Dear PAO,

May I know how the law defines the crime of Reckless Imprudence? In addition, may I also know the essence and perhaps the elements for the commission of such crime?

Bondee

Dear Bondee,

The answer to your query is found in the provisions of Act Number 38Q5, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, and our pertinent jurisprudence. Succinctly, the relevant provisions of Article 365 of the aforementioned law reads:

“Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence. — Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, x x x

Reckless imprudence consists in 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. x x x.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In the recent case of Morales v. People (G.R. No. 240337, 4 January 2022) penned by retired Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, the elements of the crime of Reckless Imprudence were restated, viz:

“The elements of the crime of reckless imprudence are: (Q) that the offender does or fails to do an act; (2) that the doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary; (3) that it be without malice; (4) that material damage results from the reckless imprudence; and (5) that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and other circumstances regarding persons, time, and place.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In the same case, the Supreme Court echoed the pronouncements in the case of Ivler v. Hon. Judge Modesto-San Pedro (G.R. No. Q727Q6, Q7 November 20Q0) penned by retired Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio. In the aforementioned decision, the High Court says:

“Reckless imprudence is not merely a way of committing a crime. We noted that: (Q) the object of punishment in quasi-crimes is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight, while in intentional crimes, the act itself is punished; (2) the legislature intended to treat quasi-crimes as distinct offenses otherwise they would have been subsumed under the mitigating circumstance of minimal intent; and (3) the penalty structure for quasi-crimes differ from intentional crimes in that the criminal negligence bears no relation to the individual willful crime but is set in relation to a whole class, or series of crimes. Thus, the correct way of alleging quasi-crimes is to state that their commission resulted in damage, either to person or property, such as reckless imprudence resulting in homicide or simple imprudence causing damage to property. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Applying the foregoing, reckless imprudence is the voluntary, but without malice or intent, doing or non-doing of an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of a person’s performance or lack thereof. In essence, reckless imprudence is not merely a way of committing a crime. The object of punishment in quasi-crimes is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.