MEMORANDUM OF LAW

To: ​Atty. Rolly Peoro

From: ​Punzal, Carlos Gabriele M. / ID No. 11981369
Date: ​October 16, 2019
Re: ​The Case of the Speluncean Explorers
Subject: ​DLSU - Legal Research GO3

STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT

You have asked me to prepare a memorandum of law addressing the question of whether
the Speluncean Explorers in eating their colleague alive be convicted or not.

ISSUE

Should the Speluncean Explorers be convicted for murdering Roger Whetmore?

BRIEF ANSWER

Yes. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the Speluncean Explorers are guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder. The elements of the crime of murder
are present and are sufficient to convict the four (4) remaining members of the
Speluncean Explorers. The commission of the felony is qualified by abuse of superior
strength.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In May of 4299, 5 members of the group called “Speluncean Explorers” entered the
Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park in seeking adventure. They have
 penetrated into the internal rock formations of the underground river while going deeper
into the cave. Unfortunately, a landslide occurred wherein the path leading back to the
entrance was covered by heavy rock boulders.

On the first day of being stranded inside, the Speluncean Explorers were trying their best
to contact the authorities through their communication devices. During the second day,
they were lucky enough to get a reply from the Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Roy Cimatu. Roy Cimatu talked to them through
Facebook Messenger’s video call feature where they were instructed to wait patiently for
rescue. Their phone batteries were already close to dying, flashlights were already losing
power, and the food supply already non-existent. They spent a week not eating anything.
The succeeding week, Roger Whetmore proposed a plan to play “ma-iba taya” wherein
whoever loses will sacrifice himself to the group since everyone was already famished.
Unfortunately, Roger lost the game. The other 4 members killed him without thinking
twice since they were already starving to death. During the last moments before his death,
the prosecution was able to prove that he resisted. When the rescue team finally reached
the explorers, they discovered that Whetmore had been killed and eaten. The four
remaining explorers were then charged for the murder of Robert Whetmore. The
Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City Branch 49 charged them guilty of murder.
They filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.1

ANALYSIS

Yes, the defendants are ​guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;

1
Fuller, L. (1949). The Case of the Speluncean Explorers. Harvard Law Review.
62(4). Retrieved from http://www.nullapoena.de/stud/explorers.html
 Murder shall be punished by reclusión 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.
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a
vessel, derailment or assault upon a streetcar or locomotive, fall of an
airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means
involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding
paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic, or any other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of
the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.2

In​ People v. Dela Cruz, ​J. Nachura provided for the elements of murder:

(1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was
attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (4)
that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.3

Abuse of superior strength

1. Is a qualifying circumstance.
2. Where the offenders deliberately takes advantage of their superiority of strength. 4

2
Rev. Pen. Code, Art 248
3
P ​ 26 Phil. 631, 639 (2010)
​ eople v. Dela Cruz, 6
4
Reynaldo G. Ros, Fundamentals of Criminal Law 84 (2009)
 In the case at hand, all elements of murder are present to constitute the felony. Abuse of
superior strength was present in committing the crime. Therefore the killing of Roger
Whetmore is qualified into murder. Since Roger resisted after losing to the game, the four
(4) members took advantage of their quantity and superior strength to kill Roger. There is
superior strength when the accused used excessive force, out of proportion to the means
available to the person attacked5. In lieu of the foregoing, the accused are guilty beyond
reasonable doubt​ on the crime of murder.

CONCLUSION

The defendants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code. However, Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code must also be
applied due to the extraordinary facts of the present case. In shedding light on the shortcomings
of the legislative department, the judge must take into consideration the peculiar facts that
surround the present case. In application of the natural laws, the five (5) members were left with
no other choice but to follow Roger’s proposal of sacrificing their own. Thus, this leaves room
for the court to recommend to the Chief Executive through the Department of Justice a statement
which induce the court in believing that the said act be subject to penal legislation.6

RECOMMENDATION

1. We may conduct further investigations that may produce relevant facts that may affect
the conviction of the accused.

Sincerely yours,

Carlos Gabriele M. Punzal

11981369

5
People vs Cabiling, 74 SCRA 285
6
Rev. Pen. Code, Art. 5.