Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. (Art. 12, Par. 4, RPC)


What is an accident?

● An accident is any happening beyond the control of a person the consequences of which are not foreseeable. If foreseeable, there is fault or culpa. 

● An accident is an occurrence that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences. It connotes the absence of criminal intent. (People vs. Agliday, G.R. No. 140794. October 16, 2001)


Requisites:

1. The offender must be performing a lawful act.
2. With due care.
3. Causes injury to another by mere accident.
4. Without fault or intent of causing it. (People vs. Agliday)


Basis: Lack of negligence and intent.


No civil liability

Under Article 12, paragraph 4, the offender is exempt not only from criminal but also from civil liability.


Example:

In performing a lawful act with due care by snatching away the “balisong” in defense of stranger, the “balisong” flew with force that it hit another person who was seriously injured, Tommy is exempted from criminal liability because of mere accident.


Cases:

● In determining whether an "accident" attended the incident, courts must take into account the dual standards of lack of intent to kill and absence of fault or negligence. (Pomoy vs. People, G.R. No. 150647, September 29, 2004)

●  Before the accused may be exempted from criminal liability by reason of Article 12 (paragraph 4), the following elements must concur: (1) a person is performing a lawful act (2) with due care, and (3) he causes an injury to another by mere accident and (4) without any fault or intention of causing it. For an accident to become an exempting circumstance, the act has to be lawful. The act of firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful act.

An accident is an occurrence that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences. It connotes the absence of criminal intent. Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is shown by a persons overt acts. In the case at bar, appellant got his shotgun and returned to the kitchen to shoot his son, who had intervened in the quarrel between the former and Conchita. It must also be pointed out that the firearm was a shotgun that would not have fired off without first being cocked. Undoubtedly, appellant cocked the shotgun before discharging it, showing a clear intent to fire it at someone. (People vs. Agliday)