Michael was driving along the highway when he executed a prohibited U-Turn. Dyords, a police officer, accosted Michael for the traffic violation. A verbal argument ensued between them. Dyords suddenly drew his service firearm, and pointed it at Michael. Dyords ordered Michael to alight from his car, which the latter obeyed. Dyords then handcuffed Michael and pinned his head and body against the pavement until he could no longer breathe. Michael died. Charged with Homicide, Dyords interposed the exempting circumstance of accident as a defense. If you were the judge, how would you resolve Dyords’ defense? Explain briefly. (5 points)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
If I were the judge, I would reject Dyords' defense of accident.
Under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code, accident requires that the accused was performing a lawful act with due care, causing injury by mere accident without fault or intent to cause it. Exemption proceeds from harm caused by uncontrollable circumstances rather than negligence.
Here, Dyords' defense fails because he acted without due care and used excessive force. Although accosting Michael for a traffic violation was lawful, pinning Michael to the pavement until he suffocated exceeded lawful performance of duty. The death resulted directly from Dyords' deliberate use of unnecessary force rather than a mere accident.
Consequently, Dyords' defense of accident is untenable, and he is criminally liable for Homicide.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Why is Police Officer Dyords' defense of accident untenable under Article 12(4) of the RPC?
The defense of accident requires performing a lawful act with due care, which is absent when excessive force is used.
What are the essential requisites of accident as an exempting circumstance under Article 12(4) of the Code?
Exemption due to accident requires performing a lawful act with due care, causing injury without fault or criminal intent.
When does a police officer lose the justification of performance of duty during a traffic arrest?
A police officer exceeds lawful performance of duty when he uses excessive or unreasonable physical force.
What felony is committed when a police officer pins a handcuffed motorist until he dies of suffocation?
Unlawfully causing the death of a person without qualifying circumstances of murder constitutes homicide.
How does negligence affect the exempting circumstance of accident under Philippine criminal law?
Accident requires the complete absence of fault or negligence on the part of the accused.
Learn more about these topics
1. Defense of Accident
Under Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, a person who while performing a lawful act with due care causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it is exempt from criminal liability. To successfully invoke accident as an exempting circumstance, the accused must prove that he was acting with due care at the time of the incident. Where the accused acted with fault, negligence, or excessive force, the defense of accident cannot lie under Philippine penal law.
2. Performance of Duty
A law enforcement officer executing a lawful arrest or accosting a traffic violator must exercise necessary and reasonable force under the circumstances. Performance of duty ceases to be a lawful act when the officer employs excessive or uncalled-for violence against an unarmed citizen. When a police officer uses unnecessary force resulting in the death of a detainee, he exceeds the lawful limits of his official authority and cannot claim the protective cloak of lawful performance of duty.
3. Homicide Excessive Force
Homicide is committed under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code when a person kills another without any of the qualifying circumstances of murder and without legal justification. Pinning an accosted driver to the pavement until he suffocates demonstrates a direct causal link between the officer's physical force and the victim's fatal asphyxiation. When death results from the intentional application of lethal physical force beyond what is necessary, the perpetrator is criminally liable for homicide.