Proximate Cause – What is the meaning of proximate cause?

The proximate cause is the primary or dynamic cause of the victim’s death. That is why uninterrupted death occurs with any “effective intervention cause” within the natural and continuous continuum and without it, there could be no fatal outcome. This is the reason, which is closest to the order of responsible reason.

Proximate Cause
Proximate Cause

Proximate Cause criminal law Intervening cause:

The direct link between intentional guilt and death can be broken by an economically effective intervention or an active force that is either a separate act or completely unrealistic from the serious act of the offender. Lightning strikes that kill an injured victim, or several days after a concussion victim has been injured, or voluntarily drowning the wounds to increase the crime committed by the suspect, is an intervention.

Thus, the suspect is responsible for the bodily injury caused by the intervention principle. On the other hand, the negligence of the victim, unintentional removal of the drain, and lack of proper treatment are not a reason for intervention. Therefore, the accused is responsible for the death due to Proximate Cause.

If the victim died of convulsions and was affected when the accused injured him, the crime is murder (People vs. Cornel, G.R. No. L-204, 16 May 1947). If the victim died from a concussion that affected him when the defendant injured him, the offense is a bodily injury. The accused is not responsible for the murder as convulsions are an effective intervention.

If you have an accident and you do not have good treatment. And you don’t take care well. So the person responsible for that will be the person for whom you will reach the hospital. And your treatment is responsible for not being right. If something happens to you by mistake, the person responsible for it is also responsible for it.

Define Proximate Cause

Thus, the proximity of the victim to death is not due to injuries. In Villacorta vs. People, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011 (Justice de Castro), there was a gap of 22 days between the date of the stabbing and the date when the victim was rushed to the hospital, showing signs of severe convulsive infection.

As the victim was suffering from convulsions, he died the next day. The incubation period for severe convulsions is less than 14 days. Therefore, he could not be affected by the stabbing as the incident took place 22 days before the victim was taken to the hospital. Infection of the war wound of a tetanus victim was the cause of economic intervention. The defendant was controlling the person responsible for the bodily injuries.

The Proximate Cause is described as “the cause which, in a natural and continuous order, causes injury without being broken by any effective intervention, and without which the result is not forthcoming.” Although there were no direct injuries to the victim’s vital organs, her injuries affected her kidneys, which damaged several organs and eventually led to her death.

The accused is responsible for the murder. Without the knife wounds, the infected person could not have contracted the infection which later led to multiple organ failures leading to his death. The perpetrator is criminally responsible for the victim’s death if the victim died as a result of his or her misdemeanor act, accelerated or aided (Belbes, Jr. v. People, GR No. 181052, November 14, 2012). ۔


In the case of a personality error, a person is criminally liable for a deliberate crime even though the resulting victim is different because of an identity error. Requirements:

Procedure for Proximate Cause In order for a person to be personally criminally liable in the event of a misdemeanor, the following requirements must be met:

  • The offender committed the crime on purpose.
  • The result is different because of the mistake of identifying the victim against whom the crime was committed. If the punishment for the offense is different from the offense, the court will impose a fine for the offense or the offense, whichever is less.


In the case of abortion acts, a person is criminally liable for the intentional offense even though the victim is different because of the mistake of the blow. Requirements:

In order to hold a person criminally responsible, in the case of abortion ictus, the following requirements must be present:

  • The offender committed the crime on purpose.
  • The result is that the victim against whom the crime was directed is different because of the mistake of the blow. The crime committed against the wanted victim will be made a complex crime (common crime). The court will sentence the most serious crime in its maximum term.

The situation of abortion acts (blast error) can neither absolve the accused from criminal liability nor reduce his criminal liability. Under Article 4 of the RPC, criminal liability is imposed on an individual for an offense even though the wrongdoing was different from what he intended (Matt v. People, GR No. 180219, November 23, 2011).

Leave a Comment