Name: Dalit, Diana Rose J.

Course/Year/Section: BSBA 1-J

CASE ANALYSES:
 Instruction: Read the following cases and answer the questions that follow. CHOOSE ONLY 2 FROM
THE 3 GIVEN CASES. You are expected to present your answers in a logical form: 1) State the salient
facts of the case, 2) State the principle (from the principles pertaining to the modifiers of human acts
discussed, and 3) Your conclusive/categorical answer based on number 1 and 2 (ex. Premises considered,
A is morally liable for the death of C) 

A. While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, Bellamy was having an affair with his
maid Echo. Realizing that the affair was going nowhere, Echo told Bellamy that she was going
back to the province to marry her childhood sweetheart. Clouded by anger and jealousy, Bellamy
strangled Echo to death while she was sleeping in the maid’s quarters. The following day,
Bellamy was found catatonic (unresponsive) inside the maid’s quarters. He was brought to the
National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) where he was diagnosed to be mentally unstable.
Charged with murder, Bellamy pleaded insanity as a defense. Is Bellamy morally liable for the
death of Echo?
In this case, Bellamy strangled Echo to death while she was sleeping in the maid’s
quarter and it was committed due to anger and jealousy because of the fact that Echo will marry
her childhood sweetheart and that the defense of insanity cannot be given credence since at the
time that Bellamy murdered Echo, she was still in her consciousness and that she acted in lucid
interval which makes her liable to the death of Echo. Bellamy was found unresponsive only after
the commission of the crime which only means that she is fully aware of her actions at the time
the incident transpired.
The principle that is applicable in this case is the Principle of Affected/Pretended
ignorance because the acts of Bellamy cannot excused her from liability for committing such
crime impelled with anger and jealousy.
Thus, Bellamy is morally liable for the death of Echo since she acted during lucid interval
at the time of the commission of the crime.
B. Abby, a diagnosed schizophrenic, drowns five of her young children in the bathtub. Abby
promptly called the police station and informed them that her children are dead. When the police
officers arrive at Abby’s house, she informs them that she killed her children so that they could
leave this earth and enter heaven. What is the moral liability of Abby over the death of her
children?
In this case, Abby who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, drowns five of her young
children in the bathtub. She immediately called the police station and inform them that her
children are dead. When the police arrived, she informed the police that she killed her children so
that they could leave this earth and enter heaven. The defense of insanity can be given credence
since at the time that she killed her children, she was suffering schizophrenia which falls under
the exempting circumstance which makes a person not morally liable for acts committed not
within its lucid interval.
The principle that is applicable in this case is the Principle of Invincible ignorance since
at the time of the commission of the crime, she was not aware of her state of mind and that she
acted without discernment and there was a complete absence of control to her actions.
Hence, Abby has no moral liability over the death of her children since the unlawful act
of the accused was due to her mental disease or a mental defect, producing an irresistible impulse,
as when the accused has been deprived or has lost the power of her will which would enable her
to prevent herself from doing the act.