LEGAL ISSUE:
Did Angel Locsin commit imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code after the senior citizen died while waiting for his turn to receive some goods from Angel Locsin's birthday community pantry? Was she liable for damages under article 1172 of the New Civil Code as well due to negligence in maintaining order while conducting community pantry?
(disclaimer: Photos grabbed from the internet)
What is your legal opinion about this?
Angel did not commit the article 365 and Article 1172 because there was neither negligence in putting up a table as a community pantry. The table and the food were there to be approached, and there were a assistance of the policeman and to make the line appropriate.
ReplyDelete2019-107057
ReplyDeleteCBET-18-401E
For me I think still Angel Locsin was liable for damages under article 1172 of the New Civil Code as well due to negligence in maintaining order while conducting community Pantry, thus even angel put some people to handle , she still liable since then she organized that event and the where the situation happened.
ReplyDeleteCBET-18 401E
2019-105216
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Angel Locsin didn't commit imprudence and negligence act under art 365 of the revised penal code because it states that you'll be committed a crime if you have an act or omission to commit a crime and you have a criminal intent in state of mind which only shows that putting up a community pantry is only to help those people in needs but doesn't have intention to commit a crime or break the law because of those people that cut in the line that cause death of an old man.
ReplyDeleteManalo, Wilmar C.
CBET-18-401A
2019-103101
SOMBESE, JONALYN B.
ReplyDeleteCBET-18-401A
2019-106045
Angel Locsin is not liable .There is no crime when there is no criminal mind. Angel did not commit the article 365 and Article 1172 because there was neither negligence in putting up a table as a community pantry. Angel Locsin is only helping to those people who needed foods but she doesn't know that it will happen that time and she have no intention to commit a crime.
Salinas, Irish Gwen M.
ReplyDeleteCBET 18 401A
2019-106744
According to law, it is clearly stated that Angel Locsin have no liability if there's anything would happen in the said event. The only purpose of the community pantry that she implement is to provide people for their needs. Every person who participated went there on their own will. So everyone and also the man should be aware of whatever possibilities to happen in the situation they would be in. Therefore, Angel Locsin intention is purely good and did not commit negligence.
DELA VEGA, MARJORIE, M.
ReplyDeleteCBET18-401E
2019-105515
Angel Locsin didn't commit imprudence and negligence Act under art 365 of the Revised Penal Code and she's not liable for damages Under article 1172 Of the New Civil Code because in our criminal law states that reckless imprudence or simple negligence comes from ‘ACT’ (Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code) that when a person shall commit any ACT which had it been intentional, would constitute a crime. Angel did was set the table and put food and other goods on the table. Setting the table and eating is an ‘Act’ or an act that is not a crime. ” In civil (not criminal) matters, negligence is different. There is no ‘Act’ Angel has caused the injured. So in law, whether civil or criminal, Angel Locsin is not liable because Criminal negligence is when a person ‘shall commit any ACT, which, had it been intentional, would constitute’ a crime. (Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code). ‘The invitation, even if it is intentional, is not a crime.
Based on my understanding on Article 365 angel locsin didn't commit imprudence and negligence, angel didn't do anything wrong, because she wants to help others who is in need. Angel has a good motives but in a wrong way. In Article 1172 it said that Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable. So Angel locsin is responsible for her negligence because she didn't implement a proper protocol "social distancing" in her community pantry.
ReplyDeleteMark Arvie Ampayo
2019-105391
CBET 18 - 402P
I believe in the goodness of the heart of the Angel Locsin, who in her personal capacity has tirelessly helped our countrymen in times of crisis,”. It also expressed admiration for the actress’ efforts to serve others “with selfless dedication and love” I believe Angel Locsin did not commit improdence and negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
ReplyDeleteI believe the goodness of the heart of the Angel Locsin, who in her personal capacity has tirelessly helped our countrymen in times of crisis,”. It also expressed admiration for the actress’ efforts to serve others “with selfless dedication and love” I believe Angel Locsin did not commit improdence and negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
ReplyDeleteOcampo,Joshua L.
CBET 18-401E
2018-105353
Ganapin, Cymon S.
ReplyDeleteCBET-18-401A
For me, Based to this legal issues, Angel Locsin didn't commit this case art 365 of the revised penal code because in a first place they want to help people on his own way but not to create a crime or harming people in community that she provides. The objective of Ms. Angel Locsin are the people who's in hard times was getting an help that's why she create this community pantry to got a food on a table of people who needs.
Angelica Baleña
ReplyDeleteCBET-18-401A
I think Angel Locsin didn't commit any of the article they said. Because Angel locsin trying to help our people form the crisis she didn't intension to harmmed people that's why Angel Locsin is the kind of person I admired because of her helpfullness and kindness of her people who suffer in this crisis.
Portes, Levie Ross
ReplyDeleteCBET 18-402P
2019-102337
I think Angel Locsin didn't commit imprudence and negligence act under art 365 because its states that when a person shall commit any act which had been intentional would constitute a felony or a crime. Angel only wants to help those people in need by building a community pantry which only shows that she doesn't have an intention to commit a crime.
Personally I think Ms. Angel Locsin had nothing commit imprudence. I think I believe the organizer of Ms. Angel had commit it. Since, accordingly on the news it's not that well or not prepared. “It's the organizer's responsibility to impose the health standards protocol. That's the primary reason why they have to coordinate with the LGUs (local government units) so that the latter can provide assistance,” In my conclusion Ms. Angel does not violate any of the law. She is just means to help its not her fault but the organizer. On the other side, it was the senior citizen had the deceased and still going through it.
ReplyDeleteLindio, John Allen Huen
CBET18-401A
2019-106647
In my opinion, Ms. Angel Locsin did not violated the Article 365 and will not be liable for any damages, since the cause of death of the senior was due to heart attacked.
ReplyDeleteHowever, under article 1172 Angel shall be liable for the damages due to negligence in act of maintaining order.
Perez, Melisa Herlene D.
CBET-18-402P
2019-100871
For me, Ms.Angel Locsin didn't commit imprudence and negligence act under Artice 365 and also will not be liable for any damages, and according to Ms. Angel's post on facebook the senior's cause of death is heart attack because of the heat while waiting no one expected it to happen and she just want to help people who are in needs but Ms. Angel take an action immediatley especially the family of the senior, she sincerely apologize to the family and provide the needs of the senior's family.
ReplyDeleteGuinto,Nikki Rosemarie C.
CBET-18-402P
2019-100733
May 11,2021 at 4:25pm
Angel did not violate Articles 365 and 1172 because there was no negligence in setting up a table as a community pantry. The table and the food were there to be approached, and the policeman was there to help to make the line acceptable. But the people in the area are the one who make it so hard to control, they are really hard headed.
ReplyDeleteSTECK, KATE LORENZ S.
CBET-18-401E
Aquiatan, Clinton Jee B.
ReplyDeleteCBET-18-401A
2019-107113
In my humble opinion, considering that Angel Locsin organized the event therefore she is liable for the damages as she did not also observe and maintain the peace and order in her event. However, I do believe that there is no crime in that situation since it is clear that those people who are involved in that event did came with their own will.
In my own opinion, Ms. Angel Locsin is not liable at all for the death of a senior citizen at her community pantry. And did not commit imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the revised Penal code because it states that reckless imprudence can only be considered when a person shall commit any act which, had it been intentional. She has no intention to violate any crime at all, her only intention is to build community pantry to help other people in need who suffer in this crisis.
ReplyDeleteYURO, REYNA JOYCE A.
CBET18-401A
For me, Angel Locsin is not liable in article 365 the imprudence and negligence. Her only intention is to help those people not to cause problems. But on the other hand in article 1172 there was a problem Because Angel did not realize her popularity could draw crowds to her community pantry so physical distancing, public health, and safety standards were no longer observed. That's the reason why she is liable in article 1172. But that doesn't mean she should be charged. Because the family of the victim understood and accepted what really happened. Also, Angel promises to prioritize helping the family and she will take full responsibility to help them get through this.
ReplyDeleteRecosana,Sheila Mae B.
CBET-18-402A
2019-107020
She is not liable in article 365 because her objective is to help those people who really need some help during this pandemic,but since she was famous by time the people knows that she will personally give the relief, many people just go there not to get some help but just to see her. In that scenario.I think the organizers has been commit negligence.Since from the start they said that they can only accommodate 300 persons,they already knew that there are more people are there but they not even do such a move to tell those who are in the line that they cannot accommodate them.In the end some of even not following those safety protocols given by the government and result of one person died in the said event.No ones want that to happen and even Angel Locsin admitted that they got some lapses from that event and She helped the family of the person who passed away.
ReplyDeleteClariño Jr.Reynold P.
CBET-18-402A
2019-103769
As i assess, Angel Locsin didn't commit any violation of both Article 365 and 1172 because it was stated that the person ever committed it had been caused crime sort of negligence. But in Angel Locsin's case, she never neglected safety precautions and protocols while performing the community pantry. Because she never tend to commit crime and cause trouble or violate any law. Insted, to help the people. It was really given, if any activities like community pantry that's the culture here to get crowded all over the place and that's too risky to the older ones.
ReplyDeleteMajabague, Denver V.
CBET-18-402A
2019 - 101635
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCBET-18-402A
ReplyDelete2019-102429
Ninofranco, Lordvhan Oswald M.
For me angel locsin didn't commit any violation, Because no one wants what happen on that day, angel locsin came to thier place to help poor people in this kind of pandemic with her own money and sacrifices, Angel locsin is very helpful person, All kinds of natural disasters angel locsin always trying her best to reach the people who is really need help the most, No one is responsible for lola's death on that day, first of all no one wants what happen on that because they all came to that place to help.
May 11, 2021 at 6:43 PM
In my opinion, Angel Locsin didn’t commit imprudence and negligence act under article 365 of under the revise penal code after the senior citizen died in his birthday community party. But in sort of he has lapses on his birthday community pantry because the people are too close and the social distancing is ignored, the distribution system is not good due to the number of people. Because homicide is committed for with intent to kill, on the part of Angel Locsin such intent to kill is not present. for me Angel Locsin has a shortcoming because he knows he is famous and before that he announced that only 300 persons should be given which is not present in Angel Locsin’s announcement. if criminal liability he is not guilty but in the part of civil liability there is.
