Leonard Steven Vaugh was charged of the crime of murder, committed as follows:

That on or about the 14th day of October 2018, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
intent to kill did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and hit
with a heavy instrument one Emily French which resulted to her death.

The Facts

Leonard Steven Vaugh was an acquaintance of Mrs. Emily French, a 56 year old
widow. He was treated by her with kindness and affection. However, on the 14 th day
of October, between 9:30 - 10:00 PM, Mrs. French was found dead in her own house.
The death by blow was dealt through a blunt and heavy instrument and that Leonard
Steven Vaugh was the perpetrator.

The evidence for the prosecution consists of the police evidence by Chief Inspector
Hern, the testimony of the housekeeper Janette Mckenzie, and the medical and
laboratory tests.

Chief Inspector Hern who was part of the Criminal Investigation Department
testified that upon examination of the body temperature of the victim, the estimated
time of death was between 9:30 PM to 10:00 PM. He also stated that the death was
instantaneous and was caused by one blow from a heavy instrument.

They conducted a search and took photographs and fingerprints of the place. The
fingerprints that were discovered was that of Mrs. Emily French, Janet Mckinzie and
Leonard Steven Vaugh.

He further stated that the room had the appearance that robbery was committed
because the things were thrown around however, no property of Mrs. French was
missing according to the housekeeper. The window was broken because the pieces of
the broken glass were found on the floor and some of its fragments were also found
outside however, the fragments outside were not consistent with the window having
been forced from the outside.

The prosecution presented the jacket of the accused (Exhibit P-1) which they
submitted for examination. The witness stated that the blood stains were found on
the jacket though there was an attempt to wash it out. The laboratory also classified
the blood stains by group or type. It has been stated by the witness that the blood
found on the jacket was type “O” and the victim’s blood type was type “O”.

On cross-examination, it has been stated by Chief Inspector Hern that he did not
take the blood type of the accused. The defense counsel stated the blood stain on the
cuff of the jacket was a result of a previous incident where the accused accidentally
cut himself with a kitchen knife while slicing bread. Leonard Steven Vaugh’s blood
type is type “O” hence, the blood stain on the jacket is that of Leonard and not of Mrs.
French.
The prosecution also presented Janet Mckinzie, the housekeeper of Mrs. French. She
stated that she came to the Philippines 28 years ago and started to work as a
housekeeper for the victim.

On October 14, she was seeing a friend which is, according to her, is only a five
minute walk away from the house of Mrs. French. She left the house at 7