Sample Internal Legal Memorandum

LEGAL MEMORANDUM

 

TO                           :                  ATTY. TERESITA ORTEGA

 FROM                     :                 DENNIE VIEVE IDEA

 RE                           :                  Criminal case no. 141623, People v. Rugas

 DATE                     :                   06 November 2016

 OFFICE FILE NUMBER     :                      

Issues:

1. Whether or not Respondent committed an act of trafficking under RA 10364 or known as the Expanded Anti Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012?

2. Whether or not Respondent’s act, if considered “trafficking”, a qualified one?

Brief Answer:

Yes

Statement of Facts:

Respondent Mando Rugas (Rugas), 25 years old, has been a couch potato all his life. He did not brother to look for a job for he is confident that he will live a well-off life because of the trust fund established by his loving and industrious parents in favor of him. He also likes surfing the net, especially the website Facebookow.

One morning, as he was browsing the said site, he came across the profile of Gi Lamoon Luk (Gi), private petitioner. Having a beautiful profile picture, it caught Rugas’ attention and sent her a friend request. They eventually became chatmates, later on went on a meet-up and consequently got married.

Although already married, Rugas remained a lazy man who kills his time by watching the television, surfing the net and playing online games. Gi felt no love from him. In fact, the latter will only notice Gi when he was hungry or when he feels a carnal urge. However, out of love and hope, Gi stayed with Rugas, endured such treatment, and bore him triplets a year after their wedding. They named their babies Leila, Benigno and Rody.

In January 2016, Gi’s luck went from bad to worse, for Rugas’ trust fund had already depleted. Unfortunately, he likewise developed drug addiction that drove him mad. Desperate to satisfy his drug addiction, he sold his babies to different buyers.

Leila was sold to JB, a pimp; Benigno to Paquito, an organ seller; and Rody to Leni, a barren wife.

After finding the horrible deed of her husband, Gi immediately cause the arrest of Rugas and the filing of necessary charges against him.

An Information for violation of Section 4 of R.A. 9208, as amended by R.A. 10364, was filed against Rugas. The information likewise alleged that the trafficking was qualified since the victims are children, the offense was committed by the parent and that the crime was committed in a large scale.

 

DISCUSSION:

Whether Rugas committed an act of “trafficking” defined under RA 10364.

Generally, section 4 (a) of the subject law provides that there is “trafficking in persons”  when a person does any of the following acts:

“SEC. 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. – It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or                 juridical, to commit any of the following    acts:

                       “(a) To recruit, obtain, hire, provide, offer, transport, transfer, maintain, harbor, or                                     receive a person by any means, including those done under the pretext of                                               domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose                                  of prostitution, pornography, or sexual exploitation”;

As borne out by the facts of the case, Respondent “sold” his babies to three (3) differrent individuals. However, it should be worthy to note that the act of “selling a child” is not included in the preceding provision which would constitute “trafficking” under RA 10364.

However, it should also be noted that section 4 (k) of the law provides that:

            “(k) To recruit, transport, harbor, obtain, transfer, maintain, hire, offer, provide, adopt or receive a child for purposes of exploitation or trading them, including but not limited to, the act of baring and/or selling a child for any consideration or for barter for purposes of  exploitation.  x x x” (Emphasis, underscoring and italics ours).

To reiterate, Respondent sold his babies to different persons. As clearly mentioned from the preceding provision, “the act of baring and/or selling a child” is an act of trafficking in persons.

It may however be argued that albeit the preceding provision considers “the act of barring and/or selling a child” as an act of “trafficking in persons”, the same provides that such as must be for “purposes of exploitation”. That Respondent’s only purpose for selling his children is not to exploit but to satisfy his personal urges, as in this case, his drug addiction, is erroneous.

Selling the babies to the mentioned buyers infers that there is a huge possibility that there is a purpose to exploit them and/or use them for profit considering the line of work and/or business where the buyers belong. JB, the pimp, will more likely use Leila for sexual exploitation; Paquito might sell the organs of Benigno to profit and Leni might use Rody for forced labor or worst, a sex slave.

