THE identification of the lone gunman last Friday finally settled the contending issue that indeed, he was not a terrorist, but the police should not be too fast in closing the case.
Why? Because a new crime may have emerged: criminal and civil negligence on the part of the hotel management, particularly security and receptionists assigned at the lobby and other entrances to the hotel.
Had they followed procedure, the gunman, Jessie Javier Carlos, a heavy gambler, could have been prevented from entering the casino and, thus, stop the carnage that killed 37 people, especially since he was barred from doing so since April 3.
Carlos carried an assault rifle (M-4 Carbine) and a bottle or bottles of highly inflammable fuel. How he easily got past the security people and receptionists, as well as the closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras at the entrance, defies logic.
Assuming he was wearing a mask or a bonnet to cover his face, the more reason that the security people should have stopped him from entering the hotel-casino complex.
CCTV clips presented by the police last Saturday to the media revealed incriminating pieces of evidence showing the gunman’s movements that provided every opportunity for the security people to stop him from committing the crime.
One clip showed that the gunman calmly walked around the casino, fired his Armalite into the air, apparently to scare people, and freely moved to the second floor.
Before that, Carlos set on fire many gambling tables in an attempt to create a diversion so he could
easily escape. The video also showed him breaking into a secure room where money and chips were stored, and stayed much longer, apparently intent on stealing as many as he could.
In civil negligence, when someone is killed or injured in an accident caused by the negligence of another party, the negligent party can be sued for damages. Compensation for victims in a civil lawsuit could include: lost wages, medical expenses, cost of rehabilitation, pain and suffering.
Criminal negligence is punishable by imprisonment, fines, probation supervision and mandatory community service. Those convicted of criminal negligence would probably have a criminal record that could make it difficult to obtain employment once the sentence imposed by a court has been served.
In Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, (Imprudence and negligence)—“Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be imposed.
“Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed.
“When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value, but which shall in no case be less than P25.
“A fine not exceeding P200 and censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.
“In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in Article 64.”
To reach the writer, e-mail cecilio.arillo@gmail.com.