Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    Regional Trial Court

    Uploaded by

    Miles Sebastein
    The accused is charged with frustrated robbery but claims to be innocent. The defense argues that: 1) The prosecution failed to prove the accused intended to gain from taking the jar, as the accused did not know it contained jewelry. 2) The prosecution did not prove the accused intended to destroy the jar, as the accused sought help instead of escaping. 3) All elements of the crime of robbery were not established, so the accused is not criminally liable and should be found not guilty.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Regional Trial Court

    Uploaded by

    Miles Sebastein
    32 views3 pages
    The accused is charged with frustrated robbery but claims to be innocent. The defense argues that: 1) The prosecution failed to prove the accused intended to gain from taking the jar, as the accused did not know it contained jewelry. 2) The prosecution did not prove the accused intended to destroy the jar, as the accused sought help instead of escaping. 3) All elements of the crime of robbery were not established, so the accused is not criminally liable and should be found not guilty.

    Original Description:

    memorandym

    Original Title

    Me Mohan

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The accused is charged with frustrated robbery but claims to be innocent. The defense argues that: 1) The prosecution failed to prove the accused intended to gain from taking the jar, as the accused did not know it contained jewelry. 2) The prosecution did not prove the accused intended to destroy the jar, as the accused sought help instead of escaping. 3) All elements of the crime of robbery were not established, so the accused is not criminally liable and should be found not guilty.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    32 views3 pages

    Regional Trial Court

    Uploaded by

    Miles Sebastein
    The accused is charged with frustrated robbery but claims to be innocent. The defense argues that: 1) The prosecution failed to prove the accused intended to gain from taking the jar, as the accused did not know it contained jewelry. 2) The prosecution did not prove the accused intended to destroy the jar, as the accused sought help instead of escaping. 3) All elements of the crime of robbery were not established, so the accused is not criminally liable and should be found not guilty.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    1

    Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Ninth Judicial Region Branch 14 Zamboanga city PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff -versusABUDA y RADULE, Accused X----------------------------------------X CRIM CASE No. 24579

    -forFRUSTRATED ROBBERY

    MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED COMES NOW, Accused RADULE, through counsel and unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submits this Memorandum for the Accused in the above entitled case and states that: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

    ARGUMENTS 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT HEREIN ACCUSED HAD THE INTENT TO GAIN. The prosecution failed to establish the fact that herein accused had the intent to gain. Mere sight of the Accused holding the jar, does not establish a profound and reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had intent to gain. Such allegation that the Accused ran towards the main door is of no credence. Hence, considering that the Accused had no knowledge that the jar contained jewelries, therefore it can be presumed that she had no intent to gain. For the Prosecution could not verily establish the fact and/or intention to gain, when herein they failed to establish the fact that herein Accused had a previous knowledge of the contents or whereabouts of the prized jewels, which in this case, were contained inside an enclosed jar, which is not visible to the naked eye. 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT HEREIN ACCUSED HAD THE

    INTENTION OF TAKING THE JAR OUT OF THE RESIDENCE OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT TO DESTROY THE SAME. The fact that by profession the Accused was a call center supervisor, earning a high paid salary, the Accused herein can afford to buy herself the same that corresponds to the amount of jewelries the Private Complainant possessed. Hence The fact that the Accused ran towards Jonathan Santos to seek for help, indicates an act of proving innocence, on the jar containing jewelries. Granting but not admitting, for the sake of argument, that the accused was seen running towards the main door to escape, it was held In People v. Shabaz, by the Michigan Supreme Court that "[f]light alone is not a reliable indicator of guilt without other circumstances because flight alone is inherently ambiguous." Such accusation is not synonymous with guilt until profound evidence is proved. Accused herein was innocent and is not guilty thereof on the alleged crime. to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. XXXX 3. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE COMMISSION OF FRUSTRATED ROBBERY USING FORCE UPON THINGS IN AN INHABITED PLACE. Robbery as defined under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code, is the unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means or violence against or intimidation of any person or using force upon anything. Elements of Robbery are: i. That there be (1) personal property (2) belonging to another; ii. That there is (3) unlawful taking of that property; iii. That the taking must be (4) with intent to gain; iv. That there is (5) violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon anything.

    which she is being charged, hence, the guilt of the herein Accused has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. PRAYER

    You might also like