Accident is an exempting circumstance under the Revised Penal Code that recognizes that not all harm carries criminal liability, some injuries happen by pure misfortune, without fault or intent. The law provides that any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it, is exempt from criminal liability. For accident to exempt, four requisites must concur: first, the person was performing a lawful act; second, the act was done with due care; third, the injury was caused by mere accident; and fourth, there was no fault or intention of causing the injury. The concept is important because it distinguishes true accident from negligence and from intentional harm. If any of the requisites is missing, the defense fails: if the act being done was unlawful, or if the person was negligent (failed to exercise due care), the harm is not a mere accident, negligence would instead give rise to a quasi-offense (reckless or simple imprudence), and an intentional injury is a felony. So the same physical event (for example, a firearm discharging and hitting someone) may be treated as an accident (exempt), as reckless imprudence (criminally negligent), or as intentional (a felony), depending on whether the person was doing a lawful act with due care and without fault or intent. Because accident is an affirmative defense, the accused must prove its requisites; the courts scrutinize claims of accident carefully, especially where a weapon is involved. So accident exempts from criminal liability only when a person, doing a lawful act with due care, causes injury purely by chance, without fault or intent.
Not All Harm Is Criminal
Accident exempts because some injuries happen by pure misfortune, without fault or intent. A person doing a lawful act with due care who causes injury by mere accident is exempt.
The Four Requisites
- The person was doing a lawful act;
- The act was done with due care;
- The injury was caused by mere accident; and
- There was no fault or intention to cause it.
Accident vs. Negligence vs. Intent
If a requisite is missing, the defense fails: an unlawful act or a lack of due care (negligence) means it is not a mere accident — negligence gives a quasi-offense (reckless imprudence), and an intentional injury is a felony. The accused must prove the accident.
Practical Takeaways
- Accident exempts only with a lawful act + due care + no fault/intent;
- Negligence = reckless imprudence, not accident;
- The accused must prove the requisites, scrutinized where a weapon is involved.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is accident a defense to a crime? Yes. Accident is an exempting circumstance. A person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it, is exempt from criminal liability.
What are the requisites of the accident defense? The person was performing a lawful act, the act was done with due care, the injury was caused by mere accident, and there was no fault or intention of causing the injury. All four must concur.
How is accident different from negligence? In accident, the person exercised due care and there was no fault. In negligence, the person failed to exercise due care, so the harm is not a mere accident but gives rise to a quasi-offense such as reckless imprudence.
Who must prove that the harm was an accident? The accused, because accident is an affirmative defense. The courts scrutinize claims of accident carefully, especially where a firearm or other weapon is involved.
This commentary is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance specific to your situation, please consult a licensed attorney.
If you have questions about your rights or options under Philippine law, our firm is available to assist. You may reach us via Viber or WhatsApp, call us at 0995 433 5550, or send an email to vivasnobles@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.