DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE (The cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused)
* AI ("Artificial Intelligence") subtitles on Tagalog.com are generated using "Whisper" by OpenAI (the same company that created ChatGPT and DallE2). Results and accuracy may vary.
* The subtitles do include errors occasionally and should only be used as a tool to help with your listening practice.
* You can request this website to create a transcript for a video if one doesn't already exist by clicking the "Request AI Subtitles" button below a video. Transcribing usually takes 30-40% of the length of a video to complete if there are no other videos in
the queue. For example, a 21 minute video will take 7-8 minutes to transcribe.
* Running a super fast cloud GPU server to do these transcriptions does cost money. If you have the desire and financial ability, consider
becoming a patron
to support these video transcriptions, and the other tools and apps built by Tagalog.com
00:00.0
The last but definitely not the least factor affecting criminal intent is proximate cause.
00:20.9
Proximate cause is exemplified by the following statement.
00:25.0
The cause of the cause is the cause of the evil cause.
00:30.0
Proximate cause is illustrated in the following example.
00:36.3
X, holding a gun, declared a hold-up inside a passenger bus.
00:42.3
Now, Y, one of the passengers inside the bus, fearing that the gold necklace he bought for his wife would be taken by X, rushed to get out of the bus and jumped through the window.
00:55.7
Now, just as X was able to get out of the bus, he was run over.
01:00.0
He was run over by a truck coming from the opposite direction.
01:04.9
Y died as a result.
01:07.9
Question, what is the criminal liability of X, if any?
01:15.2
X will be liable for the death of Y even though he did not touch Y.
01:21.8
Because when a person causes a belief in the mind of another, making the latter act in a manner fatal to him,
01:30.0
the former will be liable for that act of engendering such a belief.
01:37.2
Even if there is no intent to kill on the part of X, he is liable for homicide on the ground of proximate cause.
01:48.8
The cause of the cause is the cause of the evil cause.
01:53.9
As defined, proximate cause is that which,
01:58.2
in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new cause,
02:05.4
produces an event and without which the event would not have occurred.
02:11.6
Take note of this.
02:13.2
The cause need not be the event closest in time to the injury.
02:18.7
A cause is still proximate, although farther in time in relation to the injury,
02:23.9
if the happening of it set other events into motion.
02:28.2
Resulting ultimately in the damage.
02:32.5
In the example shown in the previous slide,
02:36.1
the proximate cause of the death of Y was not the truck that ran over him,
02:41.7
but the act of X in announcing a hold-up.
02:45.9
When X announced a hold-up, it set into motion other events.
02:52.3
Like fear in the mind of Y.
02:56.0
Such fear causing Y to die.
02:58.2
Such fear causing Y to jump out of the vehicle.
03:00.6
And the truck hitting and running over Y.
03:06.8
The truck cannot be faulted for Y's death because the truck had a right to be in the place where it is supposed to traverse.
03:16.1
While the truck may be the immediate cause of Y's death, it is not the proximate cause.
03:23.0
To repeat, the proximate cause is the act of X in announcing,
03:28.2
a hold-up while holding a gun inside the passenger bus.
03:34.1
Take note, however, that there should be no efficient intervening cause
03:39.2
between the first cause and the resulting injury.
03:44.5
Whenever a new cause intervenes,
03:48.7
which is not a consequence of the first wrongful cause,
03:53.1
and which is not under the control of the wrongdoer,
03:58.2
then such injurious consequence should not be attributed to the first wrongful cause.
04:08.5
X attempted to hack Y, but the latter was able to evade the hacking blow,
04:14.4
causing only a small cut on Y's hand.
04:18.9
Y then proceeded to report to his work as a janitor,
04:23.3
forgetting to wash and treat his wound.
04:26.2
Three days later, Y died.
04:28.1
He died of gangrene.
04:30.0
Question, is X criminally liable for the death of Y?
04:35.0
What do you think is the answer here?
04:37.6
The answer is, no.
04:40.3
The gangrene caused by Y's unsanitary work condition
04:44.3
was the efficient intervening cause,
04:47.8
so much so that the injury caused by X was not the proximate cause of the death of Y.
04:55.0
Small cut lang yung na-incore.
04:58.9
Na-injury ni Y galing sa attack from X.
05:05.4
A small cut, logically and naturally, will not result in the death of the other person.
05:13.4
So, hindi siya pwedeng maging proximate cause.
05:17.7
Ang naging sanhi ng pagkamatay ni Y was not the small cut on his hand.
05:26.2
But, the gangrene that resulted because of Y's unsanitary work condition,
05:35.3
yun ang efficient intervening cause.
05:38.2
And if there is an efficient intervening cause,
05:41.3
then the first cause will not be considered as the proximate cause,
05:46.7
as shown in the example.
05:50.5
Another example, X stabbed Y on the stomach.
05:54.2
There was a delay, however, in bringing Y to the hospital due to lack of transportation.
06:01.9
Five hours after the stabbing, Y died of severe bleeding.
06:07.1
Charged with homicide,
06:09.3
X now claims that the delay in giving medical treatment to the victim
06:13.7
was an efficient intervening cause which exempts him from criminal liability.
06:21.6
Do you agree with X's contention?
06:24.2
The answer is, delay in giving medical treatment to the victim
06:30.9
does not break the causal connection between the wrongful act of X
06:36.2
and the injury sustained by Y.
06:40.0
It does not constitute an efficient intervening cause.
06:45.1
The proximate cause of the death of Y is the stabbing made by X.
06:50.6
Anyone inflicting injuries is responsible for the death of Y.
06:54.1
All the consequences of his criminal act, such as death,
06:59.6
that supervenes in consequence of the injuries.
07:03.6
The fact that there was a delay in giving medical attendance
07:07.2
or that the victim did not receive proper medical care
07:11.2
would not affect X's criminal liability.
07:17.9
The rule here is founded on the policy of closing to the wrongdoer
07:24.1
And yet, escape from the just consequences of his wrongful act.
07:29.0
Because if the rule were otherwise,
07:32.2
many criminals could avoid responsibility
07:35.1
by merely establishing doubt as to the immediate cause of death.
