Okay, the only reason why I'm posting this article is the utter laziness on my part to create a digest for People v. Cano (17 SCRA 237). Instead of creating a digest, I thought of creating a blog entry. Now, that is more motivating, isn't it? For the next couple of months or so, I will be posting blog entries regarding some legal issues revolving around supreme court cases that are worth discussing about.
To those who have already read the case, you can proceed to the italics of the text as the subsequent paragraphs contain the facts of the case.
This aforesaid case involves an issue on quasi-offense. A busdriver, in utter disregard of traffic rules and regulations and without exercising due precaution and by driving at a speed more than that allowed by law and on the wrong side of the road, caused the bus his driving to bump another bus, causing damage to the latter and inflicted physical injuries to the passengers of the said buses.
The injured parties altogether filed a case against the busdriver and the bus owner and alleged that thru reckless negligence of the defendant, the bus driven by him hit another bus causing damage to property (the bus) and physical injuries (not the exact words).
The accused filed a motion to quash the information upon the ground that slight physical physical injuries thru reckless imprudence cannot be complexed with damage to property, serious and less serious physical injuris thru reckless imprudence, because "misdemeanor" may not, under Art. 48 of the RPC be complexed with grave or less grave felonies.
However, the information alleged by the injured parties does not purport to complex such crimes. It only alleged that thru reckless negligence of the defendant, the bus driven by him hit another bus causing damage to property (the bus) and physical injuries (not the exact words).
The accused and the lower court have seemingly assumed that said information charges 2 offenses, namely: 1) slight physical injuries thru reckless imprudence; and 2) damage to property, serious and less serious physical injuries, thru reckless imprudence - which are sought to be complexed.
The Supreme Court argued that this assumption is premised upon the predicate that the effect or consequence of defendant's negligence, not the negligence itself, is the principal or vital factor in the said offenses. The Supreme Court further said that such predicate is not altogether accurate.
The Supreme Court clarified that while in intentional crimes, the act itself is punished; in negligence or imprudence, what is principally penalized is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight. The Supreme Court further stated that the more accurate term for such offense is "reckless imprudence resulting in homicide" and not "homicide thru reckless imprudence" since what is penalized here is the mental attitude of the accused and not the consequences of such mental attitude.
We all know that quasi-offenses are culpable felonies, there's no question about that. But what if one is thrown the question, "is it malum prohibitum or malum in se?"
To refresh one's memory, let's take the definitions of both types of crime. Malum in se is wrongful from their nature and malum prohibitum is wrong merely because it is prohibited (1 Reyes 56). It doesn't necessarily mean that mala in se are penalized by RPC, it can be penalized by special laws so the law that punishes one crime does not affect the classification of such crime. In malum in se, one has to prove intent for one to be guilty.
The case of People vs. Kibler (106 NY 321) creates a more visible distinction: in acts mala in se, the intent governs but in those mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated?
Taking into consideration the statement of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that in quasi-offense, it is the mental attitude or condition that is punished, and the fact that intent is not an essential element of quasi-offense, we might not be able to classify such crime as malum in se because in malum in se, intent governs. Yet, it also perplexes me that quasi-offenses fit into the very original description of malum in se: wrong in itself. It is indisputable that indeed a quasi-offense is wrong in itself but that it does not include intent as an essential element.
Quasi-offenses cannot be considered as mala prohibita since the latter are acts made punishable by special laws.
People v. Kibler has been cited in the Reyes' commentaries for Revised Penal Code and the case of US v. Go Chico (14 Phil. 132), so it kind of implies that it is an authority when it comes to classfying a crime whether it is malum in se or malum prohibitum.
But is it also possible that People v. Kibler's definition of malum in se deviates from the very nature of malum in se? Remember that malum in se is wrong in itself and it doesn't originally mean that intent is essential. With this possibility, we can conclude that a quasi-offense is a special type of malum in se in that it is wrong in its very nature wherein intent is not essential.
Or is it possible that quasi-offense is neither malum prohibitum nor malum in se, but a different kind of crime worth recognizing?
Professor Ursua, in our Criminal Law 2 class, told us that classifying acts into crimes is like putting different items in different boxes. One must put an item into the right box in order to classify it correctly. I believe any person would definitely have difficulty putting quasi-offense in either malum prohibitum or malum in se.
Such is a wonder of quasi-offense, among many other things...
I will be doing an interview via live streaming on the Internet with www.wcanradio.com on Hollywood today with Brad Evans on Saturday Nov 21st at 12pm EST. Oh billy, Can't wait to see your gorgeous face live streaming!
http://www.wcanradio.com/hollywood.html#
ตอนนี้มีเพื่อนบ้านใหม่...
39 ปีแล้ว.. เร็วไม่ใช่เล่นแฮะ
Hope everyone has a great Halloween and weekend.
Billy xoxo
My parents told me, "read the newspaper EVERYDAY. That's what you need in law school."
It isn't hard to read a newspaper. Whenever I read one, I learn something new. But unfortunately, I am too lazy. Lazy to even touch one.
One of the reasons why I entered law school is to find out how to solve the problems in the society and in the government of the Philippines. I vowed to take a life of purpose: to analyze and solve these issues our nation have. Somehow, I see Law School as where I could understand why we have flaws in the government.
On the flipside, I don't read the newspaper daily. I don't care about national politics and national economy. Newspapers give me headaches: there's just too many problems in the society. What I need everyday is inspiration, not problems!
Yet, I am taking up law to find out why we have all these problems and later solve them eventually.
Ironic. Pointless. Shame. on. me.
October 29, 2009 will be a new day. I will correct this weakness of mine. I will read a newspaper. Srsly.
Links from my Neighborhood
Politics, Finance and Inves...
This page contains my articles about Finance, Politics an...
Georgios Zoumpoulidis' Prof...
Georgios Zoumpoulidis is a freelance translator, writer a...
Debt Consolidation Informat...
The Debt Consolidation Information You Need To Know What ...