ReplyDeleteSantelices, Mark D.
CBET 18-402A
2019-101995
In my opinion, Angel Locsin and her people are not liable under article 1172 of the New Civil Code for there has no negligence in maintaining the order of having social distancing and they even announced to people to go home to secure their health. Even not liable in article 365 for there is no intention of doing crime or killing but only good deeds to helping people.
ReplyDeleteBut in behalf of her action there is failing to consider the possible results of her online announcement that reached thousands of people but only 300 people who had granted stamp could accommodate. That should be precise announcement and within only the area/location. And because of sudden huge crowd the lack of having cooperation to the village officials and asking help and security from authorities
Tendoy, Erica
CBET-18-401A
2019-106708
BACERDO, MARY GRACE S.
ReplyDeleteCBET-18-401A
ASSIGNMENT 3
According to the law in article 365, Angel Locsin bears no responsibility if anything goes wrong in the mentioned event. The only goal of the community pantry she establishes, to meet people's basic needs. Everyone who took part went there of their own free will. But on the other hand in article 1172 there as a problem because she didn't notice her popularity could cause of draw crowds to community pantry and the safety guidelines of the pandemic should not longer observed. It doesn't mean that Angel Locsin wants that to happened or should be charged about it. Everyone, including the man, should be aware of the potential outcomes of their situation. As a result, Angel Locsin's intention is pure and he did not commit negligence.
As the article 365 of the revised penal code states that any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony. In the situation of Angel Locsin, the incident where a senior citizen died due to cardiac arrest is unintentional therefore Angel didn’t commit any crime because the protocol is properly observed.
ReplyDeleteRelating to article 1163 every person obliged to give something is also obliged to take care with due diligence/ proper diligence as the court’s minimum standard of care.
According to the damages under article 1172 of the new civil code, if there’s no act or omission of the crime therefore she is not liable in any negligence or reckless imprudence in the act of setting a community pantry where the only intention is to help others.
Even though there is an incident due to the stampede there is an evidence where the proper protocol is implemented therefore there’s no negligence in the act.
PUNLA, ANTHONY M.
2019-105893
CBET-18-402P
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTrisha Nicole Pajar
ReplyDeleteCBET-18-402P
2019-106981
I believe that Angel Locsin is not liable under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. Because in the first place it was never her intention to commit negligence during that event and she had never expected that it would caused death of an individual. Her intention clearly shows that she just want to help others by conducting a community pantry.
But I think she is liable for the damages under article 1172 of the New Civil Code. Whether it's not intentional or not, she is still liable for the death of a senior citizen as the incident happened in her community pantry.She is only liable for facing the responsibilities because it was not just an injury, but there was a death involve in the situation. But I don't think she has to faced imprisonment as the incident was just an accident. She was repentant and she never ignore the death of senior citizen. And lastly, I believe that there is no one to blame for that incident.
From my point of view, Angel Locsin didn't commit imprudence and negligence Act under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code for the reason that the article only states when a person shall commit any act which had it been intentional, would constitute a crime and in angel's case, she did not intend for it to happen, what she only want is to help those are in need yet under article 1172 of the civil code, angel is still responsible of negligence for not implementing a proper health protocols.
ReplyDeleteAtregenio, Hanz N.
CBET 18 - 402A
2019-104019
In my opinion, Angel Locsin didn't violated the Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. According to Article 365 "reckless imprudence can only be considered when a person shall commit any act which, had it intentional".
ReplyDeleteAngel Locsin's intention was to help the less fortunate and she wasn't expecting that the community pantry the she organized will be the cause of death of the senior citizen. However, in Article 1172 of the New Civil Code "Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of any kind of obligation is also demandable". Therefore, Angel Locsin is liable for the damages because there was a negligence in her part. She was the organizer of the said event and it was her duty to maintain the protocol of social distancing.
Balayo, Mary Ann F.
CBET-18-402A
2019-102795
In my opinion Angel Locsin did not commit the article 365 and Article 1172 setting up a pantry to provide goods to the needy cannot be considered a criminal act even if it leads to an unfortunate event
ReplyDeleteBRIONES, CARLO MIGUEL G.
CBET-18-401A
2019-106870
In my own opinion, Angel Locsin didn’t commit imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code because its states that "Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence.— Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum periodical shall be imposed. In the case of Angel Locsin, she puts community pantry to help other people who was in need. Angel Locsin intention was just to help these people and didn’t have the intention to commit a crime and put the lives of other people in danger. I also believe that it was the decision of those people to come to the community pantry, the table and the food was just there to be approached. The reason why the old man died is because of those people who jumped in line which caused him to pass out and died later on.
ReplyDeleteRodelas, Hope P.
CBET 18 – 401A
2019-101935
When a criminal mind does not exist, there is no crime. There was no irresponsibility in erecting a table as a community pantry. The table and food were waiting patiently to be approached. Angel Locsin's actions had nothing to do with the accident and she can't be held accountable for everything.
ReplyDeleteSta. Maria clarified that casual imprudence can only be considered when an individual "shall commit any act, which, if it had been done intentionally, would constitute" a crime, citing Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code as evidence.
Venus, Eunice Kaye
CBET- 18-401E
2019-103262
In my opinion, Ms. Angel Locsin did not commit imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the revised Penal code because it states that reckless imprudence can only be considered when a person shall commit any act which, had it been intentional. She has no intention to violate any crime, her only intention is to help to all who are in needs by building her own community pantry. Its all obvious that she didn't want to happen all what does to happened that time. As for her public apology to the people, especially in the family of the said died. Therefore, I guess she's not liable at all for the death of a senior citizen.
ReplyDeleteDAJAC, CLARISSA C.
CBET-18-401A
2019-105240
Based on what I've read, Angel Locsin did not commit the article 365 and Article 1172 setting up a pantry to provide goods to the needy cannot be considered a criminal act even if it leads to an unfortunate event and she
ReplyDeletedidn't commit imprudence and negligence Act under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code for the reason that the article only states when a person shall commit any act which had it been intentional, would constitute a crime and in angel's case, she did not intend for it to happen, what she only want is to help those are in need yet under article 1172 of the civil code, angel is still responsible of negligence for not implementing a proper health protocols.
Quintana, Orlando Jr. L
CBET 18-401A
2019-104244
If i would have based on Article 365 and Article 1172 i can say that Angel locsin didn't really commit a negligence on her pantry because First it is not her intention to commit a crime, second is The commotion happened in pantry wasn't her fault it is the lack of discipline of the people It wasn't her fault but she insist to help the deceased family of the person that was died, lastly for my personal opinion all she wanted to do is to help If we put her down because of what happen many people will feel frighten to help other because they may think that they will be so criticize if they did a mistake.
ReplyDeleteCarlouie Orlanes
CBET18-401A
2019-106810
ReplyDeleteIn my own opinion, Angel Locsin intention was to help the less fortunate and she wasn't expecting that the community pantry the she organized will be the cause of death of a person. However, article 365 of the Revised Penal Code she is responsible for what happen that time e because she is the reason why that senior citizen is there.
SUMPAY, JOSHUA Q.
CBET-18-401E
2019-106040
In my opinion, Angel Locsin didn't commit imprudence and negligence under 365 of the revised penal code and she's not also liable for damages under article 1172 of the new civil code because Angel Locsin did not intended to harm anyone. We already knew that Angel Locsin was naturally helpful to others especially in times of crisis. I don't think that she intended that something bad would happen to the Senior citizen, she's only intention was to help through the community pantry. She doesn't have an intention to commit a crime. Angel Locsin is not liable for any damages because she not violated any of the law.
ReplyDeleteESPARES, RICA MAE, A.
CBET-18-402-A
2018-106976
I think Angel Locsin didn't commit imprudence and negligence under Art. 365 and Art. 1172 because her intention in building a community pantry was only to help those who really are in need. Everyone who went their wasn't forced by Angel but on their own will and every person who approached Angel's community pantry already know what are the possibilities that they will face once they start waiting in line, protocol was also implemented properly so therefore there is no negligence on the act.
ReplyDeleteDOCULAN, SHENA MAEJANE B.
CBET-18-402A
2018-104168
For me angel locsin didn't commit a crime because citing Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code that reckless imprudence can only be considered when a person "shall commit any act, which, had it been intentional, would constitute" a crime. And also being an organizer is not equate to any liability. She only wanted to help us also to fill the inadequacy of our government
ReplyDeleteEstañol, John Ace
Cbet 18 401E
Under Art.365 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, it says “Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum periodical shall be imposed.” Angel Locsin is liable for simple imprudence, it is because she lacks precaution. It was also evident that there is also negligence in her part wherein she posted a live in her Facebook account (knowing that she’s a celebrity, who has a lot of followers), inviting people to come over to her community pantry, which resulted to overcrowded people in the community pantry of the actress. She also didn’t coordinate with the authorities which would help to control the crowd. She is also liable for damages under art.1172 of the New Civil Code, it is because she lacks of what we called “due diligence”, and in hosting an event like this, you need a standard of care which is extraordinary diligence, in preventing stampede and to ensure the safeness of every people who attended the said community pantry. But she is not criminally liable to the death of the senior citizen. It is because her intention was to give food for the less fortunate, and not to harm them in any way.
ReplyDeleteBARADI, ALESSA MARIELLE M.
CBET-18-401E
2019-106843
Citing article 365 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines that reckless imprudence can only be considered when a person "shall commit any act, which, had it been intentional, would constitute" a crime. Angel on my opinion did not commit a crime as she only did it for a good cause. although, she might not be criminally liable to whatever tragedy happened on that day but there will always be a guilty conscience. it was confirmed by the authority that the community pantry did not follow the safety protocols, of course because of her popularity and people needs it's expected that there will be a lot of people coming. gathering people even if the safety protocols are being followed is still dangerous. for me if they really wanted to help they should have done it in more hygienic and safer way.
ReplyDeleteSULANGI, RALPH ANGELO P
CBET-18-401A
2019-107115
MAY 13 2021 6:46 A.M
ReplyDeleteBased on my understanding and my legal opinion about the issue of Angel Locsin conducting a community pantry, I think Angel Locsin didn't commit any imprudence or negligence while she was the first person who conduct the pantry and many people who became interested on it but based on the Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code she is not liable because the article says that reckless imprudence can only be considered when a person "shall commit any act, which, had it been intentional, would constitute a crime" so that she is doing her part to help people who are in need and we all know that she can provide a financial for Lola's death or taking responsibilities for it and no one who wants to happened this kind of situation that other people can think for her or bash her in social media and the government.
AÑON, DEAN OWEN D.
CBET18-401E
2019-100894
Angel Locsin commited negligence and reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, because a 67 years old citizen lost his consciousness during the event (Community Pantry) organized by her, and was declared dead on arrival in the hospital. Under Article 365 of Revised Penal Code, "Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place." As for an actress who knows the protocols and guidelines, she failed to perform an act with precautionary measures for the citizens who would go to the said event, which she announced publicly on social media. She was liable for damages due to quasi-delict or culpa aquillana, as per Article 2176, (A quasi-delict is an act or ommission by a person which causes damage to another person, property, or rights giving rise to an obligation to pay for the damage done, there being fault or negligence but there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties), and not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, as she was in good faith in performing an act of constituting a community pantry, to help those who are in need. She's also unaware that a 67 years old, who's not allowed to go out under IATF guidelines & protocols , would go to the community pantry. The civil action for damages for the death of deceased based upon quasi-delict may proceed to judgement.
ReplyDelete2019-107029
It was clear that the intension of Ms. Angel Locsin was only to put up a community pantry on her birthday to give tribute to Filipino's who started community pantry and to help those in need. During the event there was an unexpected incident happened, and that is the death of a senior citizen. I firmly believe that Angel Locsin did not commit imprudence and negligence. Under the Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code that a reckless imprudence can only be considered when a person "shall commit any act, which, had it been intentional, would constitute" a crime. In addition to that, it was reported on the news that the senior citizen's death was a natural death and he has heart disease. However, I think that Ms. Angel Locsin is liable for the damages in maintaining order in conducting community pantry. Art.1172 responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of any kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by courts, according to any circumtances. They organized that event so it is their responsibility to make sure that safety standard is followed but as you observe, the place is crowded and health protocols like social distancing is no longer observe. This lack of control may result to other form of incident.
ReplyDeleteBELO, ROSELYN PRINCESS D.
CBET-18-402P
Angel Locsin launched the said activity, Angel just wanted to give and to show her kindness to the people. So in my own opinion Angel Locsin isn't reliable for any damages. Angel haven't any bad intention in launching the activity but to help other people. However, a person that goes to a place without knowing what will happen, that person, in particular, should be aware of the risks involved.
ReplyDeleteMACALIPSAY, TONETTE L.
CBET 18-402P
2019-106111
Based upon the definition of article 365, Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony. In the case of Angel Locsin her pure intention in setting up a pantry is just to help without any malicious motive to harm another person. Therefore in article 1172 I would say that Ms. Angel didn't commit any negligence because she never failed to remind the people who are present in her pantry, even police, militar are there to help control the crowd and witness how people really ignore the reminder for health protocols like social distancing.
ReplyDeleteCBET 18 402A
2019-105520
The actress is not liable for the ruckus and death of a citizen under the article 1172 of Civil Code. According to the web article I read, dean Melencio Sta. Maria of Far Eastern University Institute of Law wrote that there is no crime if there's no criminal mind. There is no harm in organizing a community pantry. It's purpose was to serve and help people. Angel Locsin didn't commit any negligence, her intentions is pure.
ReplyDeleteEdwin Joseph Ladera
CBET-18-401A
S (5-8pm)
Angel Locsin neither commits imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code nor liable for damages under article 1172 of the New Civil Code, as we know, the community pantry intends to provide the basic needs to those people who can`t afford it. The goods are already set but the people who will take are not responsible to follow the protocols, also there`s an age restriction in the Philippines wherein aged below 15 and above 65 may not leave their residences. Certainly, Angel Locsin didn`t break the law in helping people who are in need.
ReplyDelete- 2019-101050
According to the law, Ms. Angel Locsin is not liable for the damages happened on that situation. They are only helping to provide the basic needs of the people and they didn't expected that many people would go to that community pantry. In that situation, they must organized it well so that all people will be given and people are not harmed and people must be safe. It is so hard to manage it because there are a lot of people are waiting to receive some goods and one senior citizen died because of that. Maybe Angel Locsin can help and provide some financial needs of Lola's death or she take the responsibilities for it and hoping that no one wants to happened this kind of incident again. It will also be a lesson for those who conducting community pantry, that it will happen like that situation, especially to the people who are on outside and people should aware on possible risk which will happen to them and always follow the safety protocols.
ReplyDeleteDAMPOG, JOCELYN L.
CBET-18-401E
2019-100759
Community Pantry in a bandwagon effects encourages Filipinos to do Bayanihan to help the needy during the pandemic. In her part, Ms. Angel Locsin, a well-known celebrity is not new in helping others in her own capacity without any help from others. Encouraged with the idea of Community Pantry, she set up her own as her celebration of her birthday.
ReplyDeleteHowever, an untoward incident occurred when a senior citizen who lined up for the “ayuda” succumbed to heart failure thus making the news more intriguing not just it was initiated by Ms. Angel but also, she is a celebrity. Nevertheless, a known critic of the government.
Citing Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines as “reckless imprudence” is a crime punishable by law under Republic Act 10951 and the Article 1172 or “Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances”.
If the organizers, led by Ms. Angel fails to adhere to the safety and precautions in conducting this huge event, failure to ask assistance from the local government especially the Barangay Officials and provide necessary procedures in the conduct of the event, then in my opinion she and others who run the event are liable to the incident.
BADONG, ADRIAN S.
CBET 18 402A
2019-105191
In my legal opinion, Angel Locsin didn’t commit imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, because she not committed any act that been intentional, would constitute a crime. The death of senior citizen was never part of her intention. Angels’ intention was to help our fellow Filipinos in need and reprieve from COVID-19 hardships. However, she was not liable at all for the damages, they made preparations but the people are not able to control. There is no crime when there is no criminal mind and there was no even accident due to any action of Angel Locsin.
ReplyDeleteFRECY JOY J. NIETES
CBET 18- 402A
2019- 106639
Article 365 of the Revised Penal of the Philippines stated that reckless imprudence is when a person "shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute’ a crime." Angel Locsin didn't commit imprudence because she have no 'act' that resulted in the death of a senior citizen. What unfortunately happened to the senior citizen was never a part of her intention on organizing a community pantry and inviting people over. It is clear that her only intention was to provide food and other necessities for those who are in need. Also, the senior citizen went to the community pantry on it's own will, regardless of the affiliated risks.
ReplyDeleteHowever, under Article 1172 of the New Civil Code, Angel Locsin is liable for damages due to negligence in the act of maintaining order. She and her team who organized the community pantry, should have foreseen the flock of people who wanted to line up to their organized community pantry when they announced the event in public. It's their obligation to prevent accidents or such from happening, and to ensure the safety of everyone who attends the said community pantry.
BONAYON, SIRELLE ANNE D.
CBET-18-401E
2019-106842
I believe there was no negligence in setting the community pantry as it is meant to help people in need. There’s no intent to hurt or harm anyone. Citing Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, that reckless imprudence can only be considered when a person "shall commit any act, which, had it been intentional, would constitute" a crime. The death of a senior citizen was not her fault nor intentional. However, she can be held liable for maintaining order while conducting community pantry the incident could have been avoided if the actress had coordinated with the local government unit prior to the event. It also evident that the incident raised the chances of COVID-19 spreading. It became difficult to control the crowd due to the huge number of people in line, and physical distancing protocols were disregarded.
ReplyDeleteCASTAÑEDA,ARIZA MARIE R.
CBET-18-402A
2019-102019
Actress Angel Locsin is "not liable at all" for the ruckus and death of a senior citizen at her community pantry set up in Barangay Holy Spirit in Quezon City on Friday, April 23. Rolando dela Cruz, 67, died while waiting in line at Locsin's community Pantry that she organized to celebrate her 36th birthday. Far Eastern University Institute of Law dean Mel Sta. Maria, "There is no crime when there is no criminal mind. The table and the food were just there to be approached"
ReplyDeleteThere was even no accident due to any action of Angel Locsin. There is just absolutely nothing to make Angel Locsin liable.Citing Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, Sta. Maria explained that reckless imprudence can only be considered when a person "shall commit any act, which, had it been intentional, would constitute" a crime.
UCHI,DANIEL F.
CBET-18-402A
2019-101900
In my opinion, Angel Locsin didn't commit any crime, negligence nor damages, because according to the revised penal code 365 a person is liable to crime or negligence if there's is an act or omission to commit a crime and a criminal mind. In an angel's case putting up a table and displaying goods to help people who are in need is not an act/intention of Angel to commit a crime neither negligence.
ReplyDeleteMostaza, Cristine R.
CBET-18-401E
2019-101002
In my opinion, based on Article 365 and Article 172, Ms. Angel Locsin had no liability for the event because there are no illegal intentions and negligence made. The only purpose of the said event(community pantry) was to donate some goods to fulfill their needs during this pandemic. Every person, especially the senior citizens who went to the event, should be aware of the potential risk.
ReplyDeleteMARFIL, PATRICK LORENZ C.
CBET-18-402A
2019-105233
In my opinion, Angel Locsin didn’t commit Imprudence and Negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code because as stated in the Law “Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony. The purpose of putting up a community pantry was to help those people in need and not to harm them. The death of the senior citizen was not intentional and it was due to “natural causes”. Angel even helped the family of the deceased with all the expenses without hesitation and immediately apologized to the bereaved family. The only thing that Angel Locsin did was put up a community pantry to help other people and I don’t see any reason to accuse her of committing imprudence and negligence. She’s also not liable for damages Under Article 1172 of The New Penal Code due to negligence in maintaining order. She called security to maintain order and social distancing but it was not implemented due to the citizens lack of cooperation. People went there in their own will and they are fully aware of the possible incidents that might happen so it is not the organizers or Angel Locsin’s responsibility to take all the blame because helping those in need was her only intention.
ReplyDeleteBACOR, JUNEBERT J.
2019 - 106814
CBET 18 - 401A
In my opinion, I can say that Angel Locsin didn't commit any crime and negligence, because according to article 365 stated that reckless imprudence is when shall commit any act, which had it been intentional, would constitute a crime.What unfortunately happened to the senior citizen was never part of Angel Locsin intention on organizing a community pantry and inviting people over. Her only intention is to help.
