You are on page 1of 4

TO: Dean Ulan

FROM: Christine Joyce S. Mendoza

RE: Considering or Applying Philippine Law or Jurisprudence in the movie

“Witness for the Prosecution”

DATE: November 4, 2017

QUESTION PRESENTED:

A) Was it proper for the court to have allowed the wife of the accused to

testify against the husband? B) Can the new evidence that was obtained by

the defense there be a valid ground for the reopening of the case? C) Can

the love letters be admissible as evidence? D) What possible defense

could be set up for Christine who will know be prosecuted for murder?

SHORT ANSWER: a. Yes, in PH rules of court Section 22 of Rule 130

(Rules of Court), which provides that “[d]uring their marriage, neither the

husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the

consent of the affected spouse … However considering the facts presented

by the prosecution, it was revealed that the marriage was a fraudalent and

a bigamous marriage, which means it is void ab initio, then it is as if there


was no marriage at all, then the alleged wife is allowed to testify in court, as

if there was no relationship at all.

B). Yes, in Section 1 or rules of court, At any time before a judgment of

conviction becomes final, the court may, on motion of the accused or at its

own instance but with the consent of the accused, grant a new trial or

reconsideration. Following the grounds of Sec. 2 of rules of court; a) That

errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the

accused have been committed during the trial; b) That new and material

evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with

reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if

introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment.

C. No, according to the PH law, love letters are those evidence excluded by

the constitution, evidence obtained in violation of the privacy of

communication and correspondence, except upon lawful order of the court

or when public safety or order requires otherwise.

D. Christine Vole can invoke Article 13 paragraph 6 of the RPC “That of

having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced

passion or obfuscation. This stands on the premise or proposition that

the offender is suffering from a diminished self control because of the

passion or obfuscation. The same is true with the circumstances under


paragraphs 4 and 5. So, there is a ruling to theeffect that if the offender is

given the benefit of paragraph 4, he cannot be given the benefit of

paragraph 5 or 6, or vice-versa. Only one of the three mitigating

circumstances should be given in favor of the offender.

FACTS:

Leonard Vole is arrested for the murder of Emily French, a wealthy older

woman. Unaware that he was a married man, Miss French made him her

principal heir, casting suspicion on Leonard. When his wife, Christine,

agrees to testify, she does so not in Leonard's defense but as a witness for

the prosecution. Christine decision is part of a complicated plan to free her

husband. She first gives the prosecution its strongest evidence, then

fabricates new evidence that discredits her testimony, believing that this

improves Leonard's chances of acquittal far more than her testimony for

the defense. It is then revealed that Leonard Vole actually did kill Emily

French.

DISCUSSION: