Reckless imprudence
Dear PAO,
Julio, my friend, was accused of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. I was able to talk to the lone witness of the private complainant and he mentioned that he did not see Julio’s vehicle hitting the victim. Kindly enlighten me on reckless imprudence; and is the testimony of the witness enough to say that Julio is reckless? Anthony
Dear Anthony,
Reckless Imprudence is a crime punishable under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended by Republic Act 10951. The provision states that:
“Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, 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. xxx.”
The above-mentioned offense is criminal in nature; hence, the weight of evidence required is proof beyond reasonable doubt (Section 2, Rule 133 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, as amended). This crime was fully explained in the case of Vibar vs People of the Philippines (GR 235573, Nov. 9, 2020), where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor Leonen, stated that:
“As punished in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, reckless imprudence:
“[C]onsists 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.
“Furthermore, it has the following elements:
“(1) 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. (Citation omitted).”
The case of Gonzaga vs People states that to establish a motorist’s liability for negligence, the prosecution must show the “direct causal connection between such negligence and the injuries or damages complained of.” Gonzaga then stressed that mere negligence in driving a vehicle is not enough to constitute reckless driving. Rather, it must be shown that the motorist acted willfully and wantonly, in utter disregard of the consequence of his or her action as it is the “inexcusable lack of precaution or conscious indifference to the consequences of the conduct which supplies the criminal intent and brings an act of mere negligence and imprudence under the operation of the penal law.”
Applying the above-quoted decision in your situation, the prosecution must show the direct causal connection between such negligence and the injuries or damages complained of. In the absence of any other evidence, the testimony of the lone witness you mentioned in your letter is not enough to prove Julio’s guilt considering that he did not see if Julio’s vehicle hit the victim. To constitute reckless driving, mere negligence is not enough, and it must be proven that Julio acted willfully and wantonly in utter disregard of the consequences of his action.
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.