12/02/2026
THE CASE OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
AND INQUEST PROCEEDING.
By Atty. Florante A. Zagada
Many citizens have reacted to the FB post about the action of the PNP investigators in arresting and detaining the driver in the incident that led to a 23-year-old male student’s death at LRT-1’s Fernando Poe Jr. station this morning.
According to the police investigator, they will charge the driver identified as “Albert” for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. But the netizens objected and complained, “Why should the driver be arrested, detained, and charged when the victim jumped in an apparent su***de from the LRT onto the passing vehicle driven by Albert, who was just driving along the street without any inkling that a human body would fall upon his car? They argued that the driver was not negligent and innocent and the victim was at fault when he jumped or fell from the LRT station.
Is it legal for the police investigator to arrest Albert under a warrantless arrest? Is Albert illegally detained even if he appears to be innocent? Some also say, “While Albert dragged him after the fall, he should not be faulted for the victim's death because he did not bump him either intentionally or recklessly?”
To answer those intriguing questions, let us educate ourselves about the issue of LEGAL WARRANTLESS ARREST, INQUEST PROCEEDINGS, AND THE POSSIBLE CRIME COMMITTED.
LEGAL WARRANTLESS ARREST:
Under Rule 113, Sec. 5, of the Rule on Criminal Procedure, there are three grounds whereby a police officer or even a private person may arrest a suspect without warrants of arrest. (1) ARREST IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO. (2) HOT PURSUIT ARREST and (3) ARREST OF ESCAPED PRISONER.
This case of Albert may be an arrest under HOT PURSUIT and not Arrest in Flagrante Delicto because he was not caught in the act by the arresting officer. The latter may have arrived at the scene after the incident occurred. They did not personally see in their presence the victim being dragged by the car of Albert. If they did see it, it is arrest in flagrante delicto.
If it is hot pursuit, the police may arrest Albert because the offense has just been committed and they have probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested (Albert) has committed it.
They could easily identify that it was Albert who caused his death because the subject car and the lifeless victim were there. Thus, the police are legally justified in arresting Albert because, under the circumstances, his car dragged the body of the victim to death.
But the victim jumps or falls from the LRT onto the car of Albert. It is not the authority of the police to determine who was at fault or culpable but the prosecutor who will conduct the inquest. The SOP for the investigator is to investigate the incident and arrest persons whom they believe to be responsible for the death. Thus, the investigator may file the case to the prosecutor for inquest proceeding while detaining the suspect. It cannot be said that when a person is arrested and brought to prosecutor's for inquest, it necessarily follows that he would be charged.
The arresting officer has no discretion to release the driver if, in his judgement and based on the facts, the respondent arrested has committed a crime. The power us given by law to the inquest prosecutor to indict or charge the suspect or to release the latter, if the circumstances warrant.
WHAT IS AN INQUEST PROCEEDING?
“It is an informal and summary investigation conducted by a prosecutor or other officers allowed by law, in cases involving persons arrested and detained without the benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the purpose of determining whether said persons should remain in custody and correspondingly be charged in court. E-inquest, as an alternative, is the conduct of inquest through videoconferencing using the appropriate ICT.”(Sec. 12, DOJ Circular, July 8, 2024)
THE NEW PROCEDURE: (SEC. 13, DOJ Circular, July 8, 2024)
“(a) The inquest proceeding is initiated by the filing of the original of the referral letter including two (2) duplicate copies for official file and such number of copies as there are respondents, prepared by the law enforcement agency (LEA) or by a private citizen who arrested a person without a warrant of arrest to the docket section of the prosecution office, within the applicable period under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended: twelve (12) hours for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties or their equivalent, eighteen (18) hours for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties or their equivalent, or thirty-six (36) hours for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties or their equivalent. X X X
The referral letter shall include all the required evidence (affidavit of arrest, investigation report, complaint-affidavit, or judicial affidavit, among others).
(b) The docket section shall then immediately forward the referral to the head of the prosecution office or his/her designated prosecutor, who shall provisionally determine the validity of the warrantless arrest for purposes of ascertaining whether the person detained should remain in custody and be charged with the crime for which he/she was arrested without a warrant.
Should the warrantless arrest be valid, the referral shall be evaluated for completeness of the required evidence that will establish the elements of the crime/offense and the availability of testimonial, real/object, and documentary evidence. Only referrals determined to be complete shall be docketed and assigned to an inquest prosecutor. If incomplete, the referring LEA or the arresting private citizen shall be required to submit the lacking evidence within the applicable period under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Once completed, the case shall be docketed for inquest. Should the LEA or the private citizen concerned fail to submit the required evidence within the applicable period under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the arrested person shall be ordered released and the records returned to the referring LEA or, in the case of a citizen's arrest, be referred to the nearest LEA that exercises jurisdiction over the place where the crime, offense, or violation of ordinance was committed for the possible refiling of the complaint. Should the prosecution office determine that the warrantless arrest was invalid, the arrested person shall be ordered released.
