Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM
STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT
This legal memorandum was made in pursuant to the case of the Philippine
Speleological Society regarding the case of murder and imposition of the penalty of
reclusion perpetua issued August 22, 2019
STATEMENT OF FACTS
wireless related above, they finally agreed on the plan proposed by Concepcion. After
much discussion of the mathematical problems involved, agreement was finally reached
on a method of determining the issue by the use of the dice but Andres Concepcion, who
proposed the idea of the sacrifice and the casting of lots, wanted to desist at the last
minute. He was charged with a breach of faith and the casting of dice proceeded. After
two hours, Andres finally joined the group and commenced the start of rolling the dice.
When it was Andres Concepcion’s turn, the dice were cast by one of the defendants for
him. He was asked if he had any objections on the fairness of the throw but he stated
none and the throw unfortunately went against him. As agreed, he was killed and eaten
for the survival of the other four. After the men were rescued on the 60th day, they were
put in a hospital to undergo a course of treatment for the malnutrition and shock they
suffered. They were then indicted for the murder of Andres Concepcion under the law of
the Government of the Philippines. The defendants were imposed a sentence of death
by reclusion perpetua as it was the only course open to them under the law, regardless
of how extraordinary the case may be.
ISSUES PRESENTED
BRIEF ANSWERS
1. (Law) They are guilty of the crime of murder (According to Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code and The opinion of Chief Justice Truepenny in The Case of
the Speluncean Explorers.
2. (Morals) No, because the act of killing Andres Concepcion was not done wilfully
with evil intent.
2
DISCUSSION
Article 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article
246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed
men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure
or afford impunity.
3
1 Rev. Pen. Code, art. 248
2 Reyes, Book Two, supra at 517
4. That the killing is not parricide or infanticide
Based upon the facts mentioned in the case, it was clear that the defendants killed Andres
Concepcion, as the dice were casted among him. It was also not a case of parricide and
infanticide and was attended by evident premeditation.
Elements of Evident Premeditation (Article 14, paragraph 13 of the Revised Penal Code)3:
In the case at bar, two hours is a sufficient lapse of time to allow the defendants, including
Andres Concepcion to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
From the facts stated above, the act of killing Andres Concepcion can be
concluded as the defendants wilfully and without a doubt killed him. This can be seen
from the stages of planning, dice-rolling, and of executing the act. Even from the first act
of Andres Concepcion in asking a series of experts if they should eat one of their members
in able to survive, that already shows the intention of killing and eating one of the people
trapped inside the cave. However, in considering an act to be wilful, the defendants must
have acted with freedom and reason. They must have done the act freely without any
force, threat or any undue force to influence in making their decision or action. According
to Black’s Law Dictionary4, the term wilful means, “Voluntary and intentional, but not
necessarily malicious.”. Thus in acting wilfully, they must have acted voluntarily and
intentional with evil intent in killing the person. However, in the case at bar, it was
concluded that the defendants only killed Andres Concepcion due to the necessity to
survive, thus, an absence of evil intent on their part. They were already at the point of
starvation, without necessary food and nutrients to sustain themselves while they are in
4
3 Reyes, Book One, supra at 402.
4 Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004),p. 4938
the process of waiting for rescue. They were forced to kill any person inside the cave for
them to be able to survive, and it was beyond circumstance that when the dice were
rolled, Andres Concepcion is the designated person to die and to be eaten by the
defendants. Thus it was an influence that forced the defendants to kill and eat a person.
Thus, in connection to the discussion, Article 12, Paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code5
affects the situation of the defendants:
“Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - the following are
exempt from criminal liability:
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury.”
According to the Revised Penal Code by Luis B. Reyes, to appreciate duress as a valid
defense, a threat of future injury is not enough. It must be clearly shown that the
compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity for the accused to
escape.(6)(7) And in the case at bar, there was no other choice. For the other men to live,
they should be able to murder one of their comrades so they can eat to be able sustain
their life while waiting for rescue.
The defendants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code. The killing of Andres Concepcion was due to the fact that
they would die of starvation if they would not kill one of their members.
In case of the opinion of Chief Justice Truepenny in the case of the Speluncean
Explorers6, he voted in affirmation of the convictions but also recommends clemency. The
Chief Justice states that the statute is unambiguous, with no applicable legal defences,
so it must be applied by the court and that mercy is the decision the executive branch has
to make, rather than the judiciary. In this case, the Philippines exercise the doctrine of
5
5 Rev. Pen. Code, art. 12
6 Reyes, Book One, supra at 248
7 People V. Palencia, No. L-38957, April 30, 1976, 71 SCRA 679, 690;
8 C.J. Truepenny, The Case of the Speluncean Explorers by Lon Fuller
Separation of Powers, and that the matter of clemency that should be given to the
defendants should be in the matter of the executive department to decide.
6
7