LEGAL MEMORANDUM

To: Police Officer Juan Dela Cruz

From:​ Malagant B. Escudero
Date: October 23, 2019
RE: Possible criminal charges against Weng, Lloyd, and JP
______________________________________________________________________________

This is a review of possible criminal charges that might be brought upon Weng, Lloyd, and JP
who conspired in robbing a bank. I understand that upon failing to access the vault in the bank,
Weng and Lloyd contented themselves with possessions of the bank customers. After leaving
the premises of the said bank, JP, who was then driving the getaway vehicle, accidentally hit a
pedestrian causing the latter’s death.

Based on the foregoing facts, Weng, Lloyd, and JP may all be charged with the crime of robbery.
Consequently, JP may also be charged with the additional crime of reckless imprudence
resulting to homicide.

Elements of Robbery
The elements in the crime of robbery is found under Chapter One, Title Ten (Crimes Against
Property) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

The criminal act of robbery is also defined in Article 293 of the RPC which provides necessary
elements to identify those who are guilty of such crime. While the elements of robbery are
presented in the case of Pedro Consulta v. People (G.R. No. 179462) as:
1. there is taking of personal property
2. the personal property belongs to another
3. the taking is with animus lucrandi
4. the taking is with violence against or intimidation of persons or with force upon things."

Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is also clarified in same jurisprudence as an internal act which
can be established through the overt acts of the offender. It may be presumed from the furtive
taking of useful property pertaining to another, unless special circumstances reveal a different
intent on the part of the perpetrator. These four elements are present in the case at hand,
making ALL of the three perpetrators guilty of the crime of robbery.
Xxxxx
Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery. – Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any
personal property belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of
any person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery.
xxxxx
Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide
Reckless imprudence, as defined in Article 365 of the RPC, consists in voluntarily, but without
malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such
act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

In the case of Rogelio Gonzaga v. People (G.R. No. 195671), in order to establish a motorist’s
liability for the negligent operation of a vehicle, it must be shown that there was a direct causal
connection between such negligence and the injuries or damages complained of. To constitute
the offense of reckless driving, the act must be something more than mere negligence in the
operation of a motor vehicle. A willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is required.

Willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others within the meaning of reckless
driving statutes has been held to involve a conscious choice of a course of action which injures
another, either with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved, or with knowledge of
facts which would disclose this danger to any reasonable person. JP, who was then driving the
getaway vehicle from the robbery incident, is solely responsible for the death of the pedestrian
and should face an additional criminal charge of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.

Robbery and homicide as separate crimes

According to Reyes (2017), homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the
location of robbery if it is committed due to the following circumstances:
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
d. to eliminate witnesses to the commission of the crime

Given the circumstances surrounding the instant case, it must be recalled that the vehicular
accident resulting to the pedestrian’s death happened after the three have left the bank. At
that moment, robbery was already consummated making it a crime distinct from the
pedestrian’s death. Although there may be a connection between the two crimes, but surely,
there was no “direct connection”. Robbery and Homicide are separate offenses when the
homicide was not committed “on the occasion” or “by reason” of the robbery. Therefore, two
separate crimes are evident in the case at hand since none

Even though the killing was done immediately after the robbery, Boado (2013) discussed that it
does not necessarily follow that the offense committed is robbery with homicide.Conviction for
robbery with homicide requires certitude that the robbery was the main purpose and objective
of the criminals and the killing was merely incidental resulting merely by reason or on the
occasion of the robbery. The perpetrators in the case at hand clearly do not fall under this
special complex crime since the robbery has already been consummated and the pedestrian’s
death was due to a preceding circumstance without direct relation from that robbery.

Conclusion
Pursuant to Article 293, when the act of robbery was already consummated, the pedestrian’s
death will already be considered as a distinct and an additional crime. Weng, Lloyd, and JP are
all guilty of the crime of robbery, while only JP is considered guilty of reckless imprudence
resulting to homicide.