DEATH OF A PERSON AFTER SEXUAL AFFAIRS: Questions

Hypothetical facts:

In June 15, 2000, Boniface Paraz, a 60 year-old gentleman of a sound mind, asked the services of young lady. The lady goes with Boniface to a particular place for a secret and temporary sexual affair. After the encounter with the lady in a secret place and on a secret sexual transaction, Boniface’s blood pressure went up which caused his untimely expiration. The widow and the children were seeking for a legal remedy on the shameful death of Boniface Paraz

Question 1: Will the young lady be liable on the death of Boniface Paraz?

Answer: NO. Except when a sexual act is previously designed to commit a murder. Boniface is not deceived and neither a minor. His discerning capability brings the entire event to a case of VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA.

Question 2: In the situation that Boniface is already on an advanced age and probably suffering from a heart failure, will the young lady be liable on this score?

Answer: NO. It is not the function and duty of the young lady to make assumptions on the age and health status of her partner. The negotiation is all about rendering some sexual services, nothing else beyond the agreement.

Question 3: Is the young lady not the PROXIMATE CAUSE of Boniface death such that would make her liable?

Answer: NO. Sexual encounter is not the proximate cause on this incident because death is not a necessary result of sexual affairs. Boniface’s death is a result of his own “excitement” and cannot be credited to anybody else’s contribution. Proof of certainty shall be provided on the event that an exterior contribution shall be brought out in the allegations.

Question 4: Supposing the young lady took the gold ring, gold neck lace and any other wearing apparels of Boniface, will the young lady be prosecuted for theft by the children and the widow of the deceased?

Answer: NO. All artificial materials found in the body of Boniface are considered to be objects purely personal to the owner. The prosecution for theft shall only be instituted by the owner of the property. Since those wearing apparels were personal, any other party are not authorized to bring action in behalf of the owner. Also. the owner cannot bring action by reason of impossibility.

Question 5: What about the heirs’ right to inherit the property of the deceased?

Answer: The righ to inherit is under successional right which is defined by civil law; meaning, the ownership by succession will not automatically grant the successor the right to institute criminal actions because the crime of theft is committed directly by a thief upon the taking of the property from its owner. Try to note that there is no such crime as an “indirect theft” which shall be instituted by the heirs of the stolen property.

 My other observation: When the property was taken from the deceased while he was still breathing [or alive], the right of the heirs to inherit is immaterial because there is no such right exists. The right to inheret may only be asserted when the heirs can prove the existence of such right, meaning, the heirs should prove that the property was taken during or after the death of Boniface; this is essential because only at the time of death may an heir obtain a right to inherit the property of his/her ascendant.

Question 6: If an heir cannot prosecute in behalf of the deceased for the stolen jewelries, can he/she substitute?

Answer: NO. Substitution can only be applied when there was already a case instituted by the deceased prior to his death.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Surviving Love
• Death etiquette