Lomocso, Julyanne Legal Technique

EH309 Online Activity No. 1

Legal Argument
After Mr. Ricardo was discovered on the same night that he killed his neighbor,
Mrs. Violeta, he has been pleading to the court that he has only committed the crime of
Self-defense. Mr. Ricardo’s motion should be denied because one of the elements of Self-
defense was not present. The element of unlawful aggression, which is an indispensable
requisite of self-defense, was not shown on the part of Mrs. Violeta’s actions. Thus, Mr.
Ricardo should be convicted on the crime of Robbery with Homicide within the
prescriptive period of twenty (20) years.
Article 294, Section 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
“Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation
of any person shall suffer: “The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when
by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have
been committed.”
The crime of robbery with homicide is a special complex crime where it punishes
the killing of another either by reason or on the occasion of robbery. The conviction
requires certitude that robbery was the main purpose of the crime. The killing of another
must be merely incidental.
In People v. Sugan,1 the Court explained that to sustain a conviction for robbery
with homicide, the following elements must be proven: (1) the taking of personal property
belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation
against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of
homicide, as used in its generic sense, was committed. A conviction requires belief that
the robbery is the main purpose, and the objective of the malefactor and the killing is
merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life
but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. In People v. Villanueva,2
homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on occasion of robbery if, for
instance, it was committed: (a) to facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to
preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the
commission of the robbery; or (d) to eliminate witnesses in the commission of the crime.
Here, Mr. Ricardo broke into the house of Mrs. Violeta with the sole intention of
robbing her and taking her all property. Mr. Ricardo’s purpose was just to rob Mrs. Violeta

1 People of the Philippines v. Ngano Sugan et.al, G.R No. 192789, 23 March 2011
2 People of the Philippines v. Villanueva, G.R No. 212932, 21 January 2015
and had no intention to kill Mrs. Violeta. The death of Mrs. Violeta was merely incidental
to Mr. Ricardo’s robbery and it occurred while he was trying to escape from the house.
CONCLUSION
Due to the foregoing, Mr. Ricardo should be convicted with the crime of robbery
with homicide and Mr. Ricardo’s contention of self-defense is unattainable.