Culpa Vs. Dolo 4u5f71

CULPA vs. DOLO Felonies can be committed either by means of deceit or by means of fault. If a felony is committed by means of deceit it is dolo or otherwise known as intentional felonies such as robbery. If it is committed by means of fault, then it is culpa or otherwise known as culpable felonies such as reckless imprudence resulting in damage to properties. There is dolo if there exist malice or deliberate intent. There is culpa when the felony results from negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. In intentional felonies, there is criminal intent in the mind of the offender. In culpable felonies, there is no criminal intent in the mind of the offender but his acts or omissions are still punished by law because of the damages or injury caused to others as a result of his negligence, imprudence, lack of skill or lack of foresight. How to determine if a felony is intentional? There is deliberate intent in the commission of a felony if the offender, in doing the act or in omitting to do an act, has done so with FREEDOM, INTELLIGENCE, and INTENT. 1. Freedom – When a person acts without freedom the law looks at him as a mere tool. And as such, his liability is likened to ―the knife that wounds, or of the torch that sets fire, or of the key that opens a door, or of the ladder that is placed against the wall of a house in committing robbery.‖ 2. Intelligence – If a person acted without intelligence in committing a felony, then no crime exists. This requisite is necessary to determine the morality of human acts. Hence, the law exempts certain classes of persons from criminal liability such as minors (15 below) and insane persons. 3. Intent – ―Intent to commit the act with malice, being purely a mental process, is presumed and the presumption arises from the

proof of the commission of an unlawful act.‖ How to determine if a felony is committed by means of culpa? There is culpable felony if the offender, in doing the act or in omitting to do an act, has done so with FREEDOM, INTELLIGENCE, and IMPRUDENCE, NEGLIGENCE, LACK of FORESIGHT or LACK OF SKILL. 1. Imprudence – It usually involves lack of skill. A deficiency of action or failure to take necessary precaution to avoid injury or damage such as when a driver fails to check and determine the road worthiness of his vehicle before hitting the road where thereafter he had a brake failure which caused him to run over a pedestrian. Such may have been avoided if he had prudently checked his vehicle. 2. Negligence – It usually involves lack of foresight. A deficiency of perception or failure to pay proper attention and to use diligence to a void a foreseeable damage or injury such as when a cop indiscriminately fires his gun in the air during New Year’s Eve which caused injury to another. had the cop foreseen that firing his gun in open air might injure someone the incident would not have happened.

Taylor vs. Manila Electric Company

Torts and Damages – Element – Quasi Delicts David Taylor was a 15 year old boy who spent time as a cabin boy at sea; he was also able to learn some principles of mechanical engineering and mechanical drawing from his dad’s office (his dad was a mechanical engineer); he was also employed as a mechanical draftsman earning P2.50 a day – all said, Taylor was mature well beyond his age. One day in 1905, he and another boy entered into the premises of Manila Electric power plant where they found 20-30 blasting caps which they took home. In an effort to explode the said caps, Taylor experimented until he succeeded in opening the caps and then he lighted it using a match which resulted to the explosion of the caps causing severe injuries to his companion and to Taylor losing one eye. Taylor sued Manila Electric alleging that because the company left the caps exposed to children, they are liable for damages due to the company’s negligence. ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Electric is liable for damages. HELD: No. The SC reiterated the elements of quasi delict as follows: (1) Damages to the plaintiff. (2) Negligence by act or omission of which defendant personally, or some person for whose acts it must respond, was guilty. (3) The connection of cause and effect between the negligence and the damage. In the case at bar, it is true that Manila Electric has been negligent in disposing off the caps which they used for the power plant, and that said caps caused damages to Taylor. However, the causal connection between the company’s negligence and the injuries sustained by Taylor is absent. It is in fact the direct acts of Taylor which led to the explosion of the caps as he even, in various experiments and in multiple attempts, tried to explode the caps. It is from said acts that led to the explosion and hence the injuries. Taylor at the time of the accident was well—-grown youth of 15, more mature both mentally and physically than the average boy of his age; he had been to sea as a cabin boy; was able to earn P2.50 a day as a mechanical draftsman thirty days after the injury was incurred; and the record discloses throughout that he was exceptionally well qualified to take care. The evidence of record leaves no room for doubt that he well knew the explosive character of the cap with which he was amusing himself. The series of experiments made by him in his attempt to produce an explosion it of no other explanation. His attempt to discharge the cap by the use of electricity, followed by his efforts to explode it with a stone or a hammer, and the final success of his endeavors brought about by the applications of a match to the contents of the cap, show clearly that he knew what he was about. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that he had reason to anticipate that the explosion might be dangerous. ―The just thing is that a man should suffer the damage which comes to him through his own fault, and that he cannot demand reparation therefore from another.‖

Barredo vs. Garcia

Torts and Damages – Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil liability from Crimes At about 1:30am on May 3, 1936, Fontanilla’s taxi collided with a ―kalesa‖ thereby killing the 16 year old Faustino Garcia. Faustino’s parents filed a criminal suit against Fontanilla and reserved their right to file a separate civil suit. Fontanilla was eventually convicted. After the criminal suit, Garcia filed a civil suit against Barredo – the owner of the taxi (employer of Fontanilla). The suit was based on Article 1903 of the civil code (negligence of employers in the selection of their employees). Barredo assailed the suit arguing that his liability is only subsidiary and that the separate civil suit should have been filed against Fontanilla primarily and not him. ISSUE: Whether or not Barredo is just subsidiarily liable. HELD: No. He is primarily liable under Article 1903 which is a separate civil action against negligent employers. Garcia is well within his rights in suing Barredo. He reserved his right to file a separate civil action and this is more expeditious because by the time of the SC judgment Fontanilla is already serving his sentence and has no property. It was also proven that Barredo is negligent in

hiring his employees because it was shown that Fontanilla had had multiple traffic infractions already before he hired him – something he failed to overcome during hearing. Had Garcia not reserved his right to file a separate civil action, Barredo would have only been subsidiarily liable. Further, Barredo is not being sued for damages arising from a criminal act(his driver’s negligence) but rather for his own negligence in selecting his employee (Article 1903).

Elcano vs. Hill 77 SCRA 100 – May 26, 1977

Torts and Damages – Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from Crimes Reginald Hill, a minor, caused the death of Agapito (son of Elcano). Elcano filed a criminal case against Reginald but Reginald was acquitted for ―lack of intent coupled with mistake.‖ Elcano then filed a civil action against Reginald and his dad (Marvin Hill) for damages based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Hill argued that the civil action is barred by his son’s acquittal in the criminal case; and that if ever, his civil liability as a parent has been extinguished by the fact that his son is already an emancipated minor by reason of his marriage. ISSUE: Whether or not Marvin Hill may be held civilly liable under Article 2180. HELD: Yes. The acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case does not bar the filing of a separate civil action. A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if accused is actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused. Briefly stated, culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law. While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child (Article 327, Civil Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place ―by the marriage of the minor child‖, it is, however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute. Thus ―Emancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental authority over the child’s person. It shall enable the minor to ister his property as though he were of age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real property without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian. He can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or guardian.‖ Therefore, Article 2180 is applicable to Marvin Hill – the SC however ruled since at the time of the decision, Reginald is already of age, Marvin’s liability should be subsidiary only – as a matter of equity.