REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
EASTERN SAMAR STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LAW
MIDTERM EXAMINATION
On
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC
Submitted to:
ATTY. NAT KING COLES
Submitted by:
RITZ E. DAYAO
JD-1
I
Arguing as a Defense Lawyer
Argument using Rule Based Reasoning
Rodrigo Dela Rosa, the accused, only committed the crime of Homicide instead of
Murder. Under Paragraph 1 and 5 of Article 248 of the Revise Penal Code of the
Philippines, among circumstances needed to commit Murder were Treachery and
Evident Premeditation. However, there was an absence of both qualifying
circumstances. The importance of evident premeditation is that the execution of the
criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry
out criminal intent during space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. For
Evident Premeditation to be appreciated, the following conditions must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt; (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the
crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination
and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him
reflect upon the circumstances of his act. On the other hand, for treachery to be
appreciated, two conditions must be present (1) the employment of means of execution
that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate and (b)
the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. Although the accused
was not “at the moment” when the argument between Bong Gago, Atong Ong and Leonor
Aquino heated, the witness stated that the accused heard the argument causing him to
go near and stabbed the victim.
It is impossible for Leonor to not notice the impending lethal attack due to
preceding heated argument between their group members, with victim even uttering
inhuman names against them and facing them, treachery cannot be appreciated as an
attendant circumstance and also the fact that the crime immediately followed its
execution, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated. Hence, the crime is Homicide,
not Murder.
II
Arguing as a Defense Lawyer
Narrative Reasoning
The accused, Rodrigo Dela Rosa committed Homicide instead of Murder due to
the fact that even if he actually admits that he committed the act that eventually led to
Leonor's death, he argues that the qualifying circumstances alleged in the information
were not sufficiently proven by the prosecution. The accused points to the nature of the
attack against Leonor, which he characterizes as sudden and unexpected. He claims that
there was a heated argument, even calling the members of the group “mga animal kamo”
prior to the killing, shows provocation and that the time of Rodrigo’s act of walking
towards them would have allowed Leonor to raise her guard since she was actually facing
them, seeing their reaction and actions. Thus, the accused argues that there was no
treachery proven.
Rodrigo likewise posits that the presence of evident premeditation is not backed
up by evidence. The weapon used was found in Gretchen Bareta’s kitchen which the
group used in slaughtering a pig in preparation for the occasion showing that the means
of execution was only adopted as a result of an impulse prior to the killing. There was no
proof that he decided to kill the victim and that there was time for him to reflect upon
his decision.
Therefore, my client concludes that these circumstances negate the means of the
attack, the deliberateness or conscious adoption of the method of killing, and the
existence of treachery. Hence, he underscores that his conviction should only be for the
crime of Homicide.
