Short answer. Yes, you can be. Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code punishes reckless imprudence and simple imprudence precisely because there was no intent. What is punished is the lack of precaution, not a wish to cause harm. The penalty tracks what the act would have been had it been deliberate.
What the law says
Reckless imprudence 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.
Revised Penal Code, Article 365 — Imprudence And Negligence. Read the full provision →
'I did not mean it' is the premise, not the defence
The answer you are reaching for is already built into the charge. This article does not require malice at all. It reaches any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, and scales downward for less grave and light felonies. The wrong being punished is the carelessness itself. So saying you never meant to hit anyone does not meet the accusation — it confirms that you are in this article rather than among the intentional felonies. The real question is whether you failed to take the precaution the situation demanded of you.
Reckless imprudence and simple imprudence are not the same
The Code separates two degrees, and the difference matters. Reckless imprudence 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, measured against the driver's own occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and the circumstances of persons, time and place. Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest. Overtaking blind on a curve is a different thing from a moment's inattention in crawling traffic, and the penalties differ accordingly.
Where only property was damaged
If the collision resulted in nothing worse than damage to another's property, the article prescribes a fine rather than imprisonment — a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three (3) times such value, subject to a minimum. Those peso figures are the ones set by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), which rewrote the amounts throughout the Revised Penal Code. Older reproductions still print the 1930 figures, so check which version any source you are reading is giving you. Where a person was killed and the Automobile Law was violated, the article fixes a distinctly heavier penalty.
The duty to help at the scene
One sentence in this article catches drivers out. The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may be in his hands to give. Driving away therefore worsens your position in its own right, whatever the merits of the collision itself and whoever was at fault. Stopping, calling for help and remaining until the authorities arrive is not only the decent response; under this provision it carries direct legal weight.
The criminal case is not the whole exposure
A negligent driver also owes civil indemnity for the injury and the loss, and that liability is ordinarily resolved within the same proceeding unless it is reserved and pursued separately. An employer may be answerable as well where the driver was on duty at the time. Do not sign a quitclaim, an admission, or an insurance settlement at the roadside or at the station before taking advice. Documents produced in the first hours after a collision are routinely relied on afterwards, and their wording is seldom neutral.