Van kills 10-year-old boy inside Ateneo campus

[oliver1013]

^^Uy madam kumusta..

Di naman ako pumapanig sa nakabangga, di ko rin kinukwestyon ang pagmamahal sa mga anak nating mga magulang...andun na yun..sinabi ko naman na talagang masakit yung pangyayari sa biktima..

Nagulat lang ako sa mga katagang ginamit, madami kasi akong kilalang mommy drivers, lahat naman sila mapagmahal sa anak nila at sa ibang bata..typical sweet na mommy din sa kanilang anak...ngayon kung nakaaksidente sila, of course they have to face the music kulong kung kulong..

Ang akin lang the cursing part i reserve nalang natin sa talagang mga kriminal na saliwa ang bituka...yung tipong hanggang buto maitim..

Pero sige if the cursing part helps, its up to you..

[oliver1013]

double post

[Altis6453]

The bottom line, may nasagasaan. Patay. The only way to be absolved of the death, is if self defense. Obviously, walang basis ang self defense. Therefore, the death of the boy has to be addressed by the court, of which a corresponding punishment has to be dealt. The issue of may defect ang kotse to cause that possible "lurch", if can be proven, may be not enough to make Torres NOT GUILTY. Ikaw ang may ari ng kotse, sagot mo dapat ang lahat ng maintenance ng kotse. Kung ano man ang deperensiya ng kotse mo, at naka-apak ka sa karapatan ng iba, ang may ari pa rin ng kotse ang mananagot. Then again, she may be able to find a miracle. With our legal system, miracles can happen.

Hindi po "self defense" ang appropriate dito sa kaso. Under Art. 12 of the Revised Penal Code, one of the exempting circumstances (which constitutes a complete defense to absolve a suspect of a crime) is that the incident was an accident.

[ess]

And yung accident thing na pinalalabas ninyo eh walang kabase base, kasi dapat responsible car owners din tayo at responsibilidad din nating panatilihing nasa kundisyon ang mga sasakyan natin para di tayo maka agrabyado ng iba!

I wholeheartedly agree!

It's not enough that you have the money to pay for the car and the gas. You also have to be responsible enough to allot time and additional funds to ensure that your car is roadworthy.

[Autobeat]

I learned from a car enthusiast yesterday that the van that run over Amiel is a converted right-hand drive. According to my source, he personally knows of 3 cases of converted right-hand drives that would suddenly rev up even if you don't step on the gas! I am no car expert but this is very disturbing considering that there are lots of converted cars being driven around. You can even check out the thread here in tsikot about accidents involving converted cars. I hope someone can look into this angle.

This is the 2nd case I've heard as well of converted cars suddenly revving. The other case was a converted SUV doing the same thing in Greenhills, running over two pedestrians aside from hitting other cars. This is scary - because if the vehicle is already in motion, then it suddenly goes on high steady revving, even stepping on working brakes will be close to useless to stop the car in time. Possible these cars already use a sensor in the gas pedal instead of a chord/lever to control the rev, and that the sensor failed or just momentarily failed?

[Gerbo]

Hindi po "self defense" ang appropriate dito sa kaso. Under Art. 12 of the Revised Penal Code, one of the exempting circumstances (which constitutes a complete defense to absolve a suspect of a crime) is that the incident was an accident.

I am not a lawyer.

But in my opinion, when a vehicle engine is running, someone is occupying the driver's seat, and the handbrake is disengaged, it would technically called "driving".

When "driving", hitting anything from pedestrians, other people's property, or other vehicles is considered an ACCIDENT. Somebody is LIABLE.

In this case, would it be homicide due to driving with reckless imprudence. Calling the incident an "accident" to evade responsibility does not hold sway because it is already a VEHICULAR ACCIDENT.

Obviously, the boy's death is not self-inflicted.

[Altis6453]

I am not a lawyer.

But in my opinion, when a vehicle engine is running, someone is occupying the driver's seat, and the handbrake is disengaged, it would technically called "driving".

When "driving", hitting anything from pedestrians, other people's property, or other vehicles is considered an ACCIDENT. Somebody is LIABLE.

In this case, would it be homicide due to driving with reckless imprudence. Calling the incident an "accident" to evade responsibility does not hold sway because it is already a VEHICULAR ACCIDENT.

Obviously, the boy's death is not self-inflicted.

That's correct.

However, I'm only pointing out that there is a defense insofar as the criminal aspect, or criminal liability is concerned. Remember, the case is about "reckless imprudence" which is all about proving that the accused is grossly negligent to the point of criminal recklessness.

Of course, as to the civil aspect, she committed a tort (or inflicted injury) for which she should be completely liable.

[ab_initio]

^^self defense presupposes the presence of an aggressor. self defense is not an easy defense to prove...some other factors should be considered. maybe what Sir altec is trying to say is that provided under Art. 12 paragraph 4, which provides: Any person, who while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. This is not self defense. Sir Altis is right, it's an exempting circumstance, but by reckless imprudence, the case presupposes that the accused was wanting of due care. Let us not forget that the circumstances that ascribe no criminal liability, i. e., justifying circumstances (Art. 12) and exempting circumstances (Art. 12), ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME. The former in so many instances would likewise absolve you from civil liability, while in the latter, there can always be civil liability.

WHY?

because, justifying circumstances, acknowledge the non existence of a crime while exempting circumstances, acknowledge the existence of a crime, only that there is no actor. what better way to appease the victim? award of damages.

[delete250]

yung mga anak niya sa DSWD na ilagay at sa public na mag aral at turuang mag commute.

kung ayaw niya sa DSWD sa mga relatives nalang.
wag nating sabihing na isa siyang babae at ma excuse lang siya.

pano naman yong mga anak nya? she's a single parent and has two kids (as said by her lawyer in a tv interview). should they suffer because of their mother's "katangahan"?

i'm not trying to defend her. i'm just concerned about her kids. amiel's loved ones lost someone so precious to them. should we do the same to the loved ones of the person who started this all? wag naman sana. mga bata yon.

amiel's remains will be cremated later this afternoon. eternal rest grant unto him, o lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. may his soul rest in peace.

[lazyfoot]

It's a known fact for YEARS that Ateneo campus has not enough parking for it's needs.

Just ask any student or even visitors who have tried parking in the entire campus.

There is more than enough parking but... of course the near ones are easily filled up (the school has more registered cars than students) and of course who wants to walk that far (esp ateneans).