KAREN U.

PATENTE
LAW 1-A
OBLIGATIONS and CONTRACTS
JUDGE ELMER LANUZO

THE COMPLIANCE
(Movie Analysis)

The story started when a policeman on the end of the line spoke calmly, clearly
intent on catching the thief who had swiped a customer’s purse. And as he described the
suspect- a young blonde girl who is about 19 years old, Assistant Manager Sandra knew
the policeman is pertaining to staff member Becky and currently in the cashier’s area.
On the cop’s instructions Sandra called her into the office, took her car keys and
phone and locked the door. The officer stayed on the line and told Sandra that in order
to preserve the evidence she must instruct the girl to strip naked, put the clothes in a bag
and take them away. The assisatant manager did as she was told.
Sandra was ordered by the policeman to call Van to take over the punishment and
her fiance did everything Officer Daniel asked, even as his demands became more bizzare
and increasingly perverted. Becky had been made to dance naked with her hands above
her head, do jumping jacks and deep knee bends, sit on Van’s lap, kiss him, have her
buttocks slapped until they were red, then perform oral sex on him.
When it was turnover to the maintenance worker, he refused to abuse and made
Sandra call her area manager. The Area Manager told her that there’s no Officer Daniel
who called him as Officer Danile told to Sandra that he already talked to him. Only by that
time Sandra realized that she had been tricked and the caller was not a real policeman
but a hoax.

Issue:

WON the acts committed arises to an obligation? Assuming there are, what
are the liabilities of:

1. Van
2. Sandra
3. The Fast-food chain
4. Officer Daniel
Analysis

1.
Under the Revised Penal Code:
Becky may proceed against Van under the said Code. In this case, the source of
liability of Van is the crime he committed (culpa criminal).

Liability:
 Van is diretcly and primarily liable under Article 100 of RPC. He cannot
be held liable by providing due diligence of a good father of a family
bcause of the very nature of his obligation.

Van’s liability arises from criminal offense in the crime of rape through sexual
assault under Article 266-A.

The elements of rape through sexual assault are the following:

1. The offender commits an act of sexual assault.

2. The act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means:
a. By inserting his penis into another rperson’s mouth or anal orifice;
or
b. By inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice
of another person
3. That the act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the
following circumstances
a. By using force of intimidation.
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
or
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented.

The elements are satisfied and clearly Van committed a crime. When Van
took over as a guard to secure Becky before the police officers would arrive, he did
something out of command by Officer Daniel. He followed the order of slapping the
buttocks of Becky, perform oral sex, and other terrible things without questioning
why such order must be followed knowing that Becky was suspected for the crime
of theft. The acts ordered by Officer Daniel has nothing to do with the crime being
accused to Becky and Van just followed everything that Officer Daniel said from the
other line. Becky was intimidated when the act was committed for she was ordered
to follow all the orders given by Officer Daniel if she had really nothing to hide and
something might happen to her if she’s not going to cooperate with him especially
when his the police told her that they’re searching her residence in order to find
evidence for her brother’s crime. Whatever the circumstances, he still committed
the crime, therefore he is criminally liable.
 Under the Civil Code:

 Van is liable under quasi-delict (cupla aquiliana) and his liability is

direct and primary liable.

The provision also of quasi-delicts stated in Article 2176 gives emphasis that
whoever by act or omission, there being no pre-existing contractual relation
between parties, causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Responsibility for fault or negligence under
the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising
from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.

 Article 20 of the NCC provides that “every person who, contrary to law,
willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the
latter for the same.

2.
Under the Revised Penal Code:
Becky may proceed against Sandra under the said Code. In this case, the source
of liability of Sandra is the crime he committed (culpa criminal).

Liability:
 Van is diretcly and primarily liable under Article 100 of RPC. He cannot
be held liable by providing due diligence of a good father of a family
bcause of the very nature of his obligation.

Sandra committed a crime of unlawful arrest.

The elements are the following:

a. The offender arrests or detains another person.
b. The purpose of the offender is to deliver him to the proper
authorities.
c. The arrest or detention is not authorized or there is no reasonable
ground therefore.

Article 3 of RPC states that felonies are committed not only by means
of deceit but also by means of fault. There is deceit when the act is
performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful act
results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

The test of negligence is would a prudent man, in the position of the

person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured
as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued? If so, the
law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course or to take
precaution against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so
constitutes negligence.
 Sandra’s act satisfied the elements of the crime. She, without
verifying the truthfulness of the call, obeyed the order of the prank caller.
She arrested Becky, locked her in her office and even a made strip-searched
as what the policeman commanded him to do. She never intended to commit
a crime but because of negligence in handling the situation, damage has
been done to Becky. Had she take a precautionary action by going to the
nearest police station and make some verification whether the incident is
true, she could have prevented something to happen. Most of us will ask,
why they would follow an order from a mere caller who would represent
himself as a police. According to the study, employees from that kind of
industry are trained to always say “how may I help you”. Nevertheless that
is not excuse for Sandra to be exempted from the crime she committed. She
acted voluntarily, intelligently, and intentionally jumping to conclusion that
Becky really committed the crime reported by Officer Daniel.

Under the Civil Code:

 Sandra is liable under quasi-delict (cupla aquiliana) and his liability is

direct and primary liable.

The provision also of quasi-delicts stated in Article 2176 gives emphasis that
whoever by act or omission, there being no pre-existing contractual relation
between parties, causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Responsibility for fault or negligence under
the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising
from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.

 Article 20 of the NCC provides that “every person who, contrary to law,
willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the
latter for the same.

3. Becky may proceed against her employer.

Under the Civil Code:

 (Culpa Contractual) According to Article 1712, if the death or injury is

due to the negligence of a fellow-worker, the latter and the employer
shall be solidarily liable for compensation. If a fellow-worker’s
intentional or malicious act is the only cause of the death or injury, the
employer shall not be answerable, unless it should be shown that the
latter did not exercise due diligence in the selection or supervision of
the plaintiff’s fellow-worker.

 (Culpa Auiliana) Article 2180 (5) states that employers shall be liable
for the damages excused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former
are not engaged in any business or industry.
 In the case presented, Sandra is an employee of the fast-food chain
same with Becky. Due to her negligence she committed a crime and produce
injury to Becky. Therefore, the fast-food chain is responsible as what the law
provides. Malice is not present is this case since Sandra acted and believed that
the caller is a real policeman, only that she exceeds with her action and she
followed all through out what the prank caller was commanding her to do. She
could have think twice if she’s doing the right thing the moment the police
officers are too long to come and the information was change from Becky being
accused for a theft to involving his brother in another crime.