From the foregoing, the Act committed by Mando satisfies that act of trafficking defined under RA 10364.

The act committed is “qualified trafficking in persons” as provided for in the subject law.

2.1 Section 6 of the law states that:

                        “SEC. 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. – Violations of Section 4 of this Act shall be considered as qualified trafficking:

                                    “(a) when the trafficked person is a child;

                                    “x x x

“(c) when the crime is committed by a syndicate or in large scale;

                                    “(d) When the offender is a spouse, an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a                                     person who exercises authority over the trafficked person or when the offense is                                     committed by a public officer or employee; (Emphasis, italics and             underscoring ours).

“x x x

It is undisputed that the trafficked persons are children, and the trafficker, Mando, is the latters’ father which thus qualifies the act of trafficking provided in section 6 (a) and (d) of the law.

Likewise, it shows that the act is indeed qualified trafficking in persons because the act is committed in large scale provided in section 6 (c).

Jurisprudence provides that an act is deemed committed in “large scale” if the acts are directed against multiplicity of victims.[1] As borne out by the facts, Respondent sold his three (3) babies, hence, there is multiplicity of victims. Therefore, the act is qualified.

It may again be argued that the act cannot constitute “qualified trafficking” because the purpose of Respondent is merely to satisfy his needs and to exploit which makes the qualification in section 6 of said law immaterial is bereft of merit. To reiterate, the fact that Rugas sold his children to different individuals with makes them prone to exploitation and the mere fact that Rugas has profited from such act already tantamount to trafficking.

 

CONCLUSION:

Rugas is guilty of qualified trafficking in persons under RA 9208 as amended by RA 10364 after the elements of qualified trafficking has been satisfied, being a parent of the trafficked children who were still babies, in exchange of money.

Therefore, Mando Rugas should be convicted of the crime of qualified trafficking in persons under the subject law.

 

[1]     MacDonald & Goldman. (n.d.). Substantive and Procedural Aspects of International Criminal Law, last accessed at https://books.google.com.ph/booksid=63n_4CkGiMYC&pg=PT148&lpg=PT148&dq=if+the+act+is+committed+in+large+scale&source=bl&ots=ZWtg7AklVe&sig=ga700dtJR_3anev3wMde9ZsgZU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XRgeVf3NC8rz8QXU14LADg&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=if%20the%20act%20is%20committed%20in%20large%20scale&f=false, November 6, 2016.

Compiled case digests in criminal law 1

Rivera vs. People

Facts:

That on May 2, 1998, Ruben Rodil, together with her three-year old daughter, went to a nearby sari-sari store to buy food and look for his wife. Subsequently, one Edgardo Rivera mocked him for being jobless and dependent on his wife, creating exchange of profane words between the two. The next day,Rivera, together with his two brothers, emerged again in the sari-sari store where Rodil was also present and gave the latter fist blows and hit the victim three times with hollow blocks through the head.With the help of the witnesses around the incident, there was a prompt response from local police that stopped the incident and let the victim escape. Considering the statement of the attending doctor of Rodil, this confirmed that there was “superficial lacerations on the parietal area”, hence, the trial court convicted River brothers with the crime of frustrated murder.

Upon the petition, CA affirmed the trial court’s decision, however with modification, lowering the crime to attempted murder. For the plaintiffs insists that intent to kill was not proven, thus, pleading for the reduction of the crime to attempted homicide.

Issue:WON the crime committed by the petitioners is attempted murder or attempted homicide?

Ruling:

The Court held that the petitioners are still liable of the crime of attempted murder, for even if the head wounds inflicted upon the victim was merely superficial and not mortal as to produce death, it does not negate the criminal liability of the petitioners for attempted murder.

Under Article 6 of the RPC, attempt to commit a felony means that “there is

 an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own

spontaneous desistance”.

