In a traffic accident that recently caused public outrage in Trà Ôn District (Vĩnh Long Province), one major reason for public frustration was the justification used by the Trà Ôn District Police Investigation Agency for not prosecuting the case.
The Investigation Agency of Trà Ôn District Police decided not to prosecute the criminal case on the grounds that “the person who committed the socially dangerous act has died” (as stated in Notice No. 1710). The “person who committed the socially dangerous act” mentioned by Trà Ôn District Police was none other than Nguyễn Ngọc Bảo Trân (born in 2010), who died in the accident.
However, this decision was later annulled so that the Vĩnh Long Provincial Police could take over the investigation, demonstrating that the initial handling of the case by Trà Ôn District Police did not comply with legal regulations.
So, according to the law, how should we understand the term “person who committed a socially dangerous act”?
Who is considered to have committed a socially dangerous act?
According to Master Ngo Minh Tin (lecturer at University of Economics and Law, Vietnam National University HCMC), any act that the law either prohibits or requires but is acted upon contrary to that requirement is considered a dangerous act.
Depending on the level of danger, such acts are categorized into four types of legal violations: criminal, administrative, civil, and disciplinary.
Mr. Tin explained that for traffic law violations, depending on the severity and nature (as shown by the act and its consequences), they are typically administrative violations. However, if the act causes injuries of 61% or more or results in death, it becomes a criminal offense.
For example, in a case where both parties are at fault: person A drives under the influence and crashes into person B who ran a red light, causing B’s immediate death. In this case, both A and B violated traffic laws. However, it is necessary to assess which act directly caused the fatal accident (based on the causal relationship between the act and the consequence).
If the investigation determines that B’s red-light violation caused the accident, then A’s act is an administrative violation, and B’s act is a criminal offense.
Therefore, it is crucial that the authorities determine which act was the cause of the accident to reach a conclusion. This requires collecting sufficient evidence, especially during the scene investigation phase where the movement of vehicles can be documented.
It is essential to clearly identify the person committing the socially dangerous act
Also according to Master Ngo Minh Tin, when assessing the elements of a legal violation, authorities must identify: (1) the objective aspect, (2) the subject, (3) the subjective aspect, and (4) the object being affected — to answer two main questions:
(1) Was there a legal violation?
(2) Who committed the act and who is responsible?
Thus, the authorities must identify both the person who committed the act and who is responsible under the law.
Clause 7, Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code states a ground for not prosecuting a criminal case is: “the person who committed the socially dangerous act has died, unless a retrial involving another person is necessary.” This implies that in criminal proceedings, it is mandatory for the investigating body to answer who committed the act and who is legally liable.
According to lawyer Đỗ Trúc Lâm (Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association), the provision not to prosecute a case when “the person who committed the socially dangerous act has died” only applies when a crime has been determined — meaning the person must have committed an act that constitutes a criminal offense, as defined in Article 8 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended in 2017): “A crime is a socially dangerous act defined in the Penal Code, committed intentionally or unintentionally by a person with criminal responsibility capacity, infringing upon national security, social order and safety, the lawful rights and interests of organizations and individuals, or human rights…”
Lawyer Đỗ Ngọc Thanh (Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association) added that the phrase “person who committed a socially dangerous act” is a procedural legal term. One of the grounds for not prosecuting a criminal case is when “the person who committed the socially dangerous act has died, unless a retrial involving another person is necessary,” which eliminates criminal responsibility when there is no longer a person to hold accountable.
However, applying this rule requires a clear determination of who committed the dangerous act and whether that act constitutes a crime — it cannot be used arbitrarily.
A person who committed a dangerous act is a lawbreaker
This is the view of lawyer Hoàng Văn Hướng (Hanoi Bar Association). He stated that in traffic accident cases, the competent authority may determine that “the person who committed the socially dangerous act has died” when the person who caused the incident died due to the same accident.
Clause 1, Article 230 of the 2015 Criminal Procedure Code states that the investigating agency shall issue a decision to suspend the investigation if “the person who committed the socially dangerous act has died.”
Specifically, if someone violates traffic laws and causes a fatal accident, and they themselves also die in the accident, the legal authorities may determine this case as “the person who committed the socially dangerous act has died.”
For example, a drunk driver causes a chain collision, injuring many and killing one, and the drunk driver also dies in the accident. In this case, the authorities will determine that “the person who committed the socially dangerous act has died,” and the investigation into that individual will be suspended.
Lawyer Đặng Văn Cường (Hanoi Bar Association) agrees with lawyer Hướng and asserts that the provision “the person who committed the socially dangerous act has died” is one of the legal grounds for not prosecuting a criminal case as provided in Clause 7, Article 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The person who committed the socially dangerous act is someone who has committed a crime, infringing upon legally protected interests defined by the Penal Code. This is stipulated in Article 8 of the Penal Code: the person must be of legal age for criminal responsibility and commit an illegal act that infringes upon protected interests — such individuals are considered criminals and must bear legal responsibility.
Source: tuoitre.vn
