We’re sure that you have probably read the words ‘reckless driving’ if not in a ticket that has cited you in violation of this, then definitely in the news lately. But what does it mean to be in violation of reckless driving? And what are the punishments attached to it? Here’s everything you need to know about reckless driving in this edition of CarLaw.
What is reckless driving?
Reckless driving is a generally blanket term used and defined in Republic Act No. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, enacted in 1964. While this is a relatively old law, the violation’s definition still stands, to wit:
Article V., Sec. 48. Reckless driving. – No person shall operate a motor vehicle on any highway recklessly or without reasonable caution considering the width, traffic, grades, crossing, curvatures, visibility and other conditions of the highway and the conditions of the atmosphere and weather, or so as to endanger the property or the safety or rights of any person or so as to cause excessive or unreasonable damage to the highway.
The salient point of this definition is the key provision of “without reasonable caution,” given the circumstances of the road and conditions of the highway, so as to endanger the property of the safety or rights of any person/of the highway.
This means that there is really no exact definition, unlike other violations where this is clear. One has to take into account the exact circumstances of the situation that the driver found himself in when committing the alleged reckless act.
More than just mere negligence, the courts have held that there must be a “willful, wanton or reckless disregard of the consequences…” (Caminos vs. People, G.R. No. 147437, May 8, 2009, citing People vs. Paarlberg, 612 N.E.2d 106, 1933). Additionally, it has been held that this is a “conscious choice of a course of action” (supra, citing Wofford v. State, 395 S.E.2d 630, 1990).
So this is a conscious (or reckless) act to disregard safety norms while driving, especially taking into account the situation that the driver finds himself or herself in, which, technically, can encompass a lot of different actions, depending on the situation.
ALSO READ:
CarLaw: Trump’s Tariffs and how they might affect the Philippines
Do you need a ‘not for hire’ sticker on your privately owned pickup truck?
So it is a blanket term?
In a way, yes, which makes it prone to abuse. A lot of acts, given the situation, can constitute reckless driving. It really does depend on the circumstances of the situation, which, let’s be honest, can vary from officer to officer, or even witness to witness. Many cases of reckless driving have reached the highest courts in the land on the argument that the factual bases of a violation are or are not reckless driving.
This shows that there is no exact rule or standard that defines it, and it really depends on the factual antecedents of a given case. This is a far cry from the ‘easier’ violations like those found in the Anti-Distracted Driving Act or the Seat Belts Use Act.
So, swerving can be “reckless driving?”
We know people hate it when lawyers say “it depends,” but in this case, it really does. Did the swerving happen on an unlit road with curves, which would generally necessitate a more reserved driving manner? If it did, then this may be considered reckless if it falls under the definition of a willful and wanton disregard of the consequences.
In fact, the case of Sionzon vs. People (G.R. No.. 202692, November 12, 2014) would show that swerving is not necessarily indicative of imprudent behavior when the court held: Swerving is not necessarily indicative of imprudent behavior, let alone constitutive of reckless driving. To constitute the offense of reckless driving, the act must be something more than a mere negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle, and a willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is required.
In that case, nothing in the records indicates that the area was a “no swerving or overtaking zone.” Moreover, the swerving incident, if this be the case, occurred at around 3am. when the streets are usually clear of moving vehicles and human traffic, and the danger to life, limb, and property to third persons is minimal.
So, as you can see above, even the Supreme Court took into account the situation on the lighting of the road, whether or not there are obstacles, and if the act in that situation can be deemed ‘reckless.’
While the case of Sionzon is not on all fours with every incident of reckless driving (it is a case about whether or not the police had probable cause to conduct a stop and frisk), it is indicative as to just how complex and factual an investigation into reckless driving can be.
What is the difference between this and Reckless Imprudence and Negligence?
Reckless driving is a purely administrative matter within the ambit of the LTO’s powers. It involves a fine and the determination as to whether or not someone is qualified to hold a driver’s license.
Reckless Imprudence and Negligence, on the other hand, is a criminal proceeding under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, and this is outside the jurisdiction of the LTO. This normally includes damage to property or injury/death and is filed by the DOJ through the prosecutor in the courts of criminal law.
They share a lot of similarities, but the consequences, as well as the branch of government that deals with it is markedly different.
So we hope that this helps shed some light on what can be a confusing topic of discussion.
