PARADO, Ma. Bettina P.

1-G

MEMORANDUM

To: Atty. Francesca Belle Valencia

Senior Partner, Parado Law Offices

From: Atty. Ma. Bettina P. Parado

Parado Law Offices

Date: November 04, 2017

Re: Emily French Murder Case

I. Testimonial Privilege. The alleged wife of the accused, Leonard

Steven Vaugh, Christine, was presented by the prosecution to testify

against said accused. Considering Philippine Law on evidence and

jurisprudence and the facts as presented in the movie, was it proper

for the court to have allowed the wife to testify against the husband?

YES. The general rule is that the husband or the wife

cannot testify against the other during their marriage. This is

provided under Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of

Court, as discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of

Alvarez vs. Ramirez (G.R. No. 143439, October 14, 2005).

However, this general rule is likewise subject to exceptions.

Exceptions such as where the marital and domestic relations

are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved

nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed.

In the case at bar, Christine, the alleged wife, will not be

disqualified by reason of marriage if she will testify against

Leonard because their marital relations are already strained

 due to the fact that what they had was a bigamous marriage,

which is a void marriage. Hence, there is no harmony or

tranquility of marriage to speak of, if she will testify.

II. Reopening of Case. After the prosecution and defense counsels

agreed to terminate the trial and submit the matter now for decision of

the court, can the new evidence that was obtained by the defense

thereafter be a valid ground for the reopening of the case and calling

the wife again, this time as a hostile wtiness for the defense, be

allowed?

YES. Under Section 24, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of

Criminal Procedure, any time before finality of the judgment of

conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with

hearing in either case, reopen the proceedings to avoid a

miscarrage of justice. That being said, the matter of reopening

a case for reception of further evidence is largely a matter of

discretion on the part of the judge. In this particular case, the

defense was given ample opportunity to present all its

witnesses but it failed to do so. As mentioned in the case of

Cabarles v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 161330,

February 20, 2007), the failure to take full advantage of the

opportunities given does not change the fact that it was

accorded such opportunities. Therefore, the case may be

reopened as additional evidence are to be presented subject

to the judges discretion.

III. Admissibility of Evidence. Can the love letters allegedly sent by

the wife of the accused, Christine Vaugh, to an alleged lover named

Max, be admissible in evidence considering that they were private

correspondence by the wife to a certain Max, both of whom did not

give their consent to use them or to divulge them in the trial?

NO. Christines marriage to Leonard does not mean

revocation of her right to privacy. An individuals right to privacy,

as provided by Article 26 of the New Civil Code of the

Philippines, still remains despite marriage. Therefore,

Christines love letters are inadmissible in court, as it violates

her right to privacy. A person, by contracting marriage, does not

shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and

the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her

(Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383. February 20,

1996).

IV. Defense. With the surprising turn of events at almost the end of

the movie, it is clear that the wife, Christine Vaugh, will now be

prosecuted for murder. If your firm will be the counsel for her, what

possible defense could you set up in her behalf?

INSANITY. In the case of People vs. Rafanan, Jr. (G.R.

No. L-54135, November 21, 1991), this Court has held that the

defense of insanity may be accepted as an exempting

circumstance, as provided under Article 12, par. 1 of the

Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, on the test of cognition,

which requires a complete deprivation of intelligence, not only

of the will, in committing the criminal act. In the case at bar,

upon knowlegde of Leonards plan with her other woman,

Christine lost control of her emotions and reason, which

resulted to the latters grabbing of the knife, and eventually the

stabbing of Leonard. At that precise moment, she was

completely deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of

will when she committed the crime.

PASSION AND OBFUSCATION. Passion and

Obfuscation is where the offender loses his self-control and

reason and cannot deliberately employ a particular means,

method or form of attack in the execution of the crime. In the

case of People of the Philippines v. Javier (G.R. No. 130654,

July 28, 1999), in order to be entitled to the mitigating

circumstance of passion and obfuscation, under Article 13, par.

5 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, the following

elements should concur: (1) there should be an act both

unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and

(2) said act which produced the obfuscation was not far

removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable

length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his

moral equanimity. The foregoing elements were obviously

present in the instant case. Being, first, Leonards plan of

leaving Christine and being with his other woman, which

provoked the latter immediately, causing her to grab the knife

infront of her, and rushing towards the former, to kill him.

Christine was influenced by Leonards infidelity which she

discovered at that moment, and led to Christines commission

of the crime.