Criminal Negligence CASES: People vs. Cano, 17 SCRA 237 Ibabao vs. People, 132 SCRA 217 [G.R.

No.L- 36957] (Sept. 28, 1984) Buerano vs. Court of Appeals, 115 SCRA 832 [L-30269] (July 19, 1982) Carillo vs. People, 229 SCRA 386 Reodica vs. Court of Appeals (July, 1998) a. What is reckless imprudence? Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing of 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. b. What is simple imprudence? 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. c. Is the culpa or negligence in Article 365 the same as the usual culpa or negligence in Article 3, RPC?

Article 2219 (7) Civil Code a. b. What are the crimes against honor? Why are these called as such? What is libel? What are the elements of libel?

A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Elements of libel are:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance imputation must be made publicly must be malicious imputation is directed to a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead imputation tends to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of the person defamed c.

d. Is there a complex crime in reckless imprudence? ART. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. -- When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is necessary a means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. Clearly, if a reckless, imprudent or negligent act results in two or more grave or less grave felonies, a complex crime is committed. However, in Lontok v. Gorgonio,[27] this Court declared that where one of the resulting offenses in criminal negligence constitutes a light felony, there is no complex crime, thus: Applying article 48, it follows that if one offense is light, there is no complex crime. The resulting offenses may be treated as separate or the light felony may be absorbed by the grave felony. Thus, the light felonies of damage to property and slight physical injuries, both resulting from a single act of imprudence, do not constitute a complex crime. They cannot be charged in one information. They are separate offenses subject to distinct penalties e. What is the doctrine of last clear chance in torts?

What is malice as used in libel? How is actual malice proved in a libel case? It is believed that actual malice is proved by evidence that the author had knowledge that the offending statement was false or that it was made with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Reckless disregard in defamation suits is defined as serious indifference to truth or accuracy of a publication (Blacks). Actual malice may be proved by extrinsic evidence that at the time of publication of the defamatory statement: (a) the defendant bore a grudge against the offended party, or (b) there was rivalry or ill-feeling between them. Alternatively, actual malice may be proved if the defendant had an intention to injure the reputation of the offended party as shown by the words used and the circumstances attending the publication of the defamatory statement. [from Luis B. Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book II, 15th ed., p. 951, citing People vs. Hogan, CA, 55 OG 1597.] Note that extrinsic evidence refers to surrounding circumstances, while intrinsic evidence refers to that existing within a writing (Blacks). Thus, to prove actual malice, extrinsic evidence is necessary but it may not be sufficient. d. People vs. Velasco (2000) What is the doctrine of fair comment?

Last-Clear-Chance Doctrine is a principle of tort law which allows a plaintiff who committed contributory acts of negligence to recover damages against a defendant who had the last opportunity in time to avoid the damage. The rule of last clear chance operates when the plaintiff negligently enters into an area of danger from which the person cannot extricate himself or herself. The defendant has the final opportunity to prevent the harm that the plaintiff otherwise will suffer. The doctrine was formulated to relieve the severity of the application of the contributory negligence rule against the plaintiff, which completely bars any recovery if the person was negligent. The elements of proof for the last clear chance doctrine are: The plaintiff placed themselves in a situation of risk or danger through their own negligence; The plaintiff could not avoid the danger; The defendant recognized the danger and thus acquired a duty to avoid it; The defendant failed to avoid the danger; The plaintiff was injured as a result of the defendants failure Title XIII Crimes Against Honor Articles 353 to 364 RPC

fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts e. What are the kinds of malice? Malice is an essential element (Art. 353, Revised Penal Code). The two kinds are: malice in law (which is presumed, though the presumption is rebuttable, per Art. 354), and actual malice or malice in fact (it is not presumed, and must be proven by the prosecution or plaintiff). See the question below on how malice in fact can be proved. f. What are privileged communications? What are its kinds? See Art 354. 1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and

1.

2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions. Kinds of privileged communication 1. Absolutely privileged not actionable even if the actor has acted in bad faith 2. Qualifiedly privileged those which although containing defamatory imputations could not be actionable unless made with malice or bad faith People vs. Andrada Can libel be committed if the person libeled is not identified? NO. A libel cannot be committed except against some definite person who must be properly identified. But where no one was named or accurately described in the article complained of, it is not sufficient if the offended party recognized himself as the person attacked; it must be shown that at least one third person would so identify him and the object of the libelous publication. Where the article is impersonal on its face and does not single, any individuals, there is lacking that identification of the offended, party which the law requires. h. Ku Sing vs. Lu Tiong Gui, 76 Phil. 669 Distinguish libel from perjury. Libel -false accusation need not be made under oath Perjury- false accusation is made under oath g.

3.

That such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the offended party.

d. Who are the persons responsible for libel? 1) Who are liable (A3t 360) a. person who publishes, exhibits or causes the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or similar means(par.1) b. author or editor of a book or pamphlet c. editor or business manager of a daily newspaper magazine or serial publication(par.2) d. owner of the printing plant which publishes a libelous article with his consent and all other persons who in any way participate in or have connection with its publication e. 1. What is incriminatory machination?

Incriminating innocent person. Any person who, by any act not constituting perjury, shall directly incriminate or impute to an innocent person the commission of a crime ELEMENTS: 1. That the offender performs an act. 2. That by such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime. 3. That such act does not constitute perjury. 2. Intriguing against honor- -by any person who shall make any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of another person f. What is the honor contemplated in Art. 364?... refers to any scheme or plot designed to blemish the reputation of another or of such trickery or secret plot.

i. What is libel committed by means of writing or similar means? Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be brought by the offended party. j. 1. 2. What is slander? Is an ORAL DEFAMATION instead of in writing

3.

RA 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 a. What is the effect of RA 9165 on Title V of the RPC? RA 9165, Sec. 98 RA 9165, Sec 3 (definition of terms) What are the acts punishable under RA 9165? RA 9165, Sec 26 on attempt or conspiracy Can a person be charged for illegal possession of dangerous drugs similar to illegal possession of firearms? What is a drug user? What is a drug dependent? How is sale of illegal drugs consummated? Is a buy-bust operation lawful? How is this performed?

b. c. d. e.

k. What are the elements of slander? action of a serious and insulting nature (Grave slander) light insult or defamation not serious in nature (simple slander) a.

People vs. Raagas, 65 Phil. 630 Can oral defamation cause dishonor to a dead person? YES! In order that oral defamation consisting of the imputation of a vice, defect, act, omission or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a person or the memory of one who is dead, may be punishable, the language used must be defamatory and clear so as to leave no room for doubt that it is addressed to a determinate person. b. What is slander by deed? is a crime against honor which is committed by performing any act which casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person. What are the kinds of slander by deed? 1. Simple slander by deed 2. Grave Slander by deed (serious) Seriousness depends on the social standing of offended party, the circumstances surrounding the act, the occasion, etc. What are the elements of slander by deed? 4.

f. g. h.

Title VI- Crimes Against Public Morals Art. 200 to 202 ONLY PD 1602 RA 9287 a. What is grave scandal? What are the elements of grave scandal.

c. 1. 2.

That the offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honor. That such act is performed in the presence of other person or persons.