TO: Atty. Juan R. Aureada, Partner, J.R.

Aureada &

Associates

FROM: Atty. Yasser R. Aureada, Junior Associate

SUBJECT: Guidance to the Wife as Witness for the

Prosecution and Other Remedies

DATE: November 9, 2017

The alleged wife of the accused Leonard Steven Vaugh,

Christine was presented by the prosecution to testify against said

accused. Was it proper for the court to have allowed the wife to

testify against the husband?

No. If she had proven that she is legally married with

Leonard, she may not testify for or against the husband without the

consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against

the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against

the other or the latters direct descendants or ascendants.

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 the after be a

valid ground for the reopening of the case and calling the wife again,

this time as a hostile witness for the defense, be allowed?

Indeed, in those jurisdictions which allow one spouse to be

 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. It may have violated Republic Act (RA) 4200, or An Act

to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping And Other Related Violations

of the Privacy Of Communication and for Other Purposes. This law

primarily protects private communication by making it illegal and

punishable to record conversations without the consent of the parties

involved in the communication.

With the surprising turn of events, it is clear that the wife

Christine Vaugh will now be prosecuted for murder. What are the

possible defense could we set up in her behalf?

There are several defenses that could apply to a murder

charge. This may include, actual innocence, self defence, or

intoxication. Most defendants assert that they didn't actually commit

the crime. Other defendants admit to killing the victim, but claim some

sort of justification. Attorneys call these types of defenses affirmative

defenses. As with most criminal cases, the result of a defense

strategy will depend on the facts surrounding the charges and the

laws of the jurisdiction.

became the witness for the preosecution. She testifies that Leonard

admitted to her that he had killed Mrs French, and that her

conscience forced her to finally tell the truth. However, the affair

revealed by this correspondence gives Christine such a strong motive

to have lied that the jury finds Leonard not guilty. She had instead

given testimony implicating her husband, had then forged the letters

to the non-existent Max, and had herself in disguise played the

mysterious woman handing over the letters which then discredited

her own testimony and led to the acquittal. She furthermore admits

that she saved Leonard even though she knew he was guilty because

she loves him. Leonard has overheard Christine's admission and,

now protected by double jeopardy, cheerfully confirms to Sir Wilfred

that he had indeed killed Mrs French. Sir Wilfrid is infuriated at being

had. Leonard then coldly tells Christine that he has met a younger

woman and is leaving Christine. In a jealous rage, Christine grabs a

knife, which had earlier been used as evidence by the defense, and

stabs Leonard to death. After she is taken away by the police, Sir

Wilfrid, urged on by Miss Plimsoll, declares that he will take on

Christine's defense.

Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court

provides, Disqualification by reason of marriage. During their

marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against
The reasons given for the rule are:

1. There is identity of interests between husband and wife;

2. If one were to testify for or against the other, there is

consequent danger of perjury;

3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and confidences of

private life, even at the risk of an occasional failure of justice,

and to prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness; and

4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is danger of

punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of the

other.

In order to avail of the defense of self-defense, he must

meet the requirements, prescribed in Article11 of the Revised Penal

Code. (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means

employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation

on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is

an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent

injury, upon a person. There must be an actual, sudden, unexpected

attack or imminent danger, which puts the defendant’s life in real

peril. In the case at bar, there was no unlawful aggression shown by

the victim.