• Announcements

    • REDivivus.WRAITH

      Facebook login issues   06/20/17

      If anyone of you are having trouble logging in using facebook send us a PM on our APS FB page https://www.facebook.com/allpinoystuff/ including your APS username and emaill and we will recover them for you. Thanks!
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Rockpen

Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide

7 posts in this topic

RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO HOMICIDE

 

 

 

 

 

                29-philippines-car-accident-albay-3-deat

                         A vehicular smashup took place early afternoon 27 November 2015 at Cagsawa, Daraga, Albay. OLIVER O. italian dies in the road crash         

 

 

             we always here this legal term in the news or in police reports. so what is it all about? what does it mean? 

 

          Reckless imprudence consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do, without malice, an act from which material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act. Malice is the antithesis of reckless imprudence. Once malice is proven, recklessness disappears (People v. Agliday, G.R. No. 140794, October 16, 2001). 

 

      in tagalog, dahil sa kapabayaan mo ay nakapatay ka ng tao kahit wala kang intention na pumatay. madalas mangyari ito sa car accident, car collissions and mishaps. 

 

         what are examples of cases of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide?

 

 

(1) exhibiting a loaded revolver to a friend, who got killed by the accidental discharge arising from negligent handling;

(2) discharging a firearm from the window of one’s house and killing a neighbor who, at just that moment, leaned over a balcony front; and

(3) firing a .45 caliber pistol twice in the air to stop a fist fight; and, as the fight continued, firing another shot at the ground but, after the bullet ricocheted, hitting a bystander who died thereafter (People v. Belbes, GR No. 124670, June 21, 2000, p. 8, citing Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. 3, 1988 ed., p. 604; US v. Reodique, 32 Phil. 458, December 7, 1915; People v. Nocum, 77 Phil. 1018, February 25, 1947; and Lampa v. People, 73 Phil. 82, August 6, 1941).

(4) driving 120 kmph inside a subdivision where  seeing children playing on the road. 

 

        In People v. Belbes, GR No. 124670, June 21, 2000, the Court found no reckless imprudence in the shooting of a student who, in the act of destroying the schools bamboo wall, had been caught by a policeman who was responding to a report that somebody was causing trouble in a school affair. The policeman’s action cannot be characterized as reckless imprudence, because the shooting was intentional. The accused had intended to fire at the victim and in fact hit only the latter. In this case, resenting his sons meddling in his argument with his wife, appellant purposely took his gun and shot his son.

Edited by N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killing without the murderous intent or because of recklessness = homicide, napaka vague at pwedeng pwede maexploit itong ganitong kaso. Murder can turn to homicide because of the lack of evidence, so kung magaling ka magplano, pwede mong mapalabas na aksidente lang yung nangyari. Di nga lang siya perfect crime like icicle stabbing, pero at least mababa lang sintensya sayo :)

Rockpen likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@cthulhu: yes sir you are correct. In addition, if matandaan mo yung kaso ni Jason ivler? Yung nephew ni freddie Aguilar.. He was convicted of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide and damage to property nung nabangga niya SUV vehicle at namatay yung wife nung owner of the said vehicle... Pero you might ask bakit ang sentence sakanya ng court is "Street sweeping" . He was not put unto jail for life. Now the case gets more interesting because yung opposing party / victims whose family member died can no longer appeal the case to the appellate court on the ground of double jeopardy :) actually yun ang other way of circumventing the law in a legal manner. Lawyers abuse this procedure. It is high time na ang SC na gumawa ng amendment sa rules of court regarding this lapses.

Cthulhu and Chinchan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@repapips9: bro Mali. Hindi ganun yung sa batas. Ang batas sa daan natin kapag sino ang may kasalanan/pabaya siya ang mananagutan.... Although may mga instances kasi na may tinatawag tayo na doctrine of last clear chance.. In tagalog kung sino may huling chance na makaiwas ay dapat umiwas sa panganib kahit na Mali paying ka bilang sasakyan na banana sayo. Example alam mo Mali ka nag overtake ka sa kabilang daan... Yung sasakyan sa tamang lane may space siya para iwasan ka pero Hindi ka nita iniwasan instead nag maintain padin siya sa normal speed niya. In that case pag nagbungguan kayo.... siya na ang may kasalanan in case may injury or death resulting from the mishap. Kasi siya ang huling may chance na dapat umiwas kahit na Mali ang lane mo..

If I may add... Regarding sa ordnance sa Manila.. Yung tailgating lahat ng mga motorvehicles sa likod kapag may banggaan sila ang may kasalanan.. Kahit mag sudden stop PA yung car sa Harapan nila dahil sa no tailgating ordnance. Lesson is wag ka magbuntot at wag pabilis kung Hindi kaya control ang speed ng auto mo.

Edited by Patrick
repapips9 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir, you can't appeal (victim's /offended party's remedy) the case if the accused is already convicted. Otherwise, you will be violating the doctrine of double jeopardy (article 3 of the 1987 constitution states that no person shall be "twice" put unto jeopardy for the same criminal act/offense or arising thereto or is necessarily included therein).

MOREOVER, Rule 65 is an extraordinary writ/special civil action that is used to correct errors of jurisdiction. It cannot be used as a mode of appeal. In fact it is NOT considered as a mode of appeal since it is an ordinary civil action itself. They are two different breed of animals.

Settlement is not allowed once the criminal case has been filed. Although there are some exceptions, but given the scenario. It is not possible since there is already a conviction. In fact the penalty is to be served by the convict which is the penalty cleaning the streets of the metro.

Please see jayson ivler case for more information about the topic:

hxxp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/november2010/172716.htm

Edited by Patrick
repapips9 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0