CASE 1: EPILEPTIC CASE Alex, a 35 year old man, is an epileptic.

Although he is under medication, he still suffers seizures from time to time. One day, he was alone at home at around 1 a.m. when he was suddenly awakened when he heard Rina, a neighbor, frantically screaming for help. He ran towards the door to check what the problem was and even before he opened the door, he heard Rina banging at the door. When Alex finally opened the door, he was shocked when he saw blood in Rinas hands and dress. Hysterically, she said that her husband, Tony, was stabbed while having a drinking session with some friends. She begged Alex to drive them to the nearest hospital. Without any hesitation, Alex took his brothers car keys and ran with Rina to where Rinas husband was. Tonys body was sprawled on the ground and blood was oozing profusely from his throat and stomach. They were screaming for help, but unfortunately, nobody responded. The other neighbors stayed inside their houses and did not seem to be involved. So, Alex, with all his strength, carried Tony to the car, and, sped away. But, while he was driving, Alex suddenly had a seizure and the car moved uncontrollably that it hit three (3) people who were hailing a cab. The 3 victims suffered from severe head injury and broken ribs that after almost 5 hours of struggle at the I.C.U., eventually died. Questions: What is your moral evaluation of the case? Should Alex be held liable for an act that is indirectly willed ? Justify your answer.

Alex should not be held liable for the act that is indirectly willed that resulted to the death of the victims of the accident. The Revised Penal Code provides an exempting circumstance which would exempt Alex from the criminal liability. The law states that a person is exempted from any criminal liablity when any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. In the case at hand, Alex although incurred a crime of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide but justly Alex did not intended to cause such felony as justified by the death of the victims. It was clear in the facts presented that Alex intention was only to help his neighbor Rina who was at that time was genuinely asking for help. Since there was no one who could extend a hand for help but Alex alone, it was the right thing to do at that instance. In the language of norms of ethics and morality, still Alex is justified for not being liable of the felony committed. Human has the natural and innate instinct to extend a hand everytime emergency arises despite the fact that any time soon can cause peril to his being. A moral evaluation on this present case gives the notion that you cannot let someone be held liable of the act which resulted negatively (death of the victims) when taken into account the good intentions of Alex which to help his neighbor. On the purview of the foregoing, although death had resulted to such event but it must be taken into account the pure intention of

Alex to render help and the fact also that it was not on his control that also during that time his seizures also attacked him brought about by his sickness.