With the case at bar, the petitioners intended to produce the felony, but because of the policeintervention, it was prevented. However, it does not mean that they do not have intention to kill thevictim.

People vs. Guittap

Facts: On February 15, 2000, appellants Cesar Osabel and Decena Masinag were convicted guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide. This is in connection with the crime happened on July 17, 1992, when the accused steal and carry away personal items of the victims Romualdo Jael and Lionela Caringal. Moreover, the accused stab both spouses, inflicting upon them fatalwounds, which directly cuased the death of the two.During the trial, state witness Ariel Dador stated that Osabel asked him and one Purcino to go to Masinag’s house. Osabel also explained to Dador and Purcino that he and Masinag planned to rob the spouses. The following day, they went to the victims’ house to execute the plan.

Masinag denied any participation in the crime; she contends that Dador had no personal knowledge of the plan, how was it made and if the former has an actual participation.

Issue:WON Masinag participated in the crime and be acquitted of the crime of robbery with Homicide?Ruling:Basing on the testimony of Dador, it shows that he has no real or personal knowledge of the plan but his testimonies was only based on what Osabel told him. Hence, statements based on hearsay do not prove appellant’s participation in the crime.

Moreover, no overt act was established to prove that the appellant really participated in the crime.For conspiracy transcends mere companionship and it must be proved convincingly as the crime itself. Nevertheless, it must also be shown that appellant performed an overt act. WHEREFORE, Masinag is ACQUITTED of the crime of Robbery with Homicide.

People vs. Marquez

Facts:Appellant Marquez was convicted of frustrated robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide;and illegal possession of firearms which stemmed up from a bus holdup that resulted in the killing of the bus conductor and the wounding of a police officer on February 17, 1995. However, on May 12, 1998,appellant petitions the Judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, Branch 53.Version of the Prosecution: On February 17, 1995, appellant Marquez with 3 other men, holdup a JAC Liner bus which resulted to the death of Halum, the conductor and wounding of SPO1 Merene wounded as a gunfight happened between him and Marquez. The incident was reported to the police by Manuel Fleta, another passenger. Mauricio and Zenaida Ilao, who were unaware of the aborted hold-upthat had happened, helped him by fetching Julie Ann, a distant relative, who brought him to the hospital in Candelaria and was transferred to the Quezon Memorial Hospital in Lucena City. Mauricio Ilao then found at the back of their house the next day a .38 caliber gun with three live bullets and immediately went to Sariaya station to report this.Version of the defense: Accused-appellant boarded the JAC liner bus alone heading to Julie Ann’s work place on February 17, 1995 when a hold-up happened, there was exchange of fire and he was hit by a bullet. They then jumped out of the bus and there he saw a house owned by Zenaida Ilao from whom he requested that his cousin Julie Ann be fetched to take him to the hospital. He was then brought to Bolaños Hospital, then to Quezon Memorial Hospital then later transferred to Philippine General Hospital. He was taken to the Municipal Jail by the Sariaya police after he was released from the hospital then 2 months after he was transferred to provincial jail. When arraigned, he pleaded NOT GUILTY.

Issues:Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of the crimes charged despite doubt as to his identity and culpability.

Ruling:In robbery with homicide, it is important to consider the direct relation between robbery and the killing. It must be shown that robbery was the original intent and that homicide was perpetrated with a view to consummate the former, by reason or on occasion thereof. If death occurred by reason or as incident of the robbery, even if his death was merely incidental, still, frustrated robbery with homicide was committed.

In the case at bar, the appellant intended to rob the passengers was evident. It was foiled only with the intervention of SPO1 Merene, if not for his presence and bravery, appellant and his cohorts would have successfully consummated their original plan. With regard to the charge of frustrated homicide, appellant in shooting Merene, had performed all the necessary acts to kill the latter but survived due to the timely medical intervention. Thus appellant’s conviction for frustrated robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide must be sustained. But with regard to the illegal possession of firearms, he must be acquitted.