Hular Jr., Raul M.

March 10, 2018

Legal Opinion
March 10, 2018

Madame Butterfly
Manila

Dear Madame Butterfly:

Your requested opinion is here. This is about the inquiry to the criminal liability of your
son, Arjo arising from the alleged murder of Cardo, and the death of Alyana. These are the facts
of the case according to the letter you have sent:

That on March 3, 2018, PO1 Robin and PO2 Jeric while on their way to Camp Crame
witnessed a speeding blue Toyota Vios with plate number RR 6564, heading towards a maroon
Hyundai Accent with plate number ABC 1234. Subsequently, when the Vios reached the Accent,
the passengers of the Vios shot the Hyundai which caused the car to fall in the canal. Suddenly,
four (4) men alighted from the car and started shooting at the driver of the Accent. Consequently,
a bystander named Alyana was shot by a stray bullet. Then, the four (4) armed men hurried back
to their car and immediately left the crime scene. Eventually, due to the sustained injuries to the
shooting, both victims died.

During the investigation, the police learned that the Vios was registered under the name of
a certain Don Emilio. Upon inquiry, Don Emilio admitted that he is the owner of the Vios but
clarified that it is one of the several cars he owns in his car rental business, which he leased to your
son, Arjo. Your son was arrested upon return of the leased car. The police identified your son as
one of the assailants of the crime wherein he was brought to the Special Operations Group (SOG)
Headquarters.

Additionally, there were one (1) deformed fired bullet from .45 caliber firearm and five (5)
cartridges from the same firearm. It was also discovered that your son, Arjo was with other
companies named Jhong, Antonio, and Lucio. However, it was claimed that it was only Jhong and
Antonio who were firing at the Hyundai while your son was merely driving.

The issue is whether your son, Arjo is criminally liable for the death of Cardo and Alyana.
From my legal perspective, Arjo is criminally liable as well as his other companion, Jhong,
Antonio and Lucio for murder. The four (4) of them acted as principals to the crime through direct
participation.

To clear things up, the crime that was committed is murder. In cases of murder, the Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code states that:

Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246
shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion 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 street car 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 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.

In your son’s case, the elements of murder were established. Firstly, the death of Cardo
and Alyana; and the use of treachery as an attendant circumstance by 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.

It is clear that Cardo was defenseless when your son and the three other persons alighted
the Vios and started shooting the victim. The victim could not have defended himself especially
when his car was hit and fell into a canal. The perpetrators have taken advantage of the weak state
of Cardo to accomplish the commission of the crime.

In the death of Alyana, a bystander, who was hit by a stray bullet. Your son, Arjo and the
three other offenders are criminally liable for the death of the victim. Clearly, the offenders did
not have any intention to kill or shoot Alyana rather it was just a wrong moment for her to be in
the scene. According to Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code:

Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended.

xxxx

The intention of the perpetrators was to ambush and kill Cardo, however Alyana was in the
wrong situation, where she was killed by a stray bullet. Objectively, Article 4 Paragraph one (1)
will apply. In the commission of the crime, there was an event different from what was only
intended. The only intention of the assailants was to kill Cardo, but since Alyana was also hit by a
stray bullet, it was a logical consequence different what was only intended.

Additionally, criminal liability will also incur if there is a mistake in the blow or aberratio
ictus. This renders liability although the shot was not intended for Alyana because there was still
intention and criminal propensity in the part of the perpetrators.

For the penalty, the commission of the crime is punishable by reclusion temporal (From 17
years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years) in its maximum period to death. From my legal perspective,
there is no mitigating circumstances to lessen his penalty. Only the court can decide on the exact
penalty for the crime committed.

I hope you have been enlightened regarding the nature of the case of your son.
Unfortunately, from my knowledge in law and jurisprudence, I cannot give you a favorable
response for your son may be criminally liable for the murder of Cardo and death of Alyana.

Very yours truly,

Atty. Raul Hular Jr.