I. Overview: What Article 365 Is All About

Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) governs criminal negligence, known in Philippine law as imprudence or negligence (culpa). It covers situations where a person, without intent to cause harm, nevertheless causes death, physical injuries, or damage to property because of a lack of proper care, prudence, or foresight.

Key points about Article 365:

It creates quasi-offenses, distinct from intentional felonies (like homicide, damage to property, etc.).
The essence of the crime is the negligent act itself, not the resulting injury or damage, although the result determines the penalty.
It applies to injury to persons, damage to property, or both, as long as the result would have been a felony if done with intent.
It is frequently invoked in traffic accidents, workplace incidents, construction mishaps, and other accidents.

Article 365, as amended (notably by Republic Act No. 10951), provides a detailed scheme of penalties that vary depending on:

Whether the negligence is reckless or merely simple; and
The gravity of the resulting harm (death, serious physical injuries, less serious, slight injuries, or purely property damage).

II. Legal Nature of Reckless Imprudence

1. Quasi-offense, not just a “reduced” version of intentional crimes

Reckless imprudence is a separate and distinct offense, not merely a lower-degree version of homicide, physical injuries, or malicious mischief. The Supreme Court has repeatedly described Article 365 as “sui generis”—a special kind of crime:

The focus is on the negligent or imprudent conduct.
The law punishes dangerous behavior that falls short of the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent person.

Thus, if a driver runs over a pedestrian because he was speeding and using his phone, the charge is “reckless imprudence resulting in homicide” (or physical injuries), not simply “homicide” in a lower degree.

2. The “single negligent act, single offense” doctrine

A very important doctrinal point: a single act of negligence that results in multiple consequences (e.g., one death, several injuries, and property damage) constitutes only one quasi-offense under Article 365.

So, if one accident kills one person, injures two others, and damages three vehicles, there is one offense of reckless imprudence, not several separate crimes. This has implications for:

Filing of charges (there should be only one information for that negligent act), and
Double jeopardy (a prior conviction or acquittal for reckless imprudence based on the same negligent act bars subsequent prosecutions under Article 365 arising from the same act).

However, if there are distinct negligent acts at different times, these are separate offenses.

III. Reckless vs. Simple Imprudence

Article 365 distinguishes between two levels of negligence:

1. Reckless imprudence

Reckless imprudence involves:

An “inexcusable lack of precaution”;
The danger to life or property is clearly manifest and serious; and
The offender fails to take the most basic precautions that any reasonable person would under the circumstances.

Common examples:

Driving at high speed in a crowded area.
Overtaking on a blind curve.
Handling firearms carelessly in a populated area.
Operating heavy machinery while obviously unfit (drunk, extremely tired, etc.).

The law treats reckless imprudence as the more serious form of negligent behavior, and it carries heavier penalties.

2. Simple imprudence

Simple imprudence is present when:

There is a lack of precaution that is not as gross or inexcusable,
The danger is not so imminent, or
The circumstances admit that the person may have misjudged the situation but not in a flagrantly careless way.

Example: momentary inattention or miscalculation in ordinary driving that causes minor damage or injury, but without obvious recklessness.

Why this matters: For the same result (e.g., slight physical injuries or property damage), the penalty for reckless imprudence is higher than for simple imprudence.

IV. Elements of Reckless Imprudence Causing Injury or Property Damage

To secure a conviction for reckless imprudence under Article 365, the prosecution must generally prove:

An act or omission: The accused performed an act or failed to perform a duty (e.g., failed to stop at a red light, failed to secure a construction site, etc.).
Voluntariness of the act/omission: The act was voluntary (he chose to drive, he operated the machine, etc.), though without malice or intent to cause the specific harm.
Inexcusable lack of precaution:
- Judged in relation to:
  - The person’s duty,
  - His occupation,
  - His degree of intelligence, and
  - His physical condition, and
- Considering the circumstances of time and place.
Resulting harm:
- Death (homicide, parricide, etc. if intentional), or
- Serious, less serious, or slight physical injuries, or
- Damage to property.
Causal connection:
- The negligent act or omission must be the proximate cause of the harm.
- Proximate cause: that cause which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
That the act would have constituted a felony if done maliciously:
- E.g., if intentional, the act would be homicide, serious physical injuries, or malicious mischief.

If any of these is missing (for example, if the result was purely accidental with no negligence at all), Article 365 does not apply.

V. Scope: Types of Harm Covered

Article 365 applies to negligent acts that would constitute any felony if done deliberately. In practice, the most common are:

1. Death (Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide)

The negligent act leads to the death of a person.
If the same act, done with intent, would be homicide or a related felony (parricide, murder).

