14/02/2026
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide filed for the Respondent Sean Andrew Pajarillo is LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT to capture the true criminality of the acts involved in this case. The facts do not support a mere quasi-offense or negligence theory. They support intentional felony liability.
Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, reckless imprudence applies only when the act is not intentional and the harm results from carelessness, lack of foresight, or negligence. However, jurisprudence is clear that when an act is deliberate and conscious, Article 365 no longer applies. In such cases, the crime is classified as an intentional felony under Articles 3 and 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
In this case, the accused was intoxicated, driving at high speed, struck a parked vehicle, fled the scene, continued accelerating, hit Kingston Cheng, fled again, evaded police, and engaged in criminal flight behavior. These are not acts of simple carelessness. They demonstrate conscious disregard for human life and deliberate risk creation. This is not negligence; it is INTENTIONAL EXPOSURE OF OTHERS TO DEADLY HARM.
Legally, the act falls under the doctrine of dolus eventualis, or criminal intent through conscious risk-taking. When a person foresees that death is a possible consequence of his actions and still proceeds, intent is legally established. Driving while intoxicated, fleeing after a collision, and continuing to accelerate despite known danger constitutes acceptance of the risk of killing someone.
Under the Revised Penal Code, the proper charge supported by law and facts is MURDER under Article 248. All legal elements are present: a person was killed, the accused directly caused the death, and qualifying circumstances exist. A motor vehicle, when used as an instrument of violence, is legally recognized as a deadly instrument. The combination of drunk driving, flight, repeated reckless conduct, and police evasion shows evident disregard for human life, moral depravity, and inhumanity. These facts elevate the crime beyond homicide and support murder as the proper charge.
If the court adopts a more conservative interpretation, the fallback charge should be Homicide under Article 249, with multiple generic aggravating circumstances. These include intoxication, use of a motor vehicle, nighttime, flight, hit-and-run behavior, contempt of public authority through police evasion, and disregard of respect due to the victim. These aggravating circumstances significantly increase criminal liability and penalty.
In addition to the principal criminal charge, SEPARATE CRIMINAL CASES must be filed and must not be merged. These include violations of the Land Transportation Code for reckless driving and hit-and-run, violation of the Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Law (RA 10586), damage to property for the parked vehicle, resistance and disobedience to authority, and offenses related to public danger created during the chase.
The charge of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide is legally wrong. It minimizes criminal liability and mischaracterizes intent. The correct legal framing is Murder as the primary charge, Homicide as fallback, and multiple violations of special penal laws.
The ₱75,000 bail may be procedurally allowed only because the case was wrongly filed as reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, a negligence-based offense where bail is a matter of right. But in substance, it is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the acts and reflects a serious legal misclassification. Properly framed, the case supports homicide or murder, where bail is discretionary or not a right at all.
