Republic of Westeros

SUPREME COURT
Winterfell
EN BANC

G.R. No. L-35144 April 12, 4301

THE PEOPLE OF THE WESTEROSI ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ROGER WHETMORE, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
Albert Yeoman C. Gozon for defendants.
Attorney-General Clarin for appellee.

RESOLUTION
D’LONSOD, J.:
For review is the decision of the Court of General Instances of the County of Stowfield, dated June
23, 4299 in Criminal Case No. 20841 finding accused-appellants Roger Whetmore, et. al, guilty
of the crime of murder and were thus convicted and sentenced to be hanged.
The defendants, having been indicted for the crime of murder, were convicted and sentenced to be
hanged by the Court of General Instances of the County of Stowfield. They bring a petition of
error before this Court.
The four defendants are members of the Speluncean Society, an organization of amateurs
interested in the exploration of caves. Early in May of 4299 they, in the company of Roger
Whetmore, then also a member of the Society, penetrated into the interior of a limestone cavern of
the type found in the Central Plateau of this Commonwealth. While they were in a position remote
from the entrance to the cave, a landslide occurred. Heavy boulders fell in such a manner as to
block completely the only known opening to the cave. When the men discovered their predicament
they settled themselves near the obstructed entrance to wait until a rescue party should remove the
detritus that prevented them from leaving their underground prison. On the failure of Whetmore
and the defendants to return to their homes, the Secretary of the Society was notified by their
families.
It appears that the explorers had left indications at the headquarters of the Society concerning the
location of the cave they proposed to visit. A rescue party was promptly dispatched to the spot.
The task of rescue proved one of overwhelming difficulty. It was necessary to supplement the
forces of the original party by repeated increments of men and machines, which had to be conveyed
at great expense to the remote and isolated region in which the cave was located. A huge temporary
camp of workmen, engineers, geologists, and other experts was established. The work of removing
the obstruction was several times frustrated by fresh landslides. In one of these, ten of the workmen
engaged in clearing the entrance were killed. The treasury of the Speluncean Society was soon
exhausted in the rescue effort, and the sum of eight hundred thousand frelars, raised partly by
popular subscription and partly by legislative grant, was expended before the imprisoned men were
rescued. Success was finally achieved on the thirty-second day after the men entered the cave.
Since it was known that the explorers had carried with them only scant provisions, and since it was
also known that there was no animal or vegetable matter within the cave on which they might
subsist, anxiety was early felt that they might meet death by starvation before access to them could
be obtained. On the twentieth day of their imprisonment it was learned for the first time that they
had taken with them into the cave a portable wireless machine capable of both sending and
receiving messages.
A similar machine was promptly installed in the rescue camp and oral communication established
with the unfortunate men within the mountain. They asked to be informed how long a time would
be required to release them. The engineers in charge of the project answered that at least ten days
would be required even if no new landslides occurred. The explorers then asked if any physicians
were present, and were placed in communication with a committee of medical experts. The
imprisoned men described their condition and the rations they had taken with them, and asked for
a medical opinion whether they would be likely to live without food for ten days longer. The
chairman of the committee of physicians told them that there was little possibility of this. The
wireless machine within the cave then remained silent for eight hours. When communication was
re-established the men asked to speak again with the physicians. The chairman of the physicians'
committee was placed before the apparatus, and Whetmore, speaking on behalf of himself and the
defendants, asked whether they would be able to survive for ten days longer if they consumed the
flesh of one of their number. The physicians' chairman reluctantly answered this question in the
affirmative. Whetmore asked whether it would be advisable for them to cast lots to determine
which of them should be eaten. None of the physicians present was willing to answer the question.
Whetmore then asked if there were among the party a judge or other official of the government
who would answer this question.
None of those attached to the rescue camp was willing to assume the role of advisor in this matter.
He then asked if any minister or priest would answer their question, and none was found who
would do so.
Thereafter no further messages were received from within the cave, and it was assumed
(erroneously, it later appeared) that the electric batteries of the explorers' wireless machine had
become exhausted. When the imprisoned men were finally released it was learned that on the
twenty-third day after their entrance into the cave Whetmore had been killed and eaten by his
companions.
From the testimony of the defendants, which was accepted by the jury, it appears that it was
Whetmore who first proposed that they might find the nutriment without which survival was
impossible in the flesh of one of their own number. It was also Whetmore who first proposed the
use of some method of casting lots, calling the attention of the defendants to a pair of dice he
happened to have with him. The defendants were at first reluctant to adopt so desperate a
procedure, but after the conversations by wireless related above, they finally agreed on the plan
proposed by Whetmore. After much discussion of the mathematical problems involved, agreement
was finally reached on a method of determining the issue by the use of the dice.
Before the dice were cast, however, Whetmore declared that he withdrew from the arrangement,
as he had decided on reflection to wait for another week before embracing an expedient so frightful
and odious. The others charged him with a breach of faith and proceeded to cast the dice. When it
came Whetmore's turn, the dice were cast for him by one of the defendants, and he was asked to
declare any objections he might have to the fairness of the throw. He stated that he had no such
objections. The throw went against him, and he was then put to death and eaten by his companions.
After the rescue of the defendants, and after they had completed a stay in a hospital where they
underwent a course of treatment for malnutrition and shock, they were indicted for the murder of
Roger Whetmore. At the trial, after the testimony had been concluded, the foreman of the jury (a
lawyer by profession) inquired of the court whether the jury might not find a special verdict,
leaving it to the court to say whether on the facts as found the defendants were guilty. After some
discussion, both the Prosecutor and counsel for the defendants indicated their acceptance of this
procedure, and it was adopted by the court. In a lengthy special verdict the jury found the facts as
I have related them above, and found further that if on these facts the defendants were guilty of
the crime charged against them, then they found the defendants guilty. On the basis of this verdict,
the trial judge ruled that the defendants were guilty of murdering Roger Whetmore. The judge then
sentenced them to be hanged, the law of our Commonwealth permitting him no discretion with
respect to the penalty to be imposed.
After the release of the jury, its members joined in a communication to the Chief Executive asking
that the sentence be commuted to an imprisonment of six months. The trial judge addressed a
similar communication to the Chief Executive. As yet no action with respect to these pleas has
been taken, as the Chief Executive is apparently awaiting our disposition of this petition of error.
ACCORDINGLY, by virtue of the majority of four (4) votes of the Chief Justice and Justices
Yangan, Torres, and Genobatin with the two (2) dissenting votes of Justices D’lonsod and Salem,
the aforementioned petition is hereby DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of General
Instances of the County of Stowfield, in Criminal Case No. 2084, is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.

