0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
21 visualizzazioni2 pagine
1. The Court ruled that a 6-year old child, Zhieneth Aguilar, who died after sustaining injuries from a falling gift-wrapping counter at a department store, was not guilty of contributory negligence. Under Philippine law, children under 9 years old are conclusively presumed to lack discernment and are exempt from criminal liability.
2. The Court also ruled that Zhieneth's death was not an accident but was attributable to negligence on the part of the store owners. A reasonable person would have ensured heavy objects like gift-wrapping counters were securely fastened to prevent injuries to customers, especially children.
3. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision
1. The Court ruled that a 6-year old child, Zhieneth Aguilar, who died after sustaining injuries from a falling gift-wrapping counter at a department store, was not guilty of contributory negligence. Under Philippine law, children under 9 years old are conclusively presumed to lack discernment and are exempt from criminal liability.
2. The Court also ruled that Zhieneth's death was not an accident but was attributable to negligence on the part of the store owners. A reasonable person would have ensured heavy objects like gift-wrapping counters were securely fastened to prevent injuries to customers, especially children.
3. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision
1. The Court ruled that a 6-year old child, Zhieneth Aguilar, who died after sustaining injuries from a falling gift-wrapping counter at a department store, was not guilty of contributory negligence. Under Philippine law, children under 9 years old are conclusively presumed to lack discernment and are exempt from criminal liability.
2. The Court also ruled that Zhieneth's death was not an accident but was attributable to negligence on the part of the store owners. A reasonable person would have ensured heavy objects like gift-wrapping counters were securely fastened to prevent injuries to customers, especially children.
3. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision
JARCO MARKETING CORPORATION V. COURT OF APPEALS b.
In our jurisdiction, a person under nine
| Dec 21, 1991 | Davide JR., J. | Defenses | by Jasper years of age is conclusively presumed to have acted without discernment, and is, FACTS: on that account, exempt from criminal ● Petitioner Jarco Marketing Corporation is the liability. owner of Syvels Department Store, Makati City. c. The same presumption and a like Petitioners Leonardo Kong, Jose Tiope and Elisa exemption from criminal liability obtains in Panelo are the stores branch manager, operations a case of a person over nine and under manager, and supervisor, respectively. Private fifteen years of age, unless it is shown that respondents are spouses and the parents of he has acted with discernment Zhieneth Aguilar 2. WON the death of ZHIENETH was accidental - NO ● In the afternoon of 9 May 1983, Criselda and a. Attributable to negligence. Zhieneth were at the 2nd floor of Syvel's i. An accident pertains to an Department Store, Makati City, when respondent unforeseen event in which no Criselda was signing her credit card slip at payment fault or negligence attaches to and verification counter, she felt a sudden gust of the defendant. It is "a fortuitous wind a heard a loud sound. She looked behind her circumstance, event or and saw her daughter Zhieneth (6 years old) on the happening; an event happening floor pinned by the bulk of the stores gift-wrapping counter. without any human agency, or if happening wholly or partly ● Zhieneth was rushed to the hospital and lived through human agency, an event through the operation but lost her ability to speak. which under the circumstances is She died after 14 days later due to the injuries she unusual or unexpected by the sustained. Private respondents filed a complaint for person to whom it happens. damages. ii. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable ● Respondents demanded reimbursement and man, guided by those damages, but petitioners denied any liability considerations which ordinarily imputing the negligence to Criselda for allowing her regulate the conduct of human daughter to roam freely in the department store. affairs, would do, or the doing of Alleging further, that the deceased committed something which a prudent and contributory negligence when she climbed the counter. Also herein petitioners defense is that they reasonable man would not do. have exercised due diligence of a good father of a 1. "the failure to observe, family in the selection, supervision and control of for the protection of the their employees. interest of another person, that degree of ● Trial Court favored petitioners, contemplating that care, precaution and Zhieneth's action is the proximate cause of the vigilance which the accident. CA favored respondents on it declared circumstances justly that ZHIENETH, who was below seven (7) years old demand, whereby such at the time of the incident, was absolutely other person suffers incapable of negligence or other tort. injury." 2. The test of is: Did the ● It reasoned that since a child under nine (9) years could not be held liable even for an intentional defendant in doing the wrong, then the six-year old ZHIENETH could not be alleged negligent act made to account for a mere mischief or reckless act. use that reasonable It also absolved CRISELDA of any negligence, finding care and caution which nothing wrong or out of the ordinary in an ordinarily prudent momentarily allowing ZHIENETH to walk while she person would have used signed the document at the nearby counter. in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of ISSUES/RATIO: negligence. 1. W/N Zhieneth was guilty of contributory negligence b. Part of res gestae. Statements made by a – NO person while a startling occurrence is a. Anent the negligence imputed to taking place or immediately prior or ZHIENETH, we apply the conclusive subsequent thereto with respect to the presumption that favors children below nine (9) years old in that they are incapable circumstances thereof, may be given in of contributory negligence evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae
RULING: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the
instant petition is DENIED and the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals of 17 June 1996 in C.A. G.R. No. CV 37937 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.