“Wherefore, premises considered, the accused is hereby found guilty of the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of two years, one day to four years and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased the sum of ten thousand pesos by way of actual damages, fifty thousand pesos by way of moral damages, twenty thousand pesos by way of exemplary damages and five thousand pesos by way of attorney’s fees.” This is the dispositive portion of a decision rendered by a Municipal Trial Court in a case of homicide due to reckless imprudence.

When the decision was rendered, the only person who was smiling inside the courtroom was the accused. He knew that since the penalty imposed is less than six years and one day, he will not go to jail. He can apply and can qualify for probation. The offense for which he was convicted is probationable. With respect to the civil liability, he can always feign insolvency and avoid paying what was adjudged against him. No wonder, the conviction rendered against him, instead of being a dagger in the pursuance of justice, turned out to be good news for the accused. But, that is the law. No matter how harsh it may be, it is still the law.

On the other hand, the heirs of the deceased – the victims of the accused, felt unjustly treated by the decision that was handed against their tormentor. They complain that the death penalty is too low for a crime where a person has died. They assert that whether the death of their predecessor was due to an accident or due to premeditation, the accused must suffer in jail. Society, they insist, has no right to set a man free if he has taken the life of another. By reason of rage, their reasoning has been blinded to the truth that, in death due to imprudence cases, the penalty is much lower than in offenses where the intent to kill is clearly manifested.

As an officer of the law, I have sympathized with the sentiments of the victims in physical injuries or homicide cases through reckless imprudence. The penalty imposed for such cases is ridiculously low and non-commensurate to the act which is being penalized. I have witnessed instances when, in cases of drunk driving where a person is injured or killed, the intoxication is altogether waylaid and overlooked in imposing an aggravated penalty against the offender. It is no wonder that majority of our drivers have remained undisciplined. They remain bold and daring in their manner of driving, showing no fear if they disobey traffic rules and regulations, the appropriate sanction will be imposed against them. They know that the penalty to be imposed for their recklessness will not be too heavy a burden to prevent them from driving or to revoke their authority to operate a vehicle. Accidents, therefore, become merely passing fancies that may or may not be avoided. I am disturbed and perturbed by these turn of events.

I overheard a driver in a not too long ago conversation advising his companion that, “if you run over a person, it is better that you might as well take his life because, if he lives through his injuries, the expenses that will be charged against you will be more expensive.” Not a sound advice. But this is the primary line of thinking of some drivers. They would prefer their victim dead than alive. They can always invoke accident and easily escape the penalty of their devious scheme.

It is for this reason that our leaders should advocate harsher penalties for reckless imprudence cases. While it is true that accidents do happen, the lack of foresight to avoid such unfortunate incidents, is as much criminal as the deliberate intention to cause harm.

Most accidents are preventable if only proper sanctions are observed. For instance, there must be a law requiring motor vehicles to undergo preventive maintenance after so many kilometers or months in service. Sad to say, vehicles only get to be repaired when they malfunction and their engines bog down. Brakes only get to be replaced when the bonds no longer connect with the wheels to make a convenient stop for the vehicle. Because of the lack of proper maintenance, accidents on the road or elsewhere are multiplied hundredfold. Add to this the knowledge that the penalty for injury inflicted or homicide caused through reckless imprudence is too low to be preventive. In the law, the laws penalizing damage to property or injury or homicide through reckless imprudence are no longer effective. They have become more for compliance rather than for compliance rather than for prevention.