ReplyDeleteMIRAL, JAMES RODE B.
CBET-18-401A
2019-107069
Angel Locsin is “not liable at all” for the commotion and death of a senior citizen at her community pantry set up in Barangay Holy Spirit in Quezon City on Friday, April 23.
ReplyDeleteRolando dela Cruz, 67, died because of cardiac arrest while waiting in line at Angel Locsin's community pantry that she organized to celebrate her 36th birthday. As stated in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code that reckless imprudence can only be considered when a person "shall commit any act, which, had it been intentional, would constitute" a crime. It is clear that the only intention of the artist is to help those people who are in need during this pandemic and not to put people in danger. Regards to civil liable for damages of the actress as of the Article 1172 of the New Civil Code which states “responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of any kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by, according to any circumtances". In the part of Ms. Angel Locsin there is a lapse because as implementer of the event she has a responsibility to make sure the safety protocols that the government implement was observed. However, since she is known as famous actress and the people knows that she will personally give the relief, many people just go there to see her, so it happen that the place was became crowded and uncontrollable that the safety protocols was not followed that cause an unexpected incident to that event. In addition, Angel Locsin was able to take care for the responsibility of the death of the senior citizen and also apologize not only for the family but also for the people who are involved for the said event.
2019-106312
CBET-18-402P
As for me, Angel Locsin did not commit imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the revised penal code, which specifies that you will be charged with a crime if you commit an act or omission with the intent to commit a crime. Which shows that her pure intention is to help through this Community Pantry of her but she didn't require anybody to come or invite them. Due to extreme poverty brought on by the pandemic, as well as government incompetence and a lack of aid, people have decided to come just to receive enough help to supplement themself, or in the very least, one-day survival.
ReplyDeleteMonicit, Winona A.
CBET18-401E
2019-105864
In my own opinion Ms. Angel Locsin is didn’t commit in any imprudence and negligence under Article 365, because she didn’t want to cause any trouble in having community pantry during her birthday she only wants to help those people in needs in this kind of crisis we experienced. But Ms. Angel Locsin was still liable for the damages under the Article 1172 because there was negligence in restricting the protocol in that place where the community pantry happens.
ReplyDeleteSotoniel, Sherwin Bless P.
CBET 18-402P
2019-104919
Penamante, Nica Jasmin G.
ReplyDeleteCBET-1-402P
2019-105239
In my opinion, Angel Locsin did not commit any imprudence and negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal code after the senior citizen died, because she only want to help and it is not her intention for that accident to be happened. However, Angel Locsin’s intention may be purely good but she is liable for the damages under Article 1172 of the New Civil Code. She may didn’t expected what happened, but unfortunately, she is responsible for what happened due to her negligence in maintaining order while conducting community pantry.
In my opinion, Angel Locsin is liable for the responsibility and damages under 1172 of the New Civil Code because she organized the event and according to Barangay Holy Spirit Councilor, Jomar Lagarto, Locsin and her team did not coordinate with them before the event so no protocols were implemented to control the crowd. But, still there’s no crime when there is no criminal mind. Angel Locsin has no intention to hurt people, she just organized the birthday community pantry to help those people.
ReplyDeleteLucas, Patricia Mae S.
CBET-18-402P
2019-106402
According to the Revised Penal Code Article 365 Section 1, Reckless Imprudence is failing to do an act which resulted to inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing the act (in this case,it's Angel). However,section 1 also stated that the person's degree of intelligence and other circumstances have to be considered to hold the person (Angel )accountable. In this case we cannot truly say if she is accountable because we have limited information on other circumstances that need to be considered.It is for the investigators to figure out and the court to decide.If proven however that Angel, had all the knowledge or forseen possiblities like what happened,and yet she did not take any precaution,she might be held accountable.
ReplyDeleteTINGUE, ANGELA MAY
2019-101365
CBET - 18 - 401A
For me, I think Angel Locsin didn't commit any imprudence or negligence under Article 365, because in the first place it is not intentional all she wants is to help the people by giving their needs, FOODS. It's not her fault if there are too many people, while in ARTICLE 1172 I also think she didn't commit any crime because we all know, Angel Locsin didn't miss any reminder,she always remind the people about the safety protocol, it's not her fault if the people didn't listen to her. All she did is to give care and foods for the people.
ReplyDeleteRAQUEL NECESARIO
CBET18-402P
As the Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code states that "any person, who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period.", it means that Ms. Angel Locsin clearly did not violated the Article 365 for the reason that her intention was to help people who are in need by setting a community pantry and there was no imprudence and negligence happened because according to the report, the senior citizen died because of “natural causes”. In Article 1172 of the New Civil Code, Ms. Angel Locsin was not liable for the damages because when performing the community pantry, she never forgot to remind the people about safety precautions and procedures. Therefore, her intention was pure and there’s no negligence happened.
ReplyDeleteImperial, Ashley Nicole R.
CBET-18-402P
2019-105265
My take on this is Angel Locsin did not commit imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code because it clearly states that Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional we all know that she is just trying to help those people who are in needs and she doesn't want to hurt even one of them it just they were not expecting that there are so many people who will come to their pantry And yes, she was liable for damages under article 1172 of the New Civil Code as well due to negligence in maintaining order while conducting community pantry because they were the ones who made the event and all the people were there for their pantry was their obligation too so that if anyone gets injured they were the ones who are amenable to it but only the court can determine if the negligence was gross or just ordinary because it depends on the circumstances and evidence.
ReplyDelete2019-106738
CBET18-402A
First of all, if you are going to organize something like community pantry then you should coordinate with the authorities or the Baranggay officials. Angel locsin violated the protocols by inviting a lot of people without informing the authorities. She should be aware that after posting it on social media a lot of people will come and even though her intention was pure there are rules that have been violated.I think she is liable for damages under article 1172 of the New Civil Code as well due to negligence in maintaining order while conducting community Pantry,
ReplyDeleteLicanda, Shaula Mae C.
2019-107067
CBET18-401A
In my insights regarding the recently issue that Ms. Angel Locsin involve in old mans death is that, Angel didn’t commit any imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code because that article stated that you’ll be committed a crime if you have an act to commit a crime and you have a criminal intent in state of mind which only shows that putting up a community pantry is to help the unprivileged locals on that place and on the other side the incident is not Angel Locsin’s intention to happen.
ReplyDeleteJOHN CHRISTIAN A. HERNANDEZ
CBET-18-401A
2019-106480
Based on my understanding Angel Locsin did not commit the article 365 and Article 1172 in view of the fact that there were policemen nearby to help them. It just happened that there was an incident and she didn't expect that to happen, she's just helping those people.
ReplyDelete2018-108423
Based on the law Angel Locsin is not liable for Article 365 of the revised penal code since it states there that "Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been INTENTIONAL..." Angel Locsin organized that community pantry for helping those people in need especially in this times of pandemic, her ONLY INTENTION was to HELP by putting food on the table and that act was not a crime, people that came there act their own free will and responsible for their actions such as (not following social distancing protocols) Locsin had nothing to do with the decision of the people to troop to her community pantry despite her invitation on Facebook the day before, EVERYONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. If a person takes a chance to go somewhere, he must have assumed the risk that comes with it. BUT we can tell that there is negligence in maintaining order while conducting community pantry, since Angel Locsin posted announcement on her FB considering she has millions of followers and she's "artista" whose many followers they must expected that there's a possibilities that a lot of people will come and it happened (there's a scenario that people came even though they are not from Quezon City just to personally meet the artist.) Her team was capable of catering only 300 people, they failed to coordinate on the local LGU and police force to give assistance to neutralize the situation. It boils down to having the good intention to help but in a wrong or not in the best way to do it.
ReplyDeleteMARIAN GRACE G. AGBAYANI
2019-106841
CBET 18-402P
In my opinion, Angel Locsin did not commit imprudence and negligence under Art. 365 because as the beginning part of the article say "Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period" but the death of the senior citizen is not Angel’s intention. As well, she is not liable under Article 1172 of the New Civil Code because it is not her obligation to help poor families. She just volunteered and helped poor families with the community pantry.
ReplyDeleteSAN FELIPE, PRECIOUS PRINCESS M.
CBET-18-401E
2019-105080
Based on the investigation that I gathered, there was negligence and haste in the said incident because at first there was a commotion when people lined up in the community pantry. But if this is all to blame on actress Angel Locsin is completely wrong, because all she wants is to help people for her birthday. For me it is not the actress who is lacking but the people and the security, because if only the guidelines were followed the situation might not have worsened.
ReplyDeleteArticle 365 of the revised penal code was not done by the actress because "There is no crime when there is no criminal mind. Neither was there negligence in putting up a table as a community pantry.." which was stated by Mel Sta. Maria from FEU. And even if the actress is still in charge of that Community pantry and is the one who called the attention of the majority, she is not responsible to the people in accordance with article 1172. Since the people still have the final decision, whether they will go. or not, and whether they complied with the policy or not. Therefore, anyone who has been negligent and does not follow the protocols is liable for the said incident.
BARICANTE, DONNA MARIE V.
CBET 18-402P
2019- 106707
In Angel Locsin case, she committed the article 365 of the Revised Penal Code because of “lack of precaution” wherein health protocols are not followed. Also, she is liable for damages under article 1172 of the New Civil Code because in all kinds of obligation is demandable and you have a responsibility from any negligence. Even if her intension was to help people, still she has a negligence in not conducting health protocols and ask assistance on Barangay Officials. And the court will determine if its ordinary or gross negligence depending on the evidence of both parties.
ReplyDeleteMeneses, Angela Claire G.
CBET-18-402A
2019-104505
Although Angel Locsin is still liable for Article 1772 for not being able to maintain public order during her community pantry I believe that she did not do what Article 365 entails. From what I've read in this Blog, Angel Locsin was not capable of handling a community of that size. But she is not at fault for what happened to the old man, because that old man was sick at the time and was strongly advised by his family member to not participate in her community pantry because they've observed that it was very crowded.
