arising from

crime or create an action for quasi-delict under the CC. Injured party cannot

recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant (Art.2177 CC)

Negligence in Civil Law may arise from a contract or from a tort.

Imprudence vs. Negligence

Imprudence NegligenceDeficiency of action Deficiency of perceptionFailure in precaution Failure in advertenceMay be avoided by taking the necessaryprecaution to avoid injury or damageonce these are foreseen.

May be avoided by paying properattention and using due diligence inforeseeing injury and damage impendingto be caused.

Voluntary; without malice Voluntary; without malice

Reckless imprudenceIt consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act fromwhich material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on thepart of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into considerationhis employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and othercircumstances regarding persons, time and place.

Elements:1. That the offender does or fails to do an act.2. That the doing of or the failure to do that act is voluntary.3. That it be without malice.4. That material damage results.5. That there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender,

taking into consideration a. His employment or occupation;b. Degree of intelligence, physical condition;c. Other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

Reckless imprudence vs. force majeure

Reckless imprudence Force majeureForeseeable and preventable Cannot be foreseen, or which being

foreseen, is inevitable; extraordinarycircumstance independent of the will ofthe actor.

Simple imprudenceIt consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damageimpending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.

Elements:1. That there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender.2. That the damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is

not clearly manifest.3.

Test of negligenceWould a prudent man foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonableconsequence of the course about to be pursued?If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course or to takeprecaution against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutesnegligence.

Violation of rule, regulation or law is proof of negligence.

8/12/2019 Notes on Quasi Offenses

2/2

Material damage must result.

Basis for determining the inexcusable lack of precaution1. Employment or occupation2. Degree of intelligence and physical condition of the offender3. Other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

When the execution of the act covered by this article resulted in damage to theproperty of another, the penalty is only fine.

DamagesIf property is just partially damaged, the measure of the damage should be thedifference in value of the property immediately before the incident and immediatelyafter the repair.

If property is wholly destroyed, the basis for the fine is the market value of theproperty at the time and place of its destruction.

Penalties

Art. 64 relative to mitigating and aggravating circumstances is not applicable tocrimes committed through negligence.

Because what we penalize in Art. 365 is the carelessness, imprudence ornegligence which characterizes the wrongful act as may vary from onesituation to another, in nature, extent and resulting consequences.

To have a fair and just application of the penalty, courts must have amplediscretion in its imposition, without being bound by the formula in Art. 64.

Penalties in Art. 365 are not applicable in the following cases:1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those

provided in the first two paragraphs of Art. 365.

a. Courts shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than thatwhich should be imposed, in the period which they may deemproper to apply.

b. To preserve the difference between an act wilfully performed fromone committed through negligence.

2. When by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the AutomobileLaw, the death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendantshall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximumperiods.

Contributory negligence only mitigates liability.

The penalty next higher in degree will be imposed if the offender fails to lend on thespot help to the injured parties.

Concurrent proximate cause of two negligent personsWhere the concurrent or successive negligent acts or omission of two or morepersons, although acting independently of each other are, in combination, the directand proximate cause of a single injury to a third person, and it is impossible todetermine in what proportion each contributed to the injury, either is responsible forthe whole injury, even though his act alone might not have caused the entire injury.Reason : the negligence of one person is in no sense justified by the concurringnegligence of another.

Doctrine of Last Clear Chance The contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat the action if it beshown that the accused might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence,have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party.

Emergency rule An automobile driver who, by the negligence of another and not by his own

negligence, is suddenly placed in an emergency and compelled to act instantly toavoid a collision or injury is not guilty of negligence if he makes such a choice which aperson of ordinary prudence place in such a position might make even though he didnot make the wisest choice.This applicable only where the situation which arises to confront the actor is suddenand unexpected, and is such as to deprive him of all opportunity for deliberation.