Fruit of the Poisoned Tree
Andrei Manuel inspired the title of this content. Leander Inosanto asked a very good question and below it is quoted in full.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY. Under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done is different from that which he intended. Under Philippine criminal law, a crime has three elements. If done by dolo, or with evil intent, the elements are: freedom, intelligence and intent. If done by culpa, or with negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill, the elements are: freedom, intelligence and negligence/imprudence.
Wrongful Act Done. In the case at bar, Tito sprayed his mangoes with insecticides. This act is not a felony. Hence, whatever results from his act, he cannot be held liable under the concept of intentional crimes.
Negligence, Imprudence, Lack of Foresight, Lack of Skills. If Tito cannot be held liable for an intentional crime, can he be held liable for a culpable crime of homicide and serious physical injuries? The answer is in the negative.
There was no negligence or imprudence in Tito's act of spraying his mangoes with insecticides. In fact, his act of spraying was already done when Vic and Joey came along. Also, even if Tito was negligent or imprudence in spraying, putting more insecticides than necessary, it was ultimately the negligence and imprudence of Vic and Joey that caused their unfortunate situation. More importantly, to hold Tito liable for the act of Vic and Joey of stealing his mangoes and for their carelessness would be to punish an innocent person and to put a premium on actual and potential wrong doers in society.
Neither can lack of foresight be imputed in Tito. Indeed, good faith is presumed and he cannot be faulted for not expecting that someone would come and steal his mangoes.
CIVIL LIABILITY. "Civil liability" is another term for obligations. Under civil law, obligation arises from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts and quasi-delicts. In the case at bar, there is no question regarding obligations arising from law, contracts or quasi-contracts.Obviously, the question here is whether Tito has civil liability arising from delicts or quasi-delicts. As discussed above, since Tito cannot be held criminally liable for the death and physical injuries suffered by Vic and Joey, respectively, he can also not be held civilly liable on the basis thereof.
THE OLALIA CASE DOES NOT APPLY. I posted this and deleted it 2 hours ago because I thought my many posts in this group would offend your senses. However, since one side of the house cites the case of Olalia v. People to argue that Tito is liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and physical injuries, I have to revive this post and my apologies for doing so.
WHY DOESN'T OLALIA APPLY? Olalia v. People is not on all fours with the case at bar. I humbly submit the following:
[1] Olalia has a Bachelor's Degree in Industrial Education, and, therefore, should have known that the electrical installation posed a grave danger to any unwary trespasser.
[2] The electrical installation on his fence was made without any permit from the authorities.
[3] There was no adequate warning sign to put a potential trespasser on notice of the danger posed by the electrically charged wire. The wooden board sign ELECTRIFIED FENCE, the letters about two (2) inches in size, did not sufficiently convey the danger involved, which another sign would have conveyed, for example, one that states, DANGER-FENCE ELECTRICALLY CHARGED or DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE CHARGE.
[4] In Olalia, the SC said the defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases through reckless imprudence since one cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his own negligence. In the case at bar, Vic and Joey were not only negligent but also criminal for taking Tito's property without his consent.
Thank you for your time in reading.
QUESTION: Tito owns a mango farm and sprayed insecticides on the mango fruit[s] so that pests [would not] infest the [them] until [xx] harvest. Vic and Joey stole [some] mango fruits when Tito [left and] went home. Vic and Joey were poisoned by the insecticides after eating the mangoes. Vic died while Joey was paralyzed. Is Tito criminally liable? Civil liability? My answer to these questions is as follows.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY. Under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done is different from that which he intended. Under Philippine criminal law, a crime has three elements. If done by dolo, or with evil intent, the elements are: freedom, intelligence and intent. If done by culpa, or with negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill, the elements are: freedom, intelligence and negligence/imprudence.
Wrongful Act Done. In the case at bar, Tito sprayed his mangoes with insecticides. This act is not a felony. Hence, whatever results from his act, he cannot be held liable under the concept of intentional crimes.
Negligence, Imprudence, Lack of Foresight, Lack of Skills. If Tito cannot be held liable for an intentional crime, can he be held liable for a culpable crime of homicide and serious physical injuries? The answer is in the negative.
There was no negligence or imprudence in Tito's act of spraying his mangoes with insecticides. In fact, his act of spraying was already done when Vic and Joey came along. Also, even if Tito was negligent or imprudence in spraying, putting more insecticides than necessary, it was ultimately the negligence and imprudence of Vic and Joey that caused their unfortunate situation. More importantly, to hold Tito liable for the act of Vic and Joey of stealing his mangoes and for their carelessness would be to punish an innocent person and to put a premium on actual and potential wrong doers in society.
Neither can lack of foresight be imputed in Tito. Indeed, good faith is presumed and he cannot be faulted for not expecting that someone would come and steal his mangoes.
CIVIL LIABILITY. "Civil liability" is another term for obligations. Under civil law, obligation arises from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts and quasi-delicts. In the case at bar, there is no question regarding obligations arising from law, contracts or quasi-contracts.Obviously, the question here is whether Tito has civil liability arising from delicts or quasi-delicts. As discussed above, since Tito cannot be held criminally liable for the death and physical injuries suffered by Vic and Joey, respectively, he can also not be held civilly liable on the basis thereof.
THE OLALIA CASE DOES NOT APPLY. I posted this and deleted it 2 hours ago because I thought my many posts in this group would offend your senses. However, since one side of the house cites the case of Olalia v. People to argue that Tito is liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and physical injuries, I have to revive this post and my apologies for doing so.
WHY DOESN'T OLALIA APPLY? Olalia v. People is not on all fours with the case at bar. I humbly submit the following:
[1] Olalia has a Bachelor's Degree in Industrial Education, and, therefore, should have known that the electrical installation posed a grave danger to any unwary trespasser.
[2] The electrical installation on his fence was made without any permit from the authorities.
[3] There was no adequate warning sign to put a potential trespasser on notice of the danger posed by the electrically charged wire. The wooden board sign ELECTRIFIED FENCE, the letters about two (2) inches in size, did not sufficiently convey the danger involved, which another sign would have conveyed, for example, one that states, DANGER-FENCE ELECTRICALLY CHARGED or DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE CHARGE.
[4] In Olalia, the SC said the defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases through reckless imprudence since one cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his own negligence. In the case at bar, Vic and Joey were not only negligent but also criminal for taking Tito's property without his consent.
Thank you for your time in reading.