ReplyDeleteMACUJA, FRANCIS ANGELO
CBET-18-402P
2019-106770
Based on my opinion, Angel Locsin didn't commit imprudence and negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code because her only intention when she put up the community pantry was to help those people who are in need. She doesn't have any criminal intent or any intention to commit crime therefore Angel Locsin has no liability after the senior citizen died while waiting for his turn to receive goods.
ReplyDeleteANGELA MHAE ENCINAS
CBET 18 - 401A
2019-103352
In my opinion, Ms. Locsin didn’t commit imprudence and negligence. She only intend her compassion and benevolence through her birthday and not intend to harm or put anyone into risk. Before she organize the said event, I strongly believe that she knows all the health protocols to be implemented and didn’t lack in reminding the people to follow the rules. It’s just that people were so hungry and dedicated to get some relief goods to the point that they neglected to follow all the rules and created a chaos. Ms. Locsin didn’t violate any existing law, her event was highly coordinated and she already had this kind of event even before.
ReplyDeleteEbano, Sarah May Trixie O.
CBET18-402P
2019-107066
According to the Article 365. Imprudence and Negligence. Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony. In the case of Angel Locsin, we are all aware about her pure intention, whatever damage happened to the community pantry initiated by her wasn't her fault neither her team because I believe good intention won't fail if people knows how to cooperate. During the event there were securities and authorities who warned and instructed them from the very beginning. Therefore, Angel Locsin did not commit imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code as she was only trying to help those people who are badly affected by the pandemic.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in article 1172 of the New Civil Code, whereas, responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable. Angel Locsin was liable for damages as they were not able to maintain the health and safety protocols like social distancing, while conducting community pantry due to the fact that some people are so undisciplined as well which caused the death of senior citizen. Angel Locsin shall take responsibility for the damages because it was her project and during that event it was so overcrowded which is against to the general safety rules.
DASTALA, FARHANA M.
CBET18-401A
2019-102766
No, Angel Locsin did not commit imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code after the senior citizen died while waiting for his turn to receive some goods from Angel Locsin's birthday community pantry because she only wanted to help by doing a community pantry, it just can't be help that some people cannot wait for their turn, just because they needed the goods. And Angel Locsin did not know that that was gonna happen.
ReplyDeleteKristal Mae Dahlen
CBET-18-402P
2019-107127
In my opinion, Ms. Locsin didn't commit imprudence and negligence act under art 365 of the revised penal code because it states that you'll be committed a crime if you have an act or omission to commit a crime and you have a criminal intent in state of mind which only shows that putting up a community pantry is only to help those people in needs but doesn't have intention to commit a crime or break the law because of those people that cut in the line that cause death of an old man.
ReplyDeleteGUANZON, WILMAR S.
CEBT 18 402P
2019-102228
In my own opinion, Angel Locsin is not liable because there is no crime when there is no criminal mind that's why Angel Locsin didn't commit imprudence and negligence act under 365 of the revised penal code because Angel Locsin intention in the community pantry is to help people who in need but she doesn't know that it will happen.
ReplyDeleteFAUSTO, RHOBEE KHEINMOORE M.
CBET-18-401A
2019-101105
Citing Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, reckless imprudence can only be considered when a person commit any act, which, had it been intentional, would constitute a crime. Angel Locsin is not liable at all for the ruckus and death of a senior citizen at her community pantry. While waiting for his turn, Locsin said Dela Cruz, a balut vendor, had a heated argument with someone who jumped the line which caused him to pass out and die later on. Being an organizer of community pantry does not equate to liability.
ReplyDeleteDE ROA, JALELAH T.
CBET 18 401E
2019-104336
Based on my understanding, Angel Locsin did not commit imprudence and negligence under the Art.365 of the revised penal code, because Angel Locsin has no criminal intent in his state of his mind which is she only putting up a community pantry to help to those people in need, but i think she is liable under Art. 1172 of the New Civil Code because she is responsible in all what happening to that event that she put up. She needs to pay for the damages, because there is someone died because of his birthday community pantry.
ReplyDeleteMARCILLA, JORGE ELIJAH M
CBET-18-402A
2019-101700
Based on my humble opinion, Ms. Angel Locsin didn’t commit imprudence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code but she committed “lack of precaution” and negligence wherein a senior citizen died while waiting for his turn to get a good from her pantry. It was stated in ART. 1172 that responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable. So, Ms. Angel Locsin is liable for damages given that physical distancing and other public health and safety standards were no longer observed during that time. Another factor to consider is lack of coordination with authority, it was said that the Quezon City government was not advised by the group of actress Angel Locsin regarding its community pantry. It is clearly shown that they are not fully prepared and negligence is absolute, It’s good to provide help and assistance to others but she and her team must keep in mind the threat of coronavirus to those people who will come to her community pantry if health protocols are not fully observed and implemented.
ReplyDelete2019-105781
Tanyag, Allan Christian F.
CBET-18-402A
In comformity with the law, Angel Locsin evidently is not liable to what happened in the said event. She didn't commit recklesness or negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code and she's not even accountable for damages Under article 1172 Of the New Civil Code, for the reason that she did not intentionally want that matter to happen because the main purpose of the event is to help those people in needs. Moreover, she did not force people to come to her community pantry. People voluntarily participated to it, and she also make sure that there’ll be people in charge to each spots. She tried to instruct and to be well prepared to make sure that everyone will follow the protocols and everything will run smooth, that is why there’s a policemen and personnels whos in-charge to guide the citizens and to maintain a calmness operation.
ReplyDeleteCRISOSTOMO, REYNA C.
2019-106743
CBET-18-402P
According to Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, reckless imprudence is only considered when an individual commits an act that would be a crime if done intentionally. So, where there isn't a criminal mind, there isn't a crime.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Locsin's potential legal liability under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which states that whoever causes harm to another by act or omission, without fault or negligence,is obligated to compensate for the damage done, and there was no omission on the actress's part.
To be guilty of omission, an individual must understand the incident's proximate cause. It is refers to an incident that the courts have determined to be the cause of an accident.
For their own protection, senior citizens should not go outside while we are under the modefied enhanced community quaratine and anybody who takes a chance to go anywhere must be aware of the risks involved.
Angel Locsin and her group, on the other hand, could be held responsible for failing to obey strict safety protocols and guidelines(like social distancing and mass gathering), as we all know that we're on modefied enhanced community quaratine with a restriction on going outside.
Rodriguez, Pauline Joy C.
CBET-18-402P
2019-105236
In my personal opinion, Ms. Angel Locsin didn’t commit imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. The cause of death of the senior citizen is heart attack and we all know that no one expected that. So Angel Locsin had no responsibility because she had no intention to commit a crime when the senior citizen died while waiting for his turn to receive goods. And according to Mel Sta. Maria, “There is no crime when there is no criminal mind. Neither was there negligence in putting up a table as a community pantry. The table and the food were just there to be approached,” It shows that her main goal for establishing the community pantry was to help those people in need.
ReplyDeleteTADEM, ANNA LISA J.
CBET 18-402P
2019- 104918
For me Angel Locsin didn't commit imprudence and negligence under art 365 of the revised penal code. because it state that any person who, shall commit any act which, had it been intentionally would constitute the penalty but in Angel Locsin intention is to help people needed food, not to committed a crime and for the damages under article 1172 of the new civil code. she has to because the responsibility from the negligence and obligation is demandable because the senior citizen died upon of her community pantry.
ReplyDeleteBATULAN ANDREHINA M
CBET-18-402A
2019-106992
Based on my understanding about article 365 you'll only commit a crime if and only if you have an omission to commit an criminal intent to it. So in my opinion Community pantry of Angel locsin doesn't commit any crime or any violation because the only purpose of it is to provide people's food, people who participate in her community pantry has a obligation to follow social distancing and other procedures to prevent spreading the virus. It is not Angel locsin fault that the senior citizen died during her community pantry.
ReplyDeleteTAGUINOD, CINDY P
CBET-18-402P
2019-105741
Citing Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, that reckless imprudence can only be considered when a person "shall commit any act, which, had it been intentional, would constitute" a crime. In my own opinion, Angel Locsin’s intention was to put up a community pantry wherein to help and give to people. There was no crime happened neither no negligence in just putting up a table for the community and the food was just there to be approached.
ReplyDeleteELIAS, MARIA LOUIE JEAN P.
CBET 18-401E
2019-103955
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, Any person who, by reckless imprudence, A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done MALICIOUSLY, would have constituted a light felony. Since there is no malice on that community pantry held by Angel Locsin for her birthday, all she want is to help those people who are having difficulties on their daily needs. Well, technically she didn't commit the negligence and imprudence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
ReplyDeleteHowever, she is liable for the damages under Article 1172 of the New Civil Code. Angel Locsin and her Team has an obligation to keep the people safe from the virus and other health threats or incidents. In addition, there is no proper coordination from the LGU to observe and strictly implement the health & safety protocols. Therefore, there is a negligence on their part and they should be accountable on their mishaps.
ALLARE, CHRISTIAN LYLE G.
CBET-18-401E
2019-106802
Angel Locsin did not commit imprudence and negligence, under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code to simply put it the article is for road accidents, in which the have stated in the explanatory note. I have stated that she did not commit any act to oppose Article 365 for the senior citizen did not perish in a road accident. As for Article 1172 it is stated there that it is "negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation." in which Ms. Angel took measures to ensure that there is security whilst giving out food for her community pantry, as well as a line separating the senior citizens.
ReplyDeleteDE BORJA, DENISE SHAINE A.
CBET-18-401E
2019-105081
In my legal opinion, Angel Locsin DID NOT commit imprudence and negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. According to the article, reckless imprudence and negligence can only be considered where one "shall commit any act which had it been intentional". The celebrity's intentions for organizing a community pantry is crystal clear: to aid people who less fortunate by providing the basic needs as her way of celebrating her birthday. Angel never intended to organize a community pantry for this tragic incident to happen. She is also not liable for damages under Article 1172 of the New Civil Code. There was no negligence in her part for maintaining order while conducting community pantry. Furthermore, she was even well-prepared by hiring volunteers for safety and health protocols and to mitigate any risks in the event. It was beyond her control that many people came to her community pantry, thus difficulty in observing social distancing. Despite that she invited people, aware that she is celebrity herself, there was no crime involved in said event. The people went to the community pantry in their own will and know the risks that comes with it.
