Rio Roxane S.

Tolentino
1st year

The Case of the Speluncean Explorers

Part I.
Facts:
Five cave explorers were trapped inside a cave due to landslide. On their 20 th day inside the cave,
a radio contact was established with the rescue team. The spelunkers learned that the rescue would occur
in 10 more days and that they might starve to death. Roger Whetmore, one of the spelunkers and the
victim , asked the rescue camp whether they would be able to survive if they consume the flesh of one of
them and if it is advisable for them to cast lots to determine which of them should be eaten, but no one in
the rescue camp was willing to answer the question. The spelunkers, after deliberation, decided to cast
lots. Prior to the casting lots, Whetmore sought to withdraw from the agreement, a request that was
denied by the others, who proceeded to hold the casting in Whetmore’s absence, the results of which went
against Whetmore. He was thereupon sacrificed for the benefit of the others, who shortly thereafter were
rescued.
Following their rescue and recovery, the survivors were charged with the murder and sentenced
to death. The relevant statute provides that "Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be
punished by death", offering no exceptions which would be relevant to the case. 
Issue:
1. Whether or not N.C.S.A (N.S) 12-A should be given literal interpretation.
2. Whether or not the defendants are guilty of murder or not.
Decision:
In the case at bar, the statute used is clear and unambiguous, therefore, it shall be applied in its
literal meaning. The general rule is that if the statute is clear and free from ambiguity there is no room for
interpretation. A judge should simply apply the words that the legislature has enacted into law in the form
of a statute if it is not ambiguous. Moral considerations are indeed irrelevant in applying this statute. One
must not forget that law is law.
The defendants in this case willfully killed the victim of Roger Whetmore to free themselves
from starvation and to survive until they get rescued. There is a necessity to live and survive but there is
no sufficient case of necessity to kill. The physician stated that there is a little possibility to survive; it
does not immediately imply the impossibility of survival, it is therefore, not absolute. In the case of
Commonwealth v. Valjean whereby the defendant was indicted for the larceny of a loaf of bread, and
offered as a defense that he was in a condition approaching starvation. The court rejected this defense. As
what Judge Tatting said,  “If hunger cannot justify the theft of wholesome and natural food, how can it
justify the killing and eating of a man?”. Necessity is not a defense in murder.
Therefore, the defendants are guilty of the crime of murder for killing Roger Whetmore and shall
be sentenced to death.
Part II. Decide the case/Arguments:
The statute N.C.S.A (N.S) 12-A, which states that: “Whoever shall willfully take the life of
another shall be punished by death” is clear and unambiguous and shall be applied in its literal meaning.
Moral considerations are indeed irrelevant in applying this statute. One must not forget that law is law,
and so is its morality.  A judge should simply apply the words that the legislature has enacted into law in
the form of a statute if it is not ambiguous. Keen J is averse to Foster J’s a purposive approach to statutory
interpretation that would allow the court to justify a result it continues proper. He emphasizes that laws
may have many possible purposes, with difficulties arising in divining the actual "purpose" of a piece of
legislation.
The statute prohibited the taking of life that was done ‘willfully’, there is a plausible view that a
killing done under perception of immediate death is not willful at all. However, in the case at bar, the
defendants willfully taken the life of Roger Whetmore. They acted out of self-interest for them to survive.
The defendants cannot use self-defense to mitigate their sentence nor to acquit them because there is no
aggression in the part of the victim. Even though the conduct of the defendants in killing the victim is out
of necessity, it is not a privilege to harm or kill someone else. In the Alexander Holmes’  trial, it was held
that self-preservation is not always a defense to homicide. 
Therefore, the defendants, in willfully taking the life of Roger Whetmore, is guilty of the crime of
murder and shall be sentenced to death.

Part III. Decide the case under the Philippine Law.

In statutory construction, statutes may be extended to cover cases not within the literal meaning
of the terms if their exact and literal import would lead to absurd or mischievous results. If the statute
fails to indicate the legislative intent because of ambiguity, the court may look beyond the statute such as
the purpose of the statute. However, courts may construe or interpret a statute under the condition that
there is doubt or ambiguity. The statute N.C.S.A (N.S) 12-A is clear and free from ambiguity. The general
rule is that, if statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and
applied without attempted interpretation.
Under Article 248 of The Revised Penal Code, murder is committed by any person who shall kill
another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death if committed with
any of the attendant circumstances enumerated. This provision under RPC provides elements to be guilty
of murder: 1.That a person is killed; 2. That the accused killed him.; 3. That the killing was attended by
any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; 4. The killing is not parricide or
infanticide.
These elements are present in the case at bar. The crime was attended by treachery, taking
advantage of superior strength (absorbed by treachery) when the 4 defendants helped each other to kill the
victim; and outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse when the defendants consume the body of the
victim which adds to the mental suffering and humiliation of the heirs of the victim or which offends the
public.
According to Foster, the defendants used self-defense for self-preservation. It may used by the
defendants to justify their crime, however, Article 11 of The Revised Penal code provides the elements
for self-defense but none of the elements are present in the case at bar. The defense of necessity may
apply when an individual commits a criminal act during an emergency to prevent a greater harm from
happening. In such circumstances, our legal system typically excuses the individual’s criminal act
because it was justified or finds that no criminal act has occurred. However, the act of killing another is
unlawful, necessity is not a defense in murder.
Wherefore, the statute which states: “whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be
punished by death” N.C.S.A (N.S) 12-A is clear and unambiguous and shall be applied in its literal
meaning. Therefore, the defendants are guilty of the crime of murder for willfully killing Roger
Whetmore and shall be sentenced of reclusion perpetua.