Practice question
An adult is exempt from criminal liability because of legally established insanity at the time of the act. His legal guardian proves absence of fault or negligence in the exercise of authority and control. Is guardianship alone sufficient to impose liability on that guardian under Article 101?
- Yes, because the defense of no fault is never recognized
- Yes, because every relative is automatically liable
- No, because Article 101 expressly recognizes absence of fault or negligence on the controller’s part
- Yes, if the guardian owns more property than the adult
- No, because insanity always eliminates every person’s civil liability
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html — Revised Penal Code, Article 101, civil consequences of specified exempting and justifying circumstances.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2006/ra_9344_2006.html — section 6, current minimum age and preservation of civil liability.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2013/ra_10630_2013.html — section 3, amending RA 9344 section 6, current age exemption and express preservation of civil liability.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.