Example: A driver, speeding and texting, runs over a pedestrian who dies.

2. Physical Injuries

Depending on the result, the charge may be:

Reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries
Reckless imprudence resulting in less serious physical injuries
Reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries

The classification follows the rules in the RPC on physical injuries (e.g., the period of illness/incapacity, deformity, loss of use of an organ, etc.), but the underlying fault is negligence, not intent.

3. Damage to Property

Article 365 also punishes damage to property alone caused by reckless imprudence.
Typical example: traffic collisions causing vehicle damage, hitting a fence or building, etc.

Even if no one is injured, the negligent damage to property can be criminally punishable, subject to thresholds and penalty adjustments set by law.

4. Combined Injury and Property Damage

It is common for a single negligent act (like a road accident) to cause both injury and damage to property.
As mentioned earlier, this is treated as one offense of reckless imprudence, and the penalty is generally based on the most serious consequence (typically death or serious injuries).

VI. Penalties Under Article 365 (General Structure)

Article 365 sets out a special penalty structure, separate from the usual “two degrees lower” rule for intentional felonies.

Key features:

Reckless imprudence typically carries higher penalties than simple imprudence for the same result.
Penalties are scaled according to:
- The gravity of the felony that would have existed had the act been intentional (grave, less grave, light felony), and
- The actual consequence (death, serious injuries, slight injuries, property damage).
For profession-related cases (e.g., doctors, engineers, drivers whose occupation involves risk), negligent acts may be punished more severely, including suspension or disqualification from the exercise of a profession or calling.
Monetary thresholds and imprisonment ranges:
- The precise fines and thresholds for property damage and the corresponding arresto/prisión ranges have been updated by later laws (notably RA 10951).
- In practice, courts refer to the amended text to determine the exact penalty based on:
  - The amount of damage,
  - Whether death or injury occurred, and
  - Whether the imprudence is reckless or simple.

Because these numbers have been adjusted over time, lawyers and judges normally consult the latest official text when computing exact penalties in a given case.

VII. Defenses, Mitigating, and Aggravating Circumstances

Just like in other criminal cases, the general doctrines on criminal liability and circumstances under the RPC apply.

1. Defenses

Common defenses in reckless imprudence cases include:

Absence of negligence:
- Showing that the accused exercised the diligence of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.
- Example: the accident was genuinely unavoidable (e.g., sudden mechanical failure not due to lack of maintenance, sudden medical emergency, unexpected behavior of a third party).
Lack of proximate cause:
- The negligent act did not directly cause the injury/damage.
- There was an independent, efficient intervening cause that broke the causal chain.
Compliance with law/procedures:
- Accused fully complied with traffic rules, professional protocols, safety standards, etc., and the incident still occurred due to causes beyond his control.
Mistake of fact + care:
- A mistaken belief that was reasonable under the circumstances, combined with proper precaution.

2. Contributory Negligence of the Victim

The negligence of the injured party (e.g., a pedestrian suddenly crossing where prohibited, a passenger hanging from a jeepney) does not completely absolve the accused from criminal liability, but it may mitigate his liability.
For civil liability, contributory negligence of the victim can reduce damages.

3. Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances

Standard circumstances under the RPC apply, such as:

Mitigating:
- Voluntary surrender, plea of guilty.
- Minority, incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances.
- Contributory negligence of the victim considered as a circumstance in imposing penalty.
Aggravating:
- Prior convictions of similar negligent offenses.
- Commission of negligence in a manner that endangers many people (e.g., in a school zone, heavily populated area).
- Use of a motor vehicle or professionalism in a dangerous manner.

The court may consider these in determining whether to impose the penalty in its minimum, medium, or maximum periods, and whether to add accessory penalties, such as suspension from driving or professional practice if authorized by law.

VIII. Civil Liability: Delict vs. Quasi-delict

A person liable under Article 365 incurs civil liability ex delicto, meaning civil liability arising from a crime (Articles 100–113, RPC). The victim (or heirs) can recover damages, including:

Actual damages (medical expenses, repair costs, burial expenses),
Moral damages,
Exemplary damages (in appropriate cases),
Loss of earning capacity, etc.

However, under the Civil Code, the same negligent act may also constitute a quasi-delict (civil negligence) under Article 2176, giving rise to independent civil actions. Important points:

The offended party may choose to base his civil claim on:
- The criminal action (civil action deemed included in the criminal case), or
- An independent civil action for quasi-delict against the wrongdoer and possibly his employer.
Employer liability:
- Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, employers are presumed liable for damages caused by employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, unless they prove due diligence in selection and supervision.
- This is civil, not criminal, liability.
Effect of criminal judgment:
- An acquittal in the criminal case does not automatically extinguish civil liability if the court finds that the act or omission from which civil liability may arise actually existed, but did not constitute a crime (or guilt not proven beyond reasonable doubt).
- However, if the judgment explicitly states that the act did not exist, civil liability ex delicto is also extinguished.

