Philosophy of Law 1, EH201

1st Sem, AY 2022-2023

Professor: Atty. Edmar Lerios

Minutes of Meeting
Agenda: Verdict on the Criminal Case of the Citizens of Gotham, G.R 1088, and
Verdict on the Criminal Case of the Prisoners of Gotham, G.R 1089, 11 October 2022
Meeting Place: New York Court of Justice
Date: 11 October 2022
Time Started: 5:05pm
Time Ended: 5:25pm
Duration: 20 minutes

Judges Present:
Room 4
● Elumba, Kyrra Jhon - Agent / Spokesperson
● Gonzales, Kristine - Secretary
● Castro, Mel Joseph
● Basco, Marika Ysabelle
● Gochuico, Merihlu Anne - Facilitator
● Macacuna, Sittie Aniah
● Marababol, Jeremeh
● Odvina, Bethuelden
● Tanjay, Abel
● Vidamo, Klaire Kristianne
● Macacuna, Sittie Aniah

Scene 1. Assume that the citizens of Gotham are the ones who detonated the bomb?
What would be the specific Crime committed? Murder or Homicide?

Decision: Not criminally liable. (UNANIMOUS)

LEGAL BASIS (on scenario 1 & 2):

Justifying circumstance (Par 4, Article 11 RPC) – Exempt from criminal liability

Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites are present:

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;

Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

3 requisites for criminal liability:

● Actus rea (Criminal act)

● Mens rea (criminal intent)
● Absence of defense

In the given scenario, the capacity for rationality of the agents were compromised. They
were put in an impossible situation. Lack of criminal intent and absence of defense are
present in this case. The moment that there was a threat, the voluntariness of will was
terminated.

Scene 2: Assume that the Group of Prisoners are the one who detonated the bomb,
Would the verdict be the same?

Yes, our decision is still the same as with the first scenario.

UNANIMOUSLY:

Yes. The law does not discriminate between civilians and convicts. Under the same grounds
that there was no criminal mind and absence of defense.

A prisoner's dilemma is a situation where individual decision-makers always have an

incentive to choose in a way that creates a less than optimal outcome for the individuals as
a group.

PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS :

Joker’s Philosophy: Similar to Thomas Hobbes’, the human state of nature is war of all
against all, survival of the fittest.

When faced with a desperate need, people will resolve to kill one another.

Consequentialism vs Categorical

Consequentialist = ends justify the means. Although the killing was inherently wrong, the
death of one ship would justify the death of both. The greatest/best outcome. Both will live.
Joker prevented that from happening.

Utilitarianism: one’s happiness over another. Greatest happiness for a greater number.
Contrary to (Kant’s) Categorical Moral Reasoning which locates morality in certain duties
and rights, if an act is inherently wrong, it is wrong.

The group also took into account the concept of Jean-Jacque Rosseau involving private wills
and selfish interests in relation to the scenarios presented.

To recap, in the 2 scenarios presented, the 2 groups have no criminal intent, thus, there is
no criminal liability. They were, at that time, deprived of their freedom to decide. Therefore,
the act was not of their own volition.

(Physical Element) (mental state) X

Actus reus + mens rea + absence of defense = Criminal Liability

actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea means an act does not render a man guilty of a
crime unless his mind is equally guilty

Verdict by the Judges:

● Elumba, Kyrra Jhon - No Criminal Liability

● Gonzales, Kristine - No Criminal Liability
● Castro, Mel Joseph - No Criminal Liability
● Basco, Marika Ysabelle -No Criminal Liability
● Gochuico, Merihlu Anne -No Criminal Liability
● Marababol, Jeremeh - No Criminal Liability
● Odvina, Bethuelden - No Criminal Liability
● Tanjay, Abel - No Criminal Liability
● Vidamo, Klaire Kristianne - No Criminal Liability

**nothing follows**