ReplyDelete- 2019-106727 // CBET-18-401E
Untal, Ayezza Joy
ReplyDelete2019-107047
CBET-18-401E
In my opinion, They did not violated the article 365 because the only intention of Angel locsin in creating that community pantry was to help people who are highly affected by this pandemic and people came there on their own will. However, they are liable for damages under article 1172 of the new Civil Code because there is a negligence in maintaining order and implementing safety health protocols in that event.
Ms. Angel Locsin has a good heart that truly cares about others, makes her an angel not just in name, but also in deeds of selflessness. In my opinion, Ms. Locsin didn’t commit imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the Revise Penal Code and Article 1172 for the reason that there’s no accident to any action made by her, she only gave helping hand by celebrating her birthday through organizing the community pantry and has no intention to put anyone in danger. I believe that the organizers of the said event already set the table and food just there to be approached and also reminded the people to follow the health protocols. Ms. Locsin didn’t violate any existing law and not liable at all for the death of the senior citizen, the good thing is her initiation to help the said Family. There's no one to blame because we're all conscious of what's happening; we're dealing with a pandemic and people are desperate to obtain goods to the point of harming themselves.
ReplyDeleteBacani, Jazz-m P.
CBET-18-401E
2019-107031
Rey Matias, Sean Brent T.
ReplyDeleteCBET-18-401E
2018-106974
At first it seems that Ms.Angel locsin commit imprudence and negligence under 365 of the Revised Penal Code after the senior citizen died while waiting for his turn to receive some goods from Angel Locsin's birthday community pantry and will be liable for damages. However this birthday community pantry held by Ms. Locsin is in good faith, she just want to help people and not to cause harm to them. She did not committed any crime with her bare hands that's why she is not liable of any lawsuits. According to the Law when proven that the act is done in good faith then it can lift the debt of an obligator to obligee. And I believe that the art.1160 is present in this issue, both parties fall in quasi-contract that's why the culmination of the lawsuit did not happen to these parties.
ReplyDeleteZapanta, Mark Jefferson B.
CBET-18-401A
2019-102515
Ms. Angel Locsin didn't commit imprudence and negligence act under art 365 of the revised penal code because is not liable at all. There is no crime when there is no criminal mind.Neither was there negligence in putting up a table as community pantry. The table and the food were just there to be approached. There was even no accident due to any action of Angel Locsin. There is just absolutely nothing to make Angel Locsin liable. Being merely an organizer does not equate to liability. Ms. Angel Locsin is really concern for the people, she always help others in any calamity or situations. She is really a good person and not committed in any crime.
Zapanta, Mark Jefferson B.
ReplyDeleteCBET-18-401A
(2019-101525)
Ms. Angel Locsin didn't commit imprudence and negligence act under art 365 of the revised penal code because is not liable at all. There is no crime when there is no criminal mind.Neither was there negligence in putting up a table as community pantry. The table and the food were just there to be approached. There was even no accident due to any action of Angel Locsin. There is just absolutely nothing to make Angel Locsin liable. Being merely an organizer does not equate to liability. Ms. Angel Locsin is really concern for the people, she always help others in any calamity or situations. She is really a good person and not committed in any crime.
In my opinion, Angel Locsin did not commit imprudence and negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. According to the article "it aims to penalize criminal negligence committed by COMMON CARRIERS with imprisonment". Her community pantry did not involve any common carriers/public transportation such as buses or jeeps. However, when Angel Locsin announced that she would open a community pantry she did not anticipate the large crowd that would swell in the said event that caused chaos resulting in the death of a senior citizen while waiting for his turn to receive some goods. According to Article 1172 of the New Civil Code of the Phlippines it states that "responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances". Ms. Angel Locsin as the organizer, failed to ensure the safety of the people during the community pantry.
ReplyDelete2019-102113 / CBET-18-402A
Ms. Angel Locsin organized a community pantry in celebration of her 36th birthday in Barangay Holy Spirit in Quezon City on April 23. That day, many people are waiting to get some goods in the said community pantry. Alot of things happen during that time, including the scene of a senior citizen (balut vendor) that passed out while waiting for his turn to get goods and die later on he was consider as dead on arrival.
ReplyDeleteI think, Ms. Angel Locsin did not violate the Article 365 and she is not liable for any damages. According to Mel Sta. Maria (Dean of FEU Institute of Law) "There is no crime when there is no criminal mind". Since the intention of Ms. Angel Locsin is good and she just wanted to help and provide something to her fellow citizens. Also, Ms. Angel Locsin is kind and did not want to harm anyone and that's the reason why I admire her. She also took the responsibility in the said incident.
But I think Ms. Angel Locsin was liable for the damages under Article 1172 of New Civil Code, since she was well-known artist and influencer and she announced it on social media that she will organize a community pantry to her birthday celebration. Therefore, she must expect that many pople will come and want to line up in her community pantry. She was liable for the damages under Article 1172 of New Civil Code, because she is the one who want to conduct a community pantry in her birthday celebration. In result, she took all the responsibility and she made an public apology to the incident.
Manangan, Jonel R.
CBET-18-401E
2019-104504
In my opinion, Angel Locsin do it because of her free will. She did not intend to hurt someone, She did it because of her eagerness to help other people who needs help. For me she did not commit any violations and especially referring to article 365. It is an accident no one can control and cannot be predicted.
ReplyDeleteAnjello C. Salatan
CBET-18-402P
2019-106849
In my opinion, Angel Locsin did not commit any damages under Articles 365 and Article 1172; there was no negligence in putting a community pantry. Angel and her management organized the community pantry. Angel Locsin's intentions are kind and pure; she wanted to help the community that lacks daily basic needs because of the pandemic. But I think she is liable for not implementing proper rules and regulations such as "social distancing" and maintaining the crowd.
ReplyDeleteGeslani, Mark S.
CBET-18-401E
2019-102011
Siapco, Lawrence Joshua C.
ReplyDeleteCBET-18-402P
2019-104977
Based on my understanding about article 365 you'll only commit a crime if and only if you have an omission to commit an criminal intent to it. In my own opinion, Angel and her management did not commit crime because their intention was to help people who's in need. The intention is to help not to kill. They wanted to help people. We all know that Angel is very kind and loving person on and off the camera. But I think there's a problem about the social distancing. Many people came so there's a little bit of chaos. If they implement rules that there are only limited person who need to come in like for example first 50 persons are allowed. But we cannot blame them because many people are suffering from the pandemic right now.
On her Birthday Celebration angel set up a trending community pantry which is the main idea is to help people in need. Many people outnumbered the said event and it went to a cause where there is a person died during the Birthday Celebration. So, Angel is kind person because she thinks other rather than celebrating her Birthday on her home with her family,friends. The said community pantry is attended by many that the health protocol that are maintaining today is not abide that time. Because of the large gatherings she maybe the one that will sum up the amount of spreading the covid.
ReplyDeleteMs. Angel Locsin was liable for the damages under Article 1172 of New Civil Code
2019-105206
Limwell Aznar
On her Birthday Celebration angel set up a trending community pantry which is the main idea is to help people in need. Many people outnumbered the said event and it went to a cause where there is a person died during the Birthday Celebration. So, Angel is kind person because she thinks other rather than celebrating her Birthday on her home with her family,friends. The said community pantry is attended by many that the health protocol that are maintaining today is not abide that time. Because of the large gatherings she maybe the one that will sum up the amount of spreading the covid.
ReplyDeleteTherefore,Ms. Angel Locsin was liable for the damages under Article 1172 of New Civil Code
2019-105206 / CBET-18-401E
Limwell Aznar
In my opinion, Ms. angel Locsin only extends her hands to help the people since we all know Ms. Angel Locsin is always on the move whenever there are disasters and now the pandemic. For me she didn't commit imprudence and negligence under article 265 of the Revise Penal Code and Article 1172 since her actions didn't commit any accidents towards the people. It is impossible for the organizers of the said event to set rules that may harm the people around the pantry since they are all aware of the strict policy when doing activities outside. No one should blame the death of the senior citizen since we are all conscious of the rapid growth of the virus, not all are lucky enough to have the basic necessities that every family should have at this moment.
ReplyDeleteCBET-18-401E
2019-106733
In my opinion, Ms. Angel Locsin didn't commit imprudence and negligence act under article 365 of the revised penal code and also she's not liable for any damages under article 1172 of the new civil code. Angel Locsin is not liable at all. Her intention is pure and true, she only want to help the people in need in this kind of situation that we are facing right now. There was even no accident due to any action of Angel Locsin. There is just absolutely nothing to make Angel Locsin liable. Of course it's only right and natural for Ms. Angel to be sorry about the life that was lost. For me the main problem here is not following the health protocols like social distancing. Organizers are expected to enforce health protocols and orderliness in community pantries.
ReplyDelete2019-104281
ABRENICA, CLAIRE C.
CBET-18-402P
Angel locsin is not guilty of death of Rolando dela Cruz, 67. He died while waiting in line at Locsin's community pantry that she organized to celebrate her 36th birthday. According to Citing Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, reckless imprudence can only be considered when a person "shall commit any act, which, had it been intentional, would constitute" a crime. Also There is no crime when there is no criminal mind. Neither was there negligence in putting up a table as a community pantry. But she is liable according Article 2176 of Civil Code which states “whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done,”
ReplyDelete2019-104662
BALANAG, RONALYN B.
CBET-18-402a
ReplyDeleteI think Angel Locsin is still responsible for damages pursuant to Article 1172 of the New Civil Code because of negligence in maintaining order while carrying out the Community Pantry and thus also because of the Angel's responsibility to some people. She organized the Community Pantry so she have people to handle.
2019-107183
BACOY, LAILA KATE T.
CBET-18-402P
For me,Angel Locsin did not commit imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code and Article 1172 of the New Civil Code because Angel did not commit any act that is intentional that would harm those people around her and if a person takes a chance to go somewhere,he/she must have assumed the risk that comes with it.
ReplyDelete2019-101969
CAAMIC,EMMANUEL B.