Separate Opinions
PAGLUMOTAN, C.J.:, concurring:
As a judge, it is our obligation to maintain the prestige of the parliamentary division of government.
It is the duty of the judiciary to faithfully enforce the written law directly at face value meaning
without any interference of personal emotions and desires. With this in mind, I am convinced that
conviction is the right course of conduct. I also suggest to the other justices on the bench that they
should follow the precedent of the trial judge and the jury and ask the Chief Executive of the State
for clemency for the explorers.
According to the Commonwealth statute, “whoever takes the life of another shall be punished by
death.” That is, there is no exception applicable to this case under the law. First of all, it can be
argued that the language used in the statute directly applies to what was done by the defendants to
Roger Whetmore. As a result, there is no argument that the defendants should not be punished
following the applicable law. Similarly, there is no issue regarding the issue that the defendants
have been fully taken the life of Roger Whetmore. This fact has been admitted by the defendants.
But another aspect is also present in this particular case. As mentioned by the defendants in their
testimony, Whetmore agreed with the choice that a lottery should be held to decide their fate.
Therefore, a question arises if all the liability for the death of Whetmore will lie only with the
defendants or if Whetmore can also be partly held responsible for the crime. As a result, it will be
in practical that the statute is applied only on the basis of the text and ignores the basic foundation
due to which law is law. Prudence should be applied in all cases and every case has to be judged
on its own merits.

As we cannot change the statute, which would cause us to enter legislative territory, we are bound
to sentence the defendants to be hanged. Therefore, my decision is to convict the defendants and
leave it up to the executive to consider clemency.

YANGAN, J.:, concurring:

The situation wherein the defendants found themselves is very complicated but it does not erase
the fact that they willingly took the life of Roger Whetmore. The language of the law is clear:
“Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death.” N. C. S. A. (N. S.)
§ 12-A.

There’s no situation that would allow human beings to take other people’s lives into their own
hands except for self-preservation, which is not applicable in this case.

These four men committed murder willfully out of self-interest. Whetmore declared his withdrawal
from the arrangement, yet these men charged him with a breach of faith. They included Whetmore
who had opted out of the plan to increase chances of their own individual survival. If only four of
them are included, there will be more chance that they could be put to death.
Furthermore, Whetmore was killed in order for them to survive which shows that they value their
lives more than his. He was killed with the hope that the others could survive. However, there’s
no definite reason that he should be killed because no one exactly knows when they will rescued.
Thus, when they killed Whetmore, they killed him in vain as the moral logic of this situation seems
to be that these men will keep killing one of its members in order to survive until they are rescued.

Murder is murder. Our society should look at it in the same light and not differently in any case.
If you can justify one’s murder, you can justify them all. Everyone has their own measurement of
principles, yet we should all look at murder in the same way instead of criminalizing certain acts
and making certain things seem more savage and violent when it’s all the same act and mentality
that goes into it.

I therefore conclude that on any aspect which this case may be viewed, these defendants are guilty
of the crime of murdering Roger Whetmore, thus, should be punished by death.

TORRES, J.:, concurring and dissenting:

Chief Justice Paglumotan’s opinion in which the statute is unambiguous and must be applied by
the judiciary notwithstanding personal views makes sense given the fact that they killed Mr.
Whetmore unquestionably. That is the only thing the wording of the statute demands which entails
applying the law as it is without moral considerations.

However, we think that the defendants’ sentences be commuted to lesser penalties. The act
committed by the defendants was done out of basic necessity and underlay on the instinct of group-
preservation. There was also a “breach of faith” when Roger Whetmore decided last minute to not
take part in the lottery after suggesting that it was the right thing to do which he was in effect, if
not consciously trying to ensure his own survival at zero risk to himself. Without the given dire
circumstances, the defendants wouldn’t have done it. At the most essential level, the feasibility of
human life lies upon the fate of the group, not the individual. It is well established that people have
mind of their own, and tend to think that their own welfare is of highest value but one of the highest
acts of morality is preserving the life of a group. The explorers trapped in the cave must have
discerned the force of this moral imperative when all efforts combined by the rescuers and those
to be rescued were insufficient as if nature had already won. To engage in cannibalism was their
last resort in order to survive despite all of their previous social experiences and what they learned
from it.

To conclude, the defendants are guilty of taking a life and profiting from it which technically
violated the statute however the act committed was done with substantial justification. Therefore
in my humble opinion, the defendants may be sentenced but to lesser penalties.

GENOBATIN, J.:, concurring and dissenting:

We are asked whether we should punish a person for saving his own life. As for me, it is difficult
to decide if you are not able to set aside your emotions towards the tragic circumstance that the
explorers have faced. We should focus on the legal aspect of the case. We should decide based on
what the law of the land is. The defendants’ intent in killing Roger Whetmore as a matter of group-
preservation justifies the acts. The defendants did this as a result of the fortuitous event they have
encountered which compels them to commit such heinous crime but still, a violation of the statute.
The statute reflects that murder is wrong and, there is something that should be done to the person
who commits it. Thus, the defendants although, deliberately decide to take the life of Whetmore
through a throw of a dice as their last resort to survive until the rescue team will save them does
not exclude them in facing the consequences thereafter. Dura Lex Sed Lex. The court was created
to abide constitutional policy and to settle cases independent from personal emotions and public
opinion. The purpose of judicial legislation is to deter and disregarding the statute will lost its true
meaning. Imposing the conviction may seem to be hard to public but for me, it is better to make
hard decision now to avoid the complications that may arise in the long-run. Enforcing the
convictions of the defendants will serve as an eye-opener to the public to be responsible enough
in every act they tend to commit.
To conclude, the defendants are guilty of murder. And so, conviction should be affirmed. However,
I encourage moderating the severity of the defendants’ penalty for they have suffered enough
throughout their imprisonment in the cavern.

SALEM, J.:, dissenting:

According to the law, the action taken by the defendants by eating the flesh of their own companion
is a crime. Therefore, they are criminally liable and should be punished. However, considering the
mishap that happened to them, I can say that what they did is partially right in order to save four
lives at the expense of one.

During the time when Roger Whetmore sought legal advice from the rescue party, nobody was
willing to give one. Furthermore, knowing that there is a possibility that one of the trapped men
may be killed to be eaten, no person from the outside of the cave implemented the positive law to
prevent the crime to happen.

The trapped men did not receive any legal order and advice that might help them to assess the
situation properly, so why punish them of a law that was not being served to them in the first place?
No food, no aid, no legal advice and order given to them. So what alternative solutions can they
have to increase their chances of survival? There is a big possibility that all of them will die before
the rescue party will reach them if they didn't eat the flesh of Whetmore. In addition, the rescue
operation will become useless and the death of ten rescuers will be meaningless.
As I discussed earlier, the law of nature applied to them when Whetmore asked for legal advice
but he didn't receive any. At that moment, the positive law was no longer applied to them and the
faith of their lives was on their hands at that time.

In the mishap that happened to the explorers, positive law is no longer relevant to the survival of
existence. The action they had taken is the best response to that kind of situation. Therefore, I
conclude that the defendants are innocent of the crime.

D’LONSOD, J.:, dissenting: