Writing A Legal Argument

On the night of May 15, 2019, Mr. Ricardo broke into Mrs. Violeta’s room robbing all
her cash and jewelries and under unfortunate circumstances killed Mrs. Violeta with a rifle that
was owned by the latter and was being pointed at Mr. Ricardo. We are presented with three
questions; (1) What crime/s did Mr. Ricardo commit under the Revised Penal Code? (2) Within
what period should the prosecution file the criminal charge against Mr. Ricardo in order to avoid
prescription? (3) May Mr. Ricardo validly invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense?

We answer that Mr. Ricardo is liable under Article 2941 of the Revised Penal Code and
with a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death it shall prescribe in 20 years.2 He may not also
invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense for two reasons. First, unlawful aggression is
absent on his part. Under Article 4293 of the New Civil Code an owner of the property is not an
unlawful aggressor, because he is merely exercising his right. Second, it has been held in a long
line of cases that unlawful aggression is a condition ​sine qua non under Article 11 of the Revised
Penal Code.4

We are now presented with a handful of statutory provisions and jurisprudence where we
must first discuss exhaustively Mr. Ricardos liability under Article 294 of the Revised Penal
Code. The said provision provides that:
xxx
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons; Penalties. — Any person guilty of robbery with the use of
violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason
or on the occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have
been committed or when the robbery shall have been accompanied
by rape or intentional mutilation or arson."
xxx

1
​Art. 294 RPC. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; Penalties. — Any person guilty of
robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death, when by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been
committed or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson."
2
Art. 90 RPC. Prescription of crime. — Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall
prescribe in twenty years.
3
​Article 429 NCC. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment
and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an
actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
4
​ eople v. Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, June 28, 1990, 174 SCRA 700, 704; People v. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, June 28,
P
1989, 174 SCRA 285, 291, citing Ortega v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 57664, February 8,1989, 170 SCRA 38;
Andres v. Court of Appeals, No. L-48957, June 23, 1987, 151 SCRA 268; People v. Picardal, No. 729936, June 18,
1987, 151 SCRA 170; People v. Apolinario, 58 Phil. 586
 In the special complex crime of robbery, it must be established that the main purpose and
objective of the criminal was robbery and the killing was merely incidental, resulting by reason
of or on the occasion of the robbery. Therefore the requisites of this crime are as presented in
People v. Quemeggen5, the Supreme Court held that (1) The taking of personal property is
committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) The property taken belongs to
another; (3) The taking is animo lucrandi; and (4) By reason of the robbery or on the occasion
thereof, homicide is committed. In the facts presented all requisites have been complied with.
First, there was violence or intimidation against persons as Mr. Ricardo broke into the room of
Mrs. Violetas room while the latter was asleep exposing herself defenseless up until she was able
to wake up and pick up a rifle out of fear of her life. Second, Mr. Ricardo possessed the cash and
jewelries; and, Third, the witnesses already saw him flee from the crime scene which means
actual taking is present. Third, by reason of the robbery and out of shock Mr. Ricardo lunged into
Mrs. Violeta shot her in order to protect the life of the former.

On the question of prescription ​Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code gives us the answer
and says, “Prescription of crime. — Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion
temporal shall prescribe in twenty years.”

Furthermore, the inquiry of whether Mr. Ricardo may validly invoke the justifying
circumstance of self-defense is in the negative. For there to be a valid application of self-defense
in ​People v. Uribe6 the Supreme Court provided the following requisites; There is (1) unlawful
aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. However, unlawful
aggression is essential in validly invoking self-defense and according to Article 429 of the New
Civil Code which states that: “The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude
any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as
may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical
invasion or usurpation of his property.” Therefore, the pointing of the rifle by Mrs. Violeta does
not mean she is an unlawful aggressor because she is merely exercising her right to protect her
property.

Given the foregoing arguments coupled with the salient facts laid down in the case before
us, we, the prosecutors, humbly request the court to ADJUDGE and DECLARE that: (1) Mr.
Ricardo be convicted of Robbery with Homicide under Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code.; (2)
Shall not avail of the Justifying Circumstance of self-defense under Art. 11 of the Revised Penal
Code.

5
​ eople v. Quemeggen, G.R. No. 178205, July 27, 2009, 611 PHIL 487-501
P
6
People v. Uribe G.R. Nos. 76493-94, February 26, 1990, 182 SCRA 624, 630-631