CBET-18-401A
KARLA MAE N. BASTARRICHEA
ReplyDelete2019-107102
Angel Locsin do not commit imprudence and negligence under the general term of Article 365 in the revised penal code since her actions is not malicious and do not intent to harm the person who died during the program however, reckless imprudence can be labelled on her part due to her reckless action, lack of precaution, and do not consider the physical condition in such way that upon hearing the news there are no guards being mandated on the lines or there are no limits within the line such as only 50 persons can be accommodated and vice versa because Angel Locsin's community party accommodate all the people who fall in line and that might really cause for other people to fall in line and hope for some goods to be given. Aside from that, there are no special lines or priority lane given to the senior citizen which just make the situation even worst. In addition, yes she must be held liable under Article 1172 of revised penal code wherein her community program is her responsibility and nay damages due to negligence must also be her responsibility to take over even if there are no intentions of death and suffering.
2019-102292
ReplyDeleteSANTOS, MARIELLA S.
CBET-18-401E
Based on what I have read, I think Ms. Angel Locsin is not accountable under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines because it is not her plan or intention to do recklessness throughout the event also she didn't expect that it will cause death for somebody. The purpose of her event was to help the less fortunate in the middle of this pandemic by conducting a community pantry.
However, she is accountable for the damages under Article 1172 of the New Civil Code. Even, it is intentional or not, she is considered liable for the death of the said Senior Citizen because the incident happened was during her event. So, she is accountable for facing the charges because it wasn't only a simple injury, but there was a death associated with the situation. Also, as the organizer of her event, there was negligence on her part for wasn't able to apply proper health protocols since it was her obligation to sustain the health protocol of social distancing. But, I don't think she needs to suffer from imprisonment because she was sorry and she didn't disregard the death of a senior citizen. Moreover, I think there is no one to blame for that incident because both parties (Ms. Angel Locsin and the public) made a mistake for not following the health protocols.
Based to this legal issues, Angel Locsin did not commit improdence and negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. It was an accident, she did not intended to kill somebody. There is no crime when there is no criminal mind. It caused by accident while having that community pantry or event. She even didn't know that it will happen because she just want to help for those people who badly needed some needs.
ReplyDelete2019-106790
NACE, ERICA KEI-ANNE B.
CBET-18-402P
For me, Angel Locsin did not Commit imprudence and Negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code and Article 1172 of the New Civil Code. Ms Angel really wants to help a lot of people, we all know that when there are such problems that people facing she is always ready to give and to help. It was an accident, she did not intended to kill somebody.
ReplyDelete2019-100926
DIAZ, RONALD SEGISMUNDO
CBET-18-402P
Based on my understanding, Angel Locsin committed the Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code and liable for damages under Article 1172 of the New Civil Code. Her only intention was to help other people but since that is her program she is responsible to look for every people if they are following the health protocols. There is a negligence in their program, the fact that they did not cooperate in LGU so that they can follow or make sure that the people are following the protocols. Even if it's not her intention to harm someone, still there is a negligence. For me, before having a program like community pantry make sure that everything is settled and make sure that if you conduct a program like that you will think the safety of everyone by cooperate to LGU's or barangay officials.
ReplyDeleteARAÑEZ, JAMIE O.
CBET 18-402A
2019-105234
Angel Locsin did not commit imprudence and negligence under Article 365 of the Revise Penal Code since it wasn't her intention to harm people. In fact, she just wanted to help people that in need by putting up a community pantry. Also, under Article 1172 of the New Civil Code, she is not liable in the incident by reason of people voluntarily participated and it just happened that the senior citizen died on the said event. After all, Angel still extend help on the family.
ReplyDelete2019-105235
CBET18-402-P
FOR ME, ANGEL LOCSIN IS DID NOT COMMIT IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE UNDER ARTICLE 365 SINCE IT IS NOT HER INTENTION THAT IT WILL HAPPEN BECAUSE ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 365 THAT RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE IS WHEN SHALL COMMIT ANY ACT WHICH HAD IT BEEN INTENTIONAL, WOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIME. BUT SHE IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES UNDER ARTICLE 1172 SINCE SHE IS THE ONE WHO CONDUCTS THE COMMUNITY PANTRY SO SHE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY NEGLIGENCE OR UN NEGLIGENCE IN SUCH EVENT. THE PERFORMANCE OF EVERY KIND OF OBLIGATION IS DEMANDABLE BUT SUCH LIABILITY MAY BE REGULATED BY THE COURT, ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
ReplyDeleteVANESSA S. ALMAGRO
CBET 18 402 A
2019-105238
Angel Locsin is not liable for the death of the elderly man at the community pantry that she organized. The death of the 69-year-old man was never part of her intention, all she wanted was to help. It is stated in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code that reckless imprudence is when a person ‘shall commit any ACT which, had it been intentional, would constitute’ a crime. Preparing food for the people in need is an Act that is not a crime. She prepared food to share for those who came in the said event and the next thing happened was not Angel’s Act. Nobody wants it to happen and we all know that her intention was pure. She was just trying to help and the next thing happened was beyond her control.
ReplyDeleteSARONG, MA. LAYCKA B.
CBET-18 401E
2019-102269
I don't think that the actress committed imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. Aside from the obvious fact that the actress has good intention which is helping those who are in need it was also cleared by the law school dean Mel Sta. Maria “There is no crime when there is no criminal mind… not liable at all” and inviting was intentional but not a crime.
ReplyDeleteElias, Babylyn C.
CBET-18-402A
2019-101675
Based on the legal issue, Angel Locsin did not Commit imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the Revise Penal Code. As what is stated 'reckless imprudence' is when a person shall commit any 'ACT' which had it been intentional, would constitute a crime. But Angel did not commit those, The intention of why Angel raised a program which is community pantry is to help those kababayan's in needs, that are struggling . That is the 'ACT' of Angel to help and feed those who are less fortunate. During the time she announce it on social media Angel also reminding everyone to follow the health protocol and protective gears in this times of pandemic. But contrary though angel did not commit the crime but she is still accountable for the damages because it happened during the program that she raised and the one who organized the event. It just that, things are bound to happen when we least expected it. No one or Angel wanted it to turned it that way.
ReplyDeleteBINLOD, MARY JEANNE
CBET 18-401E
2019-102270
Angel locsin did not do any article on what she have done. Its her birthday celebration and she just want to help people and what she want. Its a freedom to do and she's not aware that many people would come. Its her free will to give a community pantry. Some angles we may see some sort of mistake that did not coordinate to those barangay's tanod and captain. She have no intention what happen to the senior citizen.
ReplyDeleteBased on legal issue there's no crime about what happen.
JUVIDA,CHRISTAN M.
CBET-18-402P
2019-1027777
According to law, it is clearly stated that Angel Locsin have no liability if there's anything would happen in the said event. She's not liable for damages Under article 1172 Of the New Civil Code because in our criminal law states that reckless imprudence or simple negligence comes from ‘ACT’ (Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code) that when a person shall commit any ACT which had it been intentional, would constitute a crime. It also expressed admiration for the actress’ efforts to serve others “with selfless dedication and love”
ReplyDeleteGESITE, KIMBERLY
CBET-18-401A
2019-105780
For me since there was no error in setting up a table as a community pantry, Angel did not break Articles 365 and 1172. The table and meal were waiting to be reached, and the policeman was on hand to assist with keeping the queue manageable.
ReplyDeleteMALLARI, HAIZEL B.
CBET 18-401A
2019-102287
Angel Locsin's intention on setting up the community pantry is to help the people and give foods. According to Art. 365 - Imprudence and negligence, it clearly states that any person who commits an ACT which is INTENTIONAL shall suffer the penalty. As for Art. 1172, Angel is not liable for damages as there is no negligence. Thus, Angel Locsin had no intention to cause injury or damage and did not commit an act for the death of any person.
ReplyDeleteLEYSON, MARIE ANGELICA C.
2019-105518
CBET 18-401A
IS ANGEL LOCSIN LIABLE? NO. Angel Locsin is not liable at all. There is no crime when there is no criminal mind. Neither was there negligence in putting up a table as community pantry. The table and the food were just there to be approached. There was even no accident due to any action of Angel Locsin. There is just absolutely nothing to make Angel Locsin liable. Being merely an organizer does not equate to liability. She is not liable with both article 365 and art. 1172 of the New Civil Code as well.
ReplyDeleteTrisha Mae R. Manlapaz
CBET-18-401A
2018-105463
For me i thnik that angel locsin has no malicious intent towards anyone during her communityr pantry donation. She is not liable under any circumstances because the person was just waiting in line. But the law is there for a reason, and being ignorqnt of the law does not excuse someone from it. She still has to face her
ReplyDeleteWilldy Chelly Co
CBET-18-401A
2018-107926
Jerimie Maligaya
ReplyDeleteCBET-18- 401A
2019-107194
On my opinion Angel Locsin didn't commit imprudence and negligence act under article 365 because the act said that when a person shall commit any act which have been intentional would constitute a felony or crime. Angel only wants to help and not to commit a crime.
Jerimie Maligaya
ReplyDeleteCBET-18- 401A
2019-107194
On my opinion Angel Locsin didn't commit imprudence and negligence act under article 365 because the act said that when a person shall commit any act which have been intentional would constitute a felony or crime. Angel only wants to help and not to commit a crime.
MAESTRE, REX A
ReplyDeleteCBET 18-402P
2019-106859
In my opinion, Angel Locsin didn’t violate the article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, since there was no intention of death of the senior citizen. It was unexpected circumstances where Angel Locsin didn’t assume that there may be a person who will die on that situation. It also stated on Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, reckless imprudence can only be considered when a person "shall commit any act, which, had it been intentional, would constitute" a crime. Then, Locsin was not liable for any damages on the death of the senior citizen. Locsin’s staff also tried their best to maintain the order of the people but they were neglected and a lot of these people didn’t follow safe protocols. It will also depend on the people if they will go to that place, they must know what are the risk of getting there. Locsin was there to make sure everyone will be accommodated.
DAMAYO, EDELIZA O.
