Criminal Negligence; Imprudence and Negligence
On Criminal Law
Criminal Negligence; IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
Art.365.
QUASI-OFFENSES ARE COMMITTED IN 4 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 w/c would otherwise constitute a grave or a less serious felony;
3. By causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence or negligence; or
2. By causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong w/c, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.
ELEMENTS OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE:
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; and
5. That there is an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into consideration
Art.365.
QUASI-OFFENSES ARE COMMITTED IN 4 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 w/c would otherwise constitute a grave or a less serious felony;
3. By causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence or negligence; or
2. By causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong w/c, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.
ELEMENTS OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE:
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; and
5. That there is an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into consideration
a. his employment or occupation,
b. degree of intelligence, physical condition, and
c. other circumstances regarding persons, time, and place.
ELEMENTS OF SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE:
1. That there is a lack of precaution on the part of the offender; and
2. That the damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest.
Art. 64 on mitigating and aggravating circumstances is not applicable in quasi-offenses.
Qualifying circumstance in quasi-offenses: The offender’s failure to lend on-the-spot assistance to the victim of his negligence.
Abandoning one’s victim is usually punishable under Art. 275. But if it is charged under Art. 365, it is only a qualifying circumstance, and if not alleged, it cannot even be an aggravating circumstance.
Imprudence or Negligence is not a crime in itself, but simply a way of committing a crime.
c. other circumstances regarding persons, time, and place.
ELEMENTS OF SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE:
1. That there is a lack of precaution on the part of the offender; and
2. That the damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest.
Art. 64 on mitigating and aggravating circumstances is not applicable in quasi-offenses.
Qualifying circumstance in quasi-offenses: The offender’s failure to lend on-the-spot assistance to the victim of his negligence.
Abandoning one’s victim is usually punishable under Art. 275. But if it is charged under Art. 365, it is only a qualifying circumstance, and if not alleged, it cannot even be an aggravating circumstance.
Imprudence or Negligence is not a crime in itself, but simply a way of committing a crime.
Negligence - is deficiency of perception or lack of foresight: the failure to foresee impending injury, thoughtlessness, failure to use ordinary care. Whereas, imprudence is deficiency of action in avoiding an injury due to lack of skill. Both result to a culpable felony.
If the danger that may result from criminal negligence is clearly perceivable, the imprudence is RECKLESS. If it could hardly be perceived, criminal negligence would only be simple.
If the danger that may result from criminal negligence is clearly perceivable, the imprudence is RECKLESS. If it could hardly be perceived, criminal negligence would only be simple.
Reckless - If the danger to another is visible and consciously appreciated by the accused. It is simple if the injury is not immediate or openly visible.
Criminal negligence is only a modality in incurring criminal liability. THEREFORE, even if there are several results arising from ONLY ONE CARELESSNESS, the accused may only be prosecuted under one count of criminal negligence. Otherwise, double jeopardy would arise.
Technical term “Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide”; what is punished is not the act itself but the mental attitude or condition behind the act.
Negligence is a quasi-offense. What is punished is not the effect of the negligence but the recklessness of the accused.
Test of Negligence: Would a prudent man foresee harm as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued? Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by ignoring of admonition born of this provision.
Reckless Imprudence v. Force Majeure: Force Majeure is an event that cannot be foreseen, or which being foreseen is inevitable; implies an extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the actor; in reckless imprudence damage or injury may be preventable by the exercise of reasonable care and threatened upon conduct about to be pursued by the actor.
Contributory negligence of the offended party is not a defense but only mitigates criminal liability.
Last Clear Chance Rule – The contributory negligence of the injured party will not defeat the action if it be shown 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: A person confronted with an emergency may be left with no time for thought, must make a speedy decision based on impulse or instinct, and cannot be held liable for the same conduct as one who had an opportunity to reflect; applicable only when the situation that arises is sudden and unexpected, and is such as to deprive him of all opportunity for deliberation Ex. An automobile driver, who, by the negligence of another, is suddenly placed in an emergency and compelled to act instantly to avoid a collision or injury is not guilty of negligence if he makes a choice that a person of ordinary prudence placed in such a position might make even though he did not make the wisest choice.
Emergency Rule (as a defense): 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 been a better method UNLESS the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.
Criminal negligence is only a modality in incurring criminal liability. THEREFORE, even if there are several results arising from ONLY ONE CARELESSNESS, the accused may only be prosecuted under one count of criminal negligence. Otherwise, double jeopardy would arise.
Technical term “Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide”; what is punished is not the act itself but the mental attitude or condition behind the act.
Negligence is a quasi-offense. What is punished is not the effect of the negligence but the recklessness of the accused.
Test of Negligence: Would a prudent man foresee harm as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued? Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by ignoring of admonition born of this provision.
Reckless Imprudence v. Force Majeure: Force Majeure is an event that cannot be foreseen, or which being foreseen is inevitable; implies an extraordinary circumstance independent of the will of the actor; in reckless imprudence damage or injury may be preventable by the exercise of reasonable care and threatened upon conduct about to be pursued by the actor.
Contributory negligence of the offended party is not a defense but only mitigates criminal liability.
Last Clear Chance Rule – The contributory negligence of the injured party will not defeat the action if it be shown 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: A person confronted with an emergency may be left with no time for thought, must make a speedy decision based on impulse or instinct, and cannot be held liable for the same conduct as one who had an opportunity to reflect; applicable only when the situation that arises is sudden and unexpected, and is such as to deprive him of all opportunity for deliberation Ex. An automobile driver, who, by the negligence of another, is suddenly placed in an emergency and compelled to act instantly to avoid a collision or injury is not guilty of negligence if he makes a choice that a person of ordinary prudence placed in such a position might make even though he did not make the wisest choice.
Emergency Rule (as a defense): 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 been a better method UNLESS the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.
Emergency Rule: due to the negligence of another, the accused was placed in an emergency and compelled to act immediately to avoid an impending danger, and in so doing he injured another, even if his choice of action was not the wisest under circumstances. This is similar to the exempting circumstance of accident.
Violation of a rule or regulation or law is proof of negligence.
Reyes v. Sis. of Mercy Hospital (2000)
Violation of a rule or regulation or law is proof of negligence.
Reyes v. Sis. of Mercy Hospital (2000)
Elements involved in medical negligence cases:
1. Duty
2. Breach
3. Injury
4. Proximate causation
Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio (1997)
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, which is a form of negligence, consists in the failure of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances.
Carillo v. People (1994)
The gravamen 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, as in the present case, in the death of a human being 3 days later.
2. Breach
3. Injury
4. Proximate causation
Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio (1997)
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, which is a form of negligence, consists in the failure of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances.
Carillo v. People (1994)
The gravamen 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, as in the present case, in the death of a human being 3 days later.
If, in a vehicular accident, the accused abandons the victims, this act will result to the imposition of a penalty one degree higher. Except in the following instances:
a. if he leaves because he is in imminent danger of being harmed
b. he leaves to report to the police
c. or to summon a physician, nurse or doctor.
Bigwas
Bigwas blog about Criminal law and Procedure, Criminology and Crimes, Philippine Banking and Finance, Insurance and Investment.