(c) During the inquest proceeding, the prosecutor shall ensure that the respondent is represented by counsel and that the said counsel has received the referral and its attachments.
The inquest prosecutor shall explain to the arrested person the nature of the proceedings, the charges against him/her, and his/her option to avail himself/herself of his/her right to a preliminary investigation. Thereafter, the inquest prosecutor shall administer the oath for all the affiants and, whenever necessary, conduct a clarificatory questioning to clarify factual issues.
(d) If the respondent opts for the conduct of a preliminary investigation, he/she shall be required to sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of counsel. Notwithstanding the said waiver, the respondent may apply for bail, and the investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) calendar days from its inception.
(e) The inquest prosecutor shall immediately resolve the case, discussing the following matters: (1) provisional determination regarding the validity of the warrantless arrest and (2) the existence of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction. The prosecutor shall prepare the information, when applicable.”
THE CRIME OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING IN HOMICIDE.
Under Philippine criminal law, there are two ways or manners by which a felony (crimes under RPC) may be committed: by means of DOLO (intent) and CULPA (fault) (Art. 3, RPC)
Intentional felony when the act is malicious or performed with deliberate intent. In culpable felony, there is no intention to cause injury to another, but the wrongful acts result from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
There is no question that intentional felony must be punished. But why is culpable felony punishable? Man must use his common sense and exercise due reflection on all his acts. It is his duty to be cautious, careful, and prudent; if not from instinct, then through fear of incurring criminal liability.
In this reflection, I shall discuss this culpable felony arising from imprudence and negligence under Art. 365 of RPC, which is called a crime of RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE.
What is reckless imprudence? It 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. (Art. 365, RPC)
What is simple imprudence? It consists of the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest. (Art. 365, RPC)
ELEMENTS OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE OR NEGLIGENCE.
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 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.
2. That the damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest.
THE PENALTY OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE:
Article 365 punishes a person who, by RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE, shall commit any act that, if it had been intentional, would constitute:
a) GRAVE FELONY—the penalty is ARRESTO MAYOR in its maximum period to PRISION CORRECTIONAL in its medium period. (From 4 months to 4 years)
b) LESS GRAVE FELONY—the penalty is ARRESTO MAYOR in its minimum period and medium periods. (1 month to 4 months)
c) LIGHT FELONY—the penalty is ARRESTO MENOR in its maximum period. (21 days to 30 days)
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE:
Pedro was driving his motor vehicle along Aguinaldo Highway, and while texting his friend, he bumped Berto, causing his instantaneous death.
Pedro here may be held liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide because he voluntarily, without malice, caused the death of Berto by reason of his inexcusable lack of precaution, such as texting while driving.
The penalty is Arresto Mayor, with a maximum period of prison correctional medium period, because, had it been intentional, he could have committed homicide, which is a grave felony.
IF THE ACT RESULTED ONLY IN DAMAGE TO PROPERTY OF ANOTHER –
The offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value, but which shall in no case be less than 5,000 pesos for RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE. There is no prison term here.
A fine not exceeding P40,000 pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE or negligence, shall cause some wrong that, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.
NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF ART. 365.
The provisions contained in this article 365 SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE, as follows:
"1. When the penalty provided for the offense (If Intentional) is equal to or lower than those provided in the first two (2) paragraphs of this article, in which case the court shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be imposed in the period that they may deem proper to apply."
"2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, the death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendant shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.”
RULES WHEN, BY REASON OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE, THERE IS INJURY OR DAMAGE TO PERSONS AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY AT THE SAME TIME.
According to the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of FRANCIS MORALES vs. PEOPLE, G.R No. 240337, JAN 04, 2022, En Banc, the following shall be observed.
1. The third paragraph of Art 365 applies to the resulting damage to property, and an additional penalty shall be imposed on the resulting injury to a person. The “additional penalty” pertains to the penalty scheme under Article 365.
2. If there is only damage to property, the amount fixed therein shall be imposed, but if there are also physical injuries, there should be an additional penalty for the latter.
3. The information cannot be split into two, one for the physical injuries, and another for the damage to property, for both the injuries and the damage committed were caused by one single act of the defendant and constitute what may be called a complex crime of physical injuries and damage to property.
4. That the third paragraph of Article 365 (DAMAGE TO PROPERTY ONLY) applies even if the imprudent or negligent act resulted not only in damage to property but also in damage to persons, in which case an additional penalty for the latter shall be imposed aside from a fine.
5. The MeTCs, MTCs, MCTCs, and MTCCs have exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal negligence cases which results to damage to property, regardless of the imposable fine.
6. Application of Article 48 of the RPC is forbidden to QUASI-OFFENSES and their resultant acts/effects preserves the conceptual distinction between quasi-crimes and intentional felonies under the RPC.
7. Article 48 does not apply to quasi-offenses under Article 365 because reckless imprudence is a distinct crime and not a mere way of committing a crime. Simple or reckless imprudence does not strictly fall under the term “felonies” or acts or omissions committed by fault or culpa.
8. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided in the first two (2) paragraphs of this article, in which case the court shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be imposed in the period which they may deem proper to apply. (See: Art. 71, Graduation of Penalties)
9. When the reckless act “resulted in damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three (3) times such value, but which shall in no case be less than Five Thousand pesos (P5,000.00).”
10. The first-level courts (MTC) have exclusive jurisdiction over acts penalized under Art. 365 of the RPC.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE OF THE SAID PRINCIPLES:
Albert was driving his motor vehicle along EDSA, and by reason of his negligence, he bumped a biker, causing him injury that required 5 days of medical attendance and also damage to the bike valued at P20,000.
What is the crime committed by Albert? If Albert is found guilty, what would be the penalty to be imposed against him?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by Albert is RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING to SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURY and RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING to DAMAGE TO PROPERTY.
According to the first paragraph of Art. 365, (RPC) the penalty for reckless imprudence, had it been intentional, resulted in slight physical injuries; the penalty is for light felony, which is arresto menor in its maximum period, with a duration of 21 to 30 days.
If the offense of slight physical injuries is, however, committed deliberately or with malice, it is penalized with arresto menor under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code, with a duration of 1 day to 30 days. Plainly, the penalty then under Article 266 may be either lower than or equal to the penalty prescribed under the first paragraph of Article 365.
This being the case, the exception in the sixth paragraph of Article 365 applies. Hence, the proper penalty for reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries is PUBLIC CENSURE, this being the penalty next lower in degree to arresto menor. (Art. 71, RPC)
On the other hand, on the liability of ALBERT in the Reckless Imprudence in Damage to Property, the court may impose the punishment of a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages or P20,000 to three times such value and civil damages to the victim..
According to the Francis Morales case, there should only be a SINGLE INFORMATION for both crimes. It cannot be split because it is caused by one single act of the offender, which may constitute what may be called a complex crime of physical injuries and damage to property. It shall be filed and heard by the MTC because, by law, it is reckless.
Imprudence resulting in damage to property through criminal negligence shall be filed and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC .
Hence, the MeTCs, MTCs, MCTCs, and MTCCs have exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal negligence cases which results to damage to property, regardless of the imposable fine. (R.A. 7691). Finally, if there is only damage to property, the amount fixed therein shall be imposed, but if there are also physical injuries, there should be an additional penalty for the latter.
SUMMARY:
In the Morales case, it now declares that:
(1) Article 48 does not apply to quasi-offenses under Article 365;
(2) the jurisdiction lies with the MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs, with certain exceptional circumstances under the law, in which cases, jurisdiction lie with the RTC; and
(3) the penalties under Article 365 are clear, paragraph 3 is still applicable even if the quasi-offense likewise results in physical injuries only with an additional penalty.
CONLUSION:
Going back to the issue of Albert for the death of the victim who jumped or fell from the LRT station, it is clear that Allbert is not guilty of Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide because Albert did not do an act that caused the death of the victim arising from an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of Albert taking into consideration the circumstances regarding person, time, and place.
The victim fell from above or jumped onto his car or road, causing his death. Albert did not bump him and did not foresee that he would fall in that area for him to avoid him. The fault or recklessness was not on the part of Albert . Albert did not even have contributory negligence, for he was operating his car with care in a manner under a normal condition. In fact, Albert may claim the exempting circumstance of ACCIDENT under Art 12, par. 4 of the RPC, which states that any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
For an accident to be an exempting circumstance, the act of the offender must be lawful. Likewise, there must be no recklessness, fault, or negligence on the one claiming accident.
Thus, to be liable for reckless imprudence, it consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do, without malice, an act from which material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution for the person performing or failing to perform such act.
If I were the inquest fiscal, I would order his immediate release from jail after determining the invalidity of his warrantless arrest or even dismiss the case for lack of prima facie evidence with reasonable certainty of conviction for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
ART. 365 OF THE RPC SHOULD BE AMENDED.
Lastly, many of our netizens could not understand how our law operates. Many are wondering why the driver was arrested and detained to be subjected to inquest proceedings when it is clear that it was the deceased who fell and damaged his car. Under our law, since someone died in the accident, the disputable presumption is that the driver is presumed negligent. I therefore suggest that Art. 365 of the RPC on Imprudence and Negligence should be AMENDED to provide PRESUMPTION OF CULPABILITY.
I agree with House Bill No. 4769 authored by Rep. Jonathan Flores in his proposed bill, “Philippine Responsible Driving and Accountability Act” to give the person in authority or law enforcer who is first at the scene of the incident the authority to determine the presumption of negligence and culpability.
For example, if the driver flees or attempts to flee from the scene of the incident or under the influence of liquor or does not have a driver's license, the driver shall be presumed negligent. On the other hand, the driver shall not be presumed negligent if the victim was intoxicated or under the influence of drugs or was jaywalking, or the driver was suffering a medical emergency such as a heart attack, stroke, or other shock.
If these amendments are incorporated, we will avoid the situation where the innocent driver will be sued in court or arrested or jailed for a crime he did not commit.