ReplyDeleteCBET-18-401A
2019-106969
In my own point of view Angel Locsin commit a crime of imprudence and negligence act under article 365 because the incident shows that Angel Locsin did not study any possibility that can happen. According to the situation, she is the main and only one person responsible to that incident happened. Once you plan some actions you should take the 100% probability that can happen because there are possibility that the plan you made may fail. It's according to her plan to make a community pantry, all she wants is to take the whole credits if the community pantry succeed. But then, the tragedy happened because it's lack of actions and guidelines. If we would think twice the tragedy won't happen if Angel Locsin did study of any possible that can happen.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my own opinion, Angel Locsin is not liable for the incident that happened in their community pantry program. Article 365 states that “Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional”. Angel Locsin did not commit any crime at all. All she wanted to do is to give people their needs in this kind of situation that we are experiencing right now because many people are suffering from hunger. I think the only problem here is that the team of Ms. Angel Locsin did not coordinate with the barangay before putting up a community pantry and they didn’t expect that a lot of people will come, to the point that they cannot control the crowd which causes to have no social distancing happened. Overall, she didn’t commit a crime she just wanted to help people.
ReplyDeleteCBET-18-401A
MANALO, CHRYSTELLE FRANCENE C.
In my own opinion, Angel Locsin was not liable for the death of the said person and did not commit reckless imprudence that falls under Article 365, which states that here is no crime when there is no criminal mind. Neither was there negligence in putting up a table as a community pantry. The table and the food were just there to be approached. However, she must be held liable under article 1172, where she carelessly announced her community pantry that draws attention to the public, unknowingly only 300 people will be accommodated and sent only two village watchmen as security to her community pantry. Thousands of people came resulting into overcrowding, violating the Covid-19 restrictions and health and safety protocols, especially the deceased person is a SENIOR CITIZEN who's not allowed to go outside. She's responsible for damages.
ReplyDeleteHASIDA, YUMI A.
CBET 18-401A
2018-105923
MADELO, KRYZTAL GAYLE
ReplyDeleteCBET-18-401A
2019-100922
IS ANGEL LOCSIN LIABLE? NO. Angel Locsin is not liable at all.There is no crime when there is no criminal mind.Neither was there negligence in putting up a table as community pantry. The table and the food were just there to be approached. There was even no accident due to any action of Angel Locsin. There is just absolutely nothing to make Angel Locsin liable. Being merely an organizer does not equate to liability.
CASTOR, NHEL SIMON E.
ReplyDeleteCBET-18-402A
2019-101622
Angel Locsin is not at all responsible. When there is no criminal thought, there is no crime. There was no carelessness in erecting a table as a communal pantry. The table and food were simply waiting to be addressed. There was no accident as a result of Angel Locsin's actions. Angel Locsin can't be held responsible for anything. Being an organizer alone does not imply culpability.
The death of the 69-year-old man was never part of her intention, all she wanted was to help. It is stated in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code that reckless imprudence is when a person ‘shall commit any ACT which, had it been intentional, would constitute’ a crime. Preparing food for the people in need is an Act that is not a crime. She prepared food to share for those who came in the said event and the next thing happened was not Angel’s Act. Nobody wants it to happen and we all know that her intention was pure. She was just trying to help and the next thing happened was beyond her control. Locsin organized a community pantry in celebration of her 36th birthday in Barangay Holy Spirit in Quezon City on April 23, where a senior citizen passed out while waiting for his turn to get goods and was declared dead on arrival after he was rushed to the hospital.
ReplyDelete2019-102236
Baguhin, Mary Ydelle N
Cbet 18-401e
In my opinion, Angel Locsin does not commit imprudence and negligence act under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act, which had it been INTENTIONAL, would constitute a crime. The death of the senior citizen was obviously unintentional, and so Ms Angel is not liable for a crime under art 365, since her only motive is to reach out and offer a helping hand to those people in need, and there's nothing wrong with what she's doing.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Ms Angel Locsin is liable under article 1172 of the New Civil Code. She was lenient, expecting the least number of people, which is wrong to think since she's a celebrity, and everyone knows her, especially that she is known as a person who has a giving heart and was seen who truly help out, so it is safe to think that people will flock into her pantry especially that she posted it online. It is safe and just right if she would have been ready for several people. Social distancing is also a must and gathering should be avoided. She failed to control the people and maintain order while conducting a community pantry. Sure it is not her intention to cause a ruckus, but she is responsible and is obliged for controlling and maintaining peace. It is said that the case could be waver except when the nature of the obligation requires the exercise of extraordinary diligence, and the law stated that every person obliged to give something is also obliged to take care of it with proper diligence of a good father of a family (art. 1163) because that is the minimum standard of care. But then it is also said that the court may mitigate the number of damages to be awarded, especially that Ms Angel Locsin is just helping out people, and she's not doing anything wrong.
PLEGARIA, ERIKA JOY D.
2019 - 107101
CBET - 18 - 402A
ESTARAS, JOCELL MAAC
ReplyDeleteCBET 18-402A
2019-100927
Last April 23, 2021, Angel Locsin hosted a community pantry in Quezon City whereas, there would be a free distribution of fruits, vegetables and other goods to help those who are in need, this is in celebration of her 36th birthday. However, Rolando Dela Cruz, 67, passed out and died at the location and was declared dead on arrival at East Avenue Medical Center. According to Article 365 under the Revised Penal Code, "Imprudence and negligence. — Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been INTENTIONAL would constitute a crime," thus on Angel Locsin's case she is not liable for imprudence and negligence uder Article 365 as it was not her intention to let that happen, her mere intention is to help those people who are in need on this time of pandemic. However, she would be liable of negligence under Article 1172 of the New Civil Code even if there is no deliberate intention to cause injury or damages. Fault or negligence as defined by the provisions of Article 1173 (par. 1) According to the Supremene Court, "negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, protection and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such person suffers injury" (United Sates vs. Barrias, 23 Phil. 434). Consequently, Angel Locsin is the one who hosted and organized the said event, thus, she is liable for the acts of her constituents considering that she is the one who hired them. Also, there has been failure on her part to control the people who will be gathered on the event. While conducting the community pantry, Angel Locsin and her team were not able to maintain safety and health protocols as well as high security which lead for the death of senior citizen, thus she shall take responsibility for the damages for the negligence of her and her team.
Ms. Angel Locsin’s birthday community pantry become one trending issue back then because of a senior citizen collapse and eventually die as he wait in his turn in the pantry. For me Angel didn’t commit the art. 365 because according to the article, the act should be done intentionally to call it reckless imprudence and negligence, so Angel did not commit it, since her intention is to help to provide goods to those poor family. But Ms. Angel Locsin is demandable under art. 1172 because of negligence of maintaining the health protocols of the barangay before conducting the pantry. As a celebrity she should already anticipated the huge number of people that will come to her pantry since she is a celebrity.
ReplyDeleteBONSO, JOHN BRYAN B.
CBET 18 402A
2019-101291
In my opinion Angel Locsin didnt commit the Article 365 of the revised penal code was not done by the actress because There is no crime when there is no criminal mind. Neither was there negligence in putting up a table as a community pantry. She didny expect that much of people will come to her community pantry even the barangay officials didnt expect that much of pleople. And even if the actress is still in charge of that Community pantry and is the one who called the attention of the majority, she is not responsible to the people in accordance with article 1172. Since the people still have the final decision, whether they will go. or not, and whether they complied with the policy or not. Therefore, anyone who has been negligent and does not follow the protocols is liable for the said incident.
ReplyDeleteContrevida, Kurt Musel
CBET 18-402A
2019-107155
Looking at the issue behind Angel Locsin’s birthday community pantry with the basis under article of the Revised Penal Code, the death of the senior citizen cannot be considered as an act of imprudence and negligence for the said celebrity. The article emphasized that there must be direct causal connection between the negligence of the person being complained of and the injuries or damages sustained by the complainant. Unfortunate event happens because of the participants itself. Knowing that the Philippines already established community safety guidelines with response to pandemic, physical distancing is an obligation for everyone to commit. As for the liability on damages under article 1172 of the New Civil Code, for me, Angel Locsin was responsible because of lack in assumption on worst case scenarios leading to insufficient and preventive security and crowd control.
ReplyDeleteDela Pieza, Ramon Christopher A.
CBET18-401A
2019-106313
My legal Opinion about this is that for me Angel Locsin doesn't commit imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. Because as what the law stated you'll be only committed a crime if you have an ommision to commit a crime. And also if the person has an intentional to harm someone or have an intentional to do a crime and yes in that situation you commit imprudence and negligence under article 365. But Angel Locsin only shows the intention to help poor people or those in need during the Pandemic through her birthday community pantry. The senior citizen died accidentally, it is only just coincidence that happens during angel Locsin community pantry. But From the Article 1172, Angel Locsin commit negligence
ReplyDeleteIn some reasons that she should make a plan on how to maintain the health Protocols aroud her community pantry before she conduct it, since it is expected to be crowded.
Mendoza, Katiuscia G.
Cbet18-401E
2019-104169
My legal opinion about this issue is that the actress Angel Locsin did not commit the article 365 and article 1172. There is no negligence and imprudence in this issue because the protocol during MECQ is that those below ages 18 and over 65 are not allowed to go out, even DOH appeals to elderly after hearing this community pantry issue. Also, the Dela Cruz's family was not blaming anyone.To end this matter, Ms. Locsin and his one of staffers, Rosalito Pagpag appeal to the people to observed social distancing. Mr. Pagpag also tell people to go home since we still have COVID matter. The organizer is in responsibility of making sure that the health standards routine is followed. That is the main reason why they need to communicate with the LGUs (local government units) in order to support them.
ReplyDeleteMontes, Sheena, S.
CBET18-401A
2019-106379
In my opinion, Ms. Angel Locsin didn't commit a imprudence and negligence under article 365 of the revised penal code because Ms Angel locsin didn't intended to harm any individual due to her community pantry that she is conducting and according to the law you'll be committed a crime if you have omission to commit a crime.
ReplyDeleteMercado, Christian Joseph C.
CBET-18-401A
2019-102264
My stand about this issue is that Actress Angel Locsin was not liable for imprudence and negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal code. In the revised penal code it is stated that "any person, who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period." In the case of Ms. Angel Locsin, she did not commit any of this since the only intention of the actress is to put up a community pantry where in her fellow Filipino can get food and other necessities. On set of pandemic, all of us filipino is mandated to health and safety protocols and in the interview with actress and her staffs they did their part in following the health and safety protocols. So the actress is not liable for the death of senior citizen and also was not liable for any negligence under Art. 1172 as Locsin's and staff did their part in following the health and safety protocol.
ReplyDeleteReginaldo, Gwyneth O.
CBET-18-401A
2019-105993