01:01.0
On the other hand, an omission is a failure to act or a failure to perform a duty which,
01:08.1
if not performed, is punishable by law.
01:12.1
For example, a jail warden who delays the release of a prisoner after being ordered by
01:18.3
the court commits the crime of delaying release under Article 126 of the revised penal code.
01:25.8
The omission here is the jail warden's failure to perform a duty prescribed by law.
01:34.8
But an act or omission cannot be considered a crime if there is no law punishing it.
01:41.4
In other words, there is no crime when there is no law punishing the act or omission.
01:50.7
The law that punishes an act or omission is called a penal law.
01:57.4
What then is a penal law?
02:00.5
A penal law defines criminal offenses and provides a specific punishment for them.
02:07.4
It has three essential elements.
02:11.2
The first element is it defines crimes.
02:15.2
Second, it treats of their nature.
02:18.0
And third, it provides for their punishment.
02:23.8
Now, the punishment can be in the form of either a fine, meaning pagbayad ng multa,
02:30.2
or imprisonment, pagkabilanggo, or both such imprisonment and fine.
02:37.0
The question now comes to mind, is reckless driving a crime?
02:42.7
Reckless driving is defined under Section 48, Article 5 of Republic Act 4136,
02:49.7
otherwise known as the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, as follows.
02:55.0
Ito po yung provision ng reckless driving.
02:58.6
No person shall operate a motor vehicle on any highway recklessly or without reasonable caution,
03:06.1
considering the width, traffic, grades, crossing, curvatures, visibility,
03:11.8
and other conditions of the highway and the conditions of the atmosphere and weather,
03:16.9
or so as to endanger the property or the safety or rights of any person,
03:21.8
or so as to cause excessive or unreasonable damage to the highway.
03:27.4
Now, reckless driving is a crime because it is an act that produces an effect in the external
03:34.0
world in violation of a penal law.
03:38.3
Let me give you an example.
03:41.1
X, who was in a hurry to go home, was driving his car more than the speed limit.
03:47.4
Aside from driving more than the speed limit, the visibility of the highway was not clear,
03:52.7
the visibility of the highway was not clear, so much so that he almost hit Y,
03:58.9
who was crossing the highway.
04:01.8
X then lost control of the vehicle and tried to hit on the brakes.
04:06.7
However, the vehicle instead swerved and fell onto a canal.
04:12.2
When the police arrived at the place of incident to investigate,
04:16.3
they found skid marks on the highway indicating that X drove more than the allowable speed,
04:23.7
and thereafter, they interviewed Y, who told them that he was almost hit by the car of X.
04:30.6
Here, you can see that even if there was no injury or death to persons or damage to property,
04:40.5
the crime of reckless driving is still produced because the driving of X endangered
04:50.2
the safety of Y when Y attempted to cross the highway.
04:58.4
Here, X is criminally liable for reckless driving under Section 48 because, as I said,
05:05.4
he drove his car on a highway recklessly that endangered the safety of Y.
05:14.5
Is it required under Section 48 that there should be an injury to persons or property
05:20.2
as a result of reckless driving?
05:23.8
The answer is no.
05:25.3
Section 48 merely requires that the driver operates the motor vehicle recklessly or
05:31.7
without reasonable caution that endangers the property or the safety or rights of any person.
05:39.3
Nothing in the said provision states that there should be injury or damage to any person
05:45.4
or of the property of the said person.
05:48.5
Merely endangering the safety or property of any person is enough to constitute the violation.
05:58.2
What is, therefore, the penalty for reckless driving?
06:02.6
Section 56, Letters L and M, Article 1, Chapter 5 of RA 4136 provides that a penalty of fine of
06:14.1
not less than 10 nor more than 50 pesos shall be imposed on the offender and that in the event
06:22.0
that the offender cannot pay the said fine, he shall be made to undergo subsidiary imprisonment
06:28.7
as provided for in the revised penal code.
