Zeeble

Paper Cranes 

1. Assuming the famous Haydeen Koh, Katrina Halili, and Maricar Reyes are all
your classmates in San Beda College of Law; Because of the sex videos they were
involved in, the Dean charged all of them for gross immorality.

Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code;

Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent
shows. — The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to
twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed
upon:

(1) Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to
public morals;
(2) (a) the authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any
form; the editors publishing such literature; and the owners/operators of the
establishment selling the same;

(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit,
indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which
are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which (1) glorify criminals or
condone crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence,
lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in
and use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals,
and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts;

(3) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture
or literature which are offensive to morals. (As amended by PD Nos. 960 and
969).
Gross Immorality refers to a “disgraceful and immoral conduct”. However the
ascertainment of what is moral or immoral calls for the discovery of
contemporary community standards.

Refers to immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows.
However, the acts made by Hayden Kho, Katrina Halili, and Maricar Reyes is not
covered by this act since they never intended the videos for public viewing, nor as an
instrument for publications and exhibitions, nor to be used for indecent shows as it were
made for their private and individual use.

With regards to the charge for Gross Immorality by the Dean of San Beda College of
Law, let us first define what Gross Immorality is.

Gross Immorality is the “disgraceful and immoral conduct” of an individual with

respect to his rank in the society. However, the ascertainment of what is moral or
immoral calls for the discovery of contemporary community standards. In the opinion
 written by Justice Ynares-Santiago in the case of Estrada vs. Escritor A.M. No. P-02-
1651 August 4, 200, he defined Gross Immorality as such:

The layman's definition of what is "moral" pertains to excellence of character or

disposition. It relates to the distinction between right and wrong; virtue and vice;
ethical praise or blame. Moral law refers to the body of requirements in
conformity to which virtuous action consists. Applied to persons, it is conformity
to the rules of morality, being virtuous with regards to moral conduct

That which is not consistent with or not conforming to moral law, opposed to or
violating morality, and now, more often, morally evil or impure, is immoral.
Immoral is the state of not being virtuous with regard to sexual conduct.

The term begs the definition. Hence, anything contrary to the standards of moral
conduct is immoral. A grossly immoral act must be so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree.

Anything plainly evil or dissolute is, of course, unchangingly immoral. However,

at the fringes or boundary limits of what is morally acceptable and what is
unacceptably wrong, the concept of immorality tends to shift according to
circumstances of time, person, and place. When a case involving the concept of
immorality comes to court, the applicable provisions of law and jurisprudence
take center stage.

Insofar as concepts of morality are concerned, various individuals or cultures

may indeed differ. In certain countries, a woman who does not cover herself with
a burka from head to foot may be arrested for immoral behavior. In other
countries, near nudity in beaches passes by unnoticed. In the present case, the
perceived fixation of our society over sex is criticized. The lesser degree of
condemnation on the sins of laziness, gluttony, vanity, selfishness, avarice and
cowardice is decried as discriminatory.

It was held in the case mentioned that “Our existing rule is that an act so corrupt or false
as to constitute a criminal act is "grossly immoral.”

Yes, the acts constituted by Katrina Halili, Hayden Kho, and Maricar Reyes may be
found guilty of gross immorality. However the filing of the Dean with respect to his legal
standing may be put in question. If the charging of Gross Immorality is for the purpose of
expelling them or for their non-admission in the San Beda College of Law, then the case
may not prosper as it would be in conflict of the constitutional rights for education and
academic freedom, and of the Student Rights and Welfare Bill or otherwise known as the
Magna Carta of Students.

The 1987 Constitution states in Article XV, section 5 paragraph 3 that;

Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study, subject to fair,
reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements.
While the Magna Carta of Students states that;

I. RIGHT TO ADMISSION WITHOUT UNDUE DISCRIMINATION

No student shall be denied admission to any school on account of his/her

physical handicap, socio-economic status, political and religious beliefs, sexual
orientation or membership of student organizations, nor shall pregnant students
certified reformed drug abusers and those suffering from immune deficiency
syndrome be discriminated against

Failure of or refusal of student to sign waiver documents prepared by the school

administration shall not constitute a ground for his/her non-admission.

Students shall have the right freely to choose his/her fields of study subject to
existing curricula and to continue his/her course up to graduation except in case
of academic deficiency or violation of disciplinary regulations that do not
infringe upon the exercise of student’s rights and welfare.

However there is an exception with regards to the above cited with respect to the
admission of students, a College of Law, being an educational institution of higher
learning is subject to the provisions of Artice XV Section 8 Paragraph 2 where

All institutions of higher learning shall enjoy academic freedom.

This was applied in the case of Garcia vs. Lambino G.R. No. L-40779, that involvement
in questionable conducts is a matter of school policy and regulation that obviously can in
no way be said to be arbitrary and thus are matters of technical and academic judgment
that the courts will not ordinarily interfere with.

Charges and complaints in courts implies a given right, legally demandable, and
enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and
sanctioned by law, for said breach of right. The question is whether or not the Dean’s
rights are violated with regards to the acts committed by Kho, Halili, and Reyes which is
clearly absent. Therefore, a charge of gross immorality against the three for civil damages
will not prosper, however their non-admission or expulsion in the mentioned college for
gross immorality or gross misconduct may prosper.

2. At St. Andrew Parochial School, the science teacher brought a sample of the chemical
element mercury enclosed in a jar to show her Grade 6 science students. When the jar
was passed around the class, one student opened the jar and accidentally dropped the
same causing the mercury to scatter. As a consequence the students were exposed and
several fell seriously ill because of the exposure. The parents of the victims are now
holding the teacher and the school liable.

Yes, the teacher and the school are liable for Less Serious Physical Injuries through
Reckless Imprudence under Article 265 of the revised penal code.
As may be cited in the case of Vda. De Bataclan vs. Medina G.R. No. L-10126, the
transportation company was held liable for the incompetence being the proximate cause
exercised by their employees, the driver and chauffeur, which resulted to the death of
some of their passengers.
It may also be said in this case that the less serious physical injuries brought to the
students are due to the negligence and incompetence of the teacher who are supposed to
exercise due care in the practice of their profession.

Also under the penultimate paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines,

teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades are liable for “damage
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in
their custody.

Hence, the school and the teacher/s are liable for the injuries caused to the students.

3. Jack, a grade 1 elementary school pupil stabbed his classmate Jill in the right eye with
his pencil. As a consequence, Jill lost the eye permanently. The parents of Jill is now
holding the school liable. On the other hand, the school is charging the parents of Jack
liable.

In this case, it must clearly be shown as to the location and in whose custody where the
act of stabbing occurred. If the stabbing occurred within the school premises, in the
supervision and custody of the school and its mentors then the school and the teachers
will be liable with respect to Article 2180 of the Civil Code of the Philippines where,

teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades are liable for “damage
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in
their custody.

Also cited in the case of Salvosa vs. Intermediate Appellate Courts L-70458,

A student “at attendance in the school”cannot be in recess thereat. A “recess”

as a concept embraced in the phrase “at attendance in the school” contemplates
a temporary adjournment of the school activities where the student still remains
at the call of his mentor and is not permitted to leave the school premises, or the
area within which the school activity is conducted. Recess by its nature does not
include dismissal. Likewise, the mere fact of being enrolled or being in the
premises of the school without more does not constitute “attending school” or
being in the “protective and supervisory custody” of the school, as contemplated
in the law.

The rationale of such liability is that so long as the student remains in the
custody of a teacher, the latter “stands, to a certain extent, in loco parentis as to
 the student and is called upon to exercise reasonable supervision over the
conduct of the student.

The phrase “so long as ( the students) remain in their custody” means the
protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers
exercise over the pupils and students for as long as they are at attendance in the
school, including recess time.

However if the stabbing of Jill’s eye by Jack occurred outside the school’s premises, Jack
will be subject to Republic Act No. 9344.

That if Jack is fifteen (15) years of age or under during the time of the commission of the
crime, he will be exempt from criminal liability but still civilly liable for the injuries
caused to Jill. Also if he is above fifteen (15) years and below eighteen (18) years of age
acting without discernment during the time of the commission of the crime, he is also
exempt from criminal liability but civilly liable for the injuries. However, if Jack is above
fifteen (15) years and below eighteen (18) years of age who acted with discernment
during the time of the commission of the crime, he will be criminally and civilly liable
for the injuries caused with the privilege of a mitigating circumstance as to his
punishment.