IX.

BIJASA LAW OFFICE

Sta. Quiteria, Caloocan City

February 7, 2018

Mrs. Dionesia Barrera

123 Rosas St.
Gumamela, Caloocan City

Dear Mrs. Barrera:

This is in response to your letter dated February 5, 2018 regarding the following
circumstances:

“... Ang anak ko po ay na-frame up. Napagbintangan po siyang pumatay sa isang lalaki at
isa pa. Nakakulong po siya. Sinampahan siya ng kasong murder at frustrated homicide. Hindi po
siya yun dahil kita naman po sa CCTV na pinakita namin ang talagang pumatay. Sana po
makatugon po kayo agad. Salamat.”

Based on the above circumstances, your son was accused of allegedly commiting two
(2) crimes: murder and homicide. To give you a background the crome of murder and homicide
is explained as follows:

Under the Revised Penal Code, Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within
the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of

armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to
insure or afford impunity.chanrobles virtual law library
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.chanrobles virtual law
library

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a

vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by
means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste
and ruin.chanrobles virtual law library

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding

paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic
or other public calamity.chanrobles virtual law library

5. With evident premeditation.chanrobles virtual law library

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of

the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.chanrobles virtual law
library

The crime of frustrated homicide The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the
accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault;
(2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound but did not die because of timely medical
assistance; and (3) noneof the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, is present. (Serrano v. People, G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010,
623 SCRA 322, 339).
 You are saying that your son did not committed the crimes presented above because of
the CCTV which showed that it was not your son who has committed the foregoing crimes.

The admissibility of closed circuit television (CCTV) as evidence is provided for in the
Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE) which took effect on August 1, 2001. Section 1, Rule 11 of
said law provides that audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions
shall be admissible provided it shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court and shall be
identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other
person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.

In presenting the electronic evidence, an authentication must be conducted.

Authentication is the process of convincing the court that a document is what it purports to be; of
proving the origin of the image and that it has not subsequently been altered (or, where alteration
has occurred, proving the nature of the alteration).

Before, the admissiblity of electronic evidence is only exclusive on civil actions and
proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases. However, on Sept. 24, 2002, the
Supreme Court issued a resolution No. 01-7-01 SC expanding the coverage of the REE to
criminal cases.

Considering the foregoing, the CCTV can be presented as evidence to your son's case
provided that it will be authenticated by the owner of the CCTV. More importantly, you have to
present witness(es) to prove the innocence of your son. The corraboration of the owner of the
CCTV in this case will be of great help. If the video showed a clear showing that your son was
not the perpetrator, then he will surely be acquitted of the case against him. In addition, the
person who survived in the alleged frustrated homicide, if he/she will be able to identify the real
perpetrator then your son will be surely freed from this case.

I hope that somehow I have enlightened you in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

DIANE G. BIHASA