06:34.2
What is the nature of this penalty of fine in Section 56, Letters L and M?
06:41.0
It is clearly in the nature of a criminal penalty because of the provision on subsidiary
06:46.6
imprisonment in case of failure to pay the fine.
06:50.8
Section 48, in relation to Section 56, Letters L and M, is, therefore, a penal provision because
06:58.6
it defines a crime, treats of its nature, and provides for its punishment.
07:06.5
Now, who imposes the penalty of subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay the
07:12.6
fine? Is it the Land Transportation Office? The answer is, no. Only the court can impose
07:20.2
the penalty of subsidiary imprisonment in case the convicted offender is unable to pay the fine.
07:28.5
Now, since it is only the court that can impose the penalty of fine and subsidiary imprisonment
07:35.3
in case of failure to pay the same, it follows that a case must first be filed in court
07:41.5
to prove the guilt of the offender in reckless driving.
07:48.3
How does the court categorize reckless driving? Is it a civil case, an administrative case,
07:58.6
or a criminal case? Under the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts
08:06.1
approved by the Supreme Court on March 1, 2022, and which took effect on April 11,
08:13.3
2022, the Supreme Court clearly categorizes violations of traffic laws,
08:20.1
rules, and regulations under the category of criminal cases to be governed by the Rules
08:26.7
on Summary Procedure. Another question, is reckless driving a violation of traffic laws,
08:35.8
rules, and regulations? The answer is, yes. Section 48 on reckless driving is categorized
08:43.5
under miscellaneous traffic rules in Article 5 of RA 4136. Other miscellaneous traffic rules
08:52.2
include right-of-way for police and other emergency vehicles under Section 49, tampering
08:58.7
with vehicles under Section 50, hitching to a vehicle under Section 51, driving or parking
09:05.2
on a sidewalk under Section 52, driving while under the influence of liquor or narcotic drug
09:10.6
under Section 53, obstruction of traffic under Section 54, and duty of driver in case of accident
09:17.8
under Section 55. Reckless driving, therefore, is a crime under Section 48 of RA 4136,
09:28.5
and that any case filed in court pursuant thereto is categorized as a criminal case
09:35.1
under the Rules approved by the Supreme Court and Bank.
09:38.9
Section, if injury or death or damage to property is caused to another person
09:49.3
or of his property because of the recklessness of the driver, will the crime still be reckless
09:55.2
driving? The answer is, no more. The offender this time will be liable for the felony of
10:03.1
reckless imprudence resulting in physical injury or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
10:09.8
or damage to property as the case may be, as defined and penalized under Article 365 of the
10:16.8
revised Penal Code as amended. Do not be confused between reckless driving as a crime under Section
10:26.1
48 of RA 4136 and reckless imprudence as a felony under Article 365 of the revised Penal Code.
10:37.2
Reckless driving, by itself, is a punishable act even if it does not cause injury or death
10:44.4
to persons or damage to property. Reckless imprudence, on the other hand, is a culpable
10:51.8
felony. Now, imprudence, as defined, is a deficiency of action in avoiding an injury
10:59.8
due to lack of skill. It implies a failure in precaution or a failure to take the necessary
11:07.2
precaution once the danger or peril becomes foreseen. It becomes a felony only when it
11:15.0
results in injury or death to persons or damage to property.
11:23.0
Example of Reckless Imprudence
11:26.4
X was following Y's vehicle on the highway. As X was in a hurry to get to his destination,
11:33.8
he attempted to overtake Y's vehicle by traversing on the opposite lane,
11:38.9
which happens to be traversed by Z, who was then driving his motorcycle
11:44.3
in the opposite direction. As a result, X hit Z's motorcycle, resulting in the death of Z.
11:55.0
Here, X clearly failed to take the necessary precaution in seeing to it that the opposite
12:01.8
lane was free of oncoming motor vehicles before attempting to overtake Y's vehicle.
12:10.9
Now, let's go to another topic. I am talking about the case of People v. Marlon Cristobal,
12:17.7
GR No. 234207, dated June 10, 2019. The question is, does this case of People v. Marlon Cristobal
12:28.3
prove that reckless driving is not a crime?
12:33.9
Let us first go through the facts of the case.
12:38.2
Cristobal was charged for illegal possession of dangerous drugs
12:42.7
in the Regional Trial Court. According to the police, Cristobal was plugged down at a checkpoint
12:48.9
for not wearing a helmet. He also failed to show the Certificate of Registration and the OR
12:56.1
of the motorcycle he was riding or driving. While the police officer was preparing the
13:01.8
traffic citation ticket, Cristobal allegedly ran away but the other police officers were able to
13:09.8
apprehend him. He was brought back to the checkpoint where he was searched for
13:14.8
deadly weapons but nothing was found. However, the police noticed that Cristobal's pocket was
13:21.6
bulging and ordered him to remove the object from his pocket which was a small plastic bag.
13:29.0
When the police opened the same, they found seven plastic sachets containing white
13:34.3
crystalline substance which turned out to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or more
13:40.4
popularly known as shabu. The RTC convicted him of the charge. According to the RTC,
13:50.5
the search made on Cristobal was justified under this TAP and FISC rule.
13:57.3
On appeal in the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Cristobal.
14:07.0
On appeal in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, however, acquitted Cristobal. The reasons
14:13.9
cited by the Supreme Court in acquitting Cristobal are as follows.
14:21.0
First, there was no valid search incidental to a lawful arrest. There was no arrest to speak of
14:28.0
because the violations committed by Cristobal are both punishable only by a fine. Take note
14:36.3
that the fine under RA10054 otherwise known as the Motorcycle Helmet Act of 2009 is in the
14:44.3
nature of a criminal penalty while the fine under LTO Department Order No. 2008-39
14:52.7
is in the nature of an administrative penalty.
14:56.5
There being no lawful arrest, the sachets of shabu were discovered through an unlawful search
15:03.9
and thereby inadmissible in evidence against Cristobal.
15:11.0
Now, the Supreme Court further said that the case of Cristobal is strikingly similar to the case
15:16.6
of Luz v. Pipol. In the said case, the Supreme Court likewise acquitted the petitioner because
15:23.9
the failure to wear a helmet under a city ordinance or penalized under a city ordinance
15:32.6
is punishable only by a fine. Now, under the rules of court, a warrant of arrest need not be issued
15:41.1
if the information or charge was filed for an offense penalized by a fine only. It may be
15:49.2
stated as a corollary that neither can a warrantless arrest be made for such an offense.
15:56.8
Now, the SC also stated that neither could the search on Cristobal be justified
16:03.8
as a valid stop and frisk search. However, we will no longer discuss it here
16:09.1
because it has no bearing to the question of whether or not reckless driving is a crime.
16:14.1
Now, does the Cristobal case prove that reckless driving is not a crime? The answer is
16:25.4
no. Why? First, the case is about the illegal search made on Cristobal that led to his acquittal
16:36.6
of the drug charges. It does not talk about reckless driving and whether or not reckless
16:43.1
driving is a crime. Second, there was no lawful arrest to speak of not because section 7 of RA
16:52.9
10054 is not a crime but because the violation imposes only a criminal penalty or fine.
17:02.6
To reiterate what the Supreme Court said in Cristobal, a warrant of arrest need not be issued
17:09.1
in the case of a person who violates a penal law that imposes only a penalty or fine.
17:17.2
Neither can a warrantless arrest be made for such an offense.
17:23.9
Third, it is wrong to say that it is not a crime when the law imposes only a penalty or fine.
17:32.5
In criminal law, it is basic knowledge that punishment for a crime can be either a fine
17:39.6
or imprisonment or both such imprisonment and fine.
17:47.4
And fourth, nothing in the Cristobal case states that a traffic violation is not a crime. To
17:55.2
reiterate, violations of traffic laws, rules, and regulations are categorized as
18:01.9
criminal cases governed by the rules on expedited procedures in the first-level courts.
18:09.3
This was approved by the Supreme Court on March 1, 2022,
18:14.5
and which took effect only recently on April 11, 2022.
18:20.9
The assertion, therefore, that the Cristobal case proves that reckless driving is not a crime
18:30.4
or that a traffic violation is not a crime is highly erroneous.
18:37.0
If reckless driving is really a crime, why is there no case in the court?
18:42.6
There are two types of fines for reckless driving, administrative and criminal.
18:49.8
The LTO does not enforce the criminal aspect of the violation because the fine is too small
18:56.9
as stated in Section 56 Letter L of RA 4136, from P10 to P50 only.
19:05.9
Will you file a criminal case if you know that the penalty is this small?
19:11.4
Very impractical na po.
19:14.2
Which explains why walang nakakasuhan ng reckless driving sa korte.
19:18.9
Pero hindi ibig sabihin na hindi na nag-iexist ang reckless driving as a crime.
19:25.8
Hanggang hindi pa ito narirepeal, it continues to be a crime under Section 48
19:32.3
in relation to Section 56 Letters L and M of RA 4136.
19:38.9
Samantalang, ang administrative fine for reckless driving under DOTC
19:44.8
Administrative Order No. 2014-01 ay P2,000 for the first offense, P3,000 for the second offense,
19:53.9
and P10,000 for the subsequent offense.
19:57.2
So you can see now the difference between the fines as imposed under Section 56
20:02.9
and the fine imposed under the said DOTC order.
20:07.3
In addition to the said administrative fine na ini-imposed ng DOTC through the LTO,
20:15.0
the driver's license shall likewise be suspended for a period of three months
20:20.1
pag second offense na, and six months suspension for the third offense.
20:25.9
But after the third offense, revocation na po ng driver's license.
20:30.4
Revocation na po ng driver's license.
20:34.7
Now, how is this administrative fine enforced?
20:40.0
Suppose X is flagged down for reckless driving.
20:43.4
The LTO enforcer will issue a Temporary Operator's Permit or TOP to X
20:49.8
after which his driver's license will be confiscated.
20:54.5
Take note that the TOP is actually a ticket issued to a driver
20:59.3
apprehended by the LTO for violating traffic rules.
21:03.4
It serves as the driver's temporary license for three days
21:07.9
before the driver claims his license from the LTO.
21:13.3
Now, if X admits his violation, meaning hindi na po niya ikokontest,
21:20.1
yung reckless driving, there is a procedure and submission of some requirements
21:25.0
that he must comply in order to settle and pay the violation.
21:31.1
But if X contests the violation,
21:34.4
he can file a written protest within five days from the date of apprehension.
21:41.0
The failure to file a written protest shall be considered as an admitted violation,
21:46.6
and admitted violations shall be immediately executory po.
21:52.9
So, makikita niyo dito na merong due process na sinusunod ang LTO
22:00.1
before they will impose or collect the administrative fine.
22:07.0
Ano ba ang legal basis ng DOTC sa kanilang authority to impose administrative fines?
22:16.1
This authority po is based on Executive Order No. 125 and Executive Order No. 292,
22:23.4
otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, which states the power of the DOTC
22:30.6
to establish and prescribe the corresponding rules and regulations
22:34.9
for the enforcement of laws governing land transportation services,
22:39.4
including the penalties for violations thereof.
22:44.4
So, yan po ang discussion natin about reckless driving.
22:47.6
I hope hindi na po makonfuse ang mga viewers kung ano ba talaga ang nature ng reckless driving.
22:54.6
And it is my stand that reckless driving is a crime under Section 48
23:01.5
in relation to Section 56, Letters L and M of RA 4136.