IX. Interaction with Traffic Laws and Special Laws

Reckless imprudence often overlaps with special laws, especially in transport:

Land Transportation and Traffic Code (RA 4136) and related regulations define rules on reckless driving, speed limits, licensing, etc.
In road accidents, a driver may face:
- A charge under Article 365 (reckless imprudence resulting in homicide/physical injuries/property damage), and/or
- Administrative sanctions (license suspension/revocation),
- Violations of traffic regulations (e.g., disobedience to traffic signs).

Supreme Court rulings have clarified that reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a distinct quasi-offense, and prosecutions under this provision must consider the single negligent act–single offense rule, even when special laws are involved.

X. Procedural Aspects

1. Venue

The criminal case is generally filed in the place where the negligent act or omission occurred, or where the injury or damage was produced.

2. Who may file

Article 365 offenses are typically public crimes, prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines by the public prosecutor.
For minor offenses (e.g., light felonies), there may be procedural nuances (e.g., need for a complaint in certain cases), but reckless imprudence causing injury or significant property damage is typically treated as a public offense.

3. Prescription

The prescriptive periods (how long the State has to file the case) depend on whether the quasi-offense corresponds to a grave, less grave, or light felony, and the penalty actually imposable.
Since Article 365 uses its own penalties, the classification of the offense (grave/less grave/light) must be derived from the specific penalty applicable in the particular case (after considering amendments and thresholds).

4. Double Jeopardy

Because of the quasi-offense nature of Article 365:

Once the accused has been convicted, acquitted, or the case dismissed with his express consent for reckless imprudence arising from a particular negligent act, he cannot again be prosecuted for another charge under Article 365 based on the same negligent act, even if the earlier case involved, say, only property damage and a victim later died.
This protects against successive prosecutions for one negligent act, aligning with the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

XI. Illustrative Situations

Here are typical real-world scenarios where Article 365 is invoked, focusing on injury and property damage:

Traffic Collisions
- Driver runs a red light and hits a motorcycle. The rider suffers serious injuries, both vehicles are damaged. → Charge: reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries and damage to property (one quasi-offense).
Hit-and-Run
- Driver speeding in a residential area hits a pedestrian crossing properly, causing death, and flees. → Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (plus possible aggravating circumstances like leaving the scene, and administrative/other statutory violations).
Construction Negligence
- Construction firm fails to install proper barricades or safety nets; debris falls on a passing vehicle, injuring its occupants and damaging the car. → Responsible individuals (e.g., site engineer, foreman) may be charged with reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries and damage to property.
Industrial/Workplace Accidents
- Factory supervisor ignores safety protocols, operating machines without proper guards; worker suffers amputation of a limb. → Reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries, plus civil and possible administrative liability.

XII. Practical Takeaways

For practitioners, law students, and ordinary citizens, the key takeaways about reckless imprudence causing injury and property damage under Article 365 are:

Negligence can be criminal
- You don’t need to “intend” harm to face criminal liability; gross carelessness can be enough.
The more serious the result, the heavier the penalty
- Death and serious injuries drastically increase criminal exposure.
One negligent act = one quasi-offense
- All injuries and property damage from a single negligent act are generally covered by one charge under Article 365.
Profession and context matter
- Drivers, doctors, engineers, and others engaged in risky occupations are expected to exercise a higher standard of care; failure to do so can be deemed reckless.
Civil liability follows
- Beyond imprisonment and fines, offenders (and often their employers) may be liable for significant civil damages.
Stay updated on penalty amounts and thresholds
- While the legal structure and core doctrines of Article 365 are stable, the exact penalty ranges and monetary thresholds for damage to property and fines have been revised by legislation (e.g., RA 10951), so checking the latest official text is crucial in actual cases.

XIII. Conclusion

Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code is the backbone of Philippine criminal negligence law. It balances two important goals:

Protecting the public from dangerous, careless conduct that endangers life, limb, and property; and
Recognizing that lack of intent and the presence of mitigating circumstances may call for less severe punishment than intentional wrongdoing.

In the Philippine context—where road traffic, construction, and industrial activities are frequent sources of accidents—understanding reckless imprudence causing injury and property damage is essential not only for legal professionals, but also for drivers, employers, workers, and ordinary citizens who share public spaces and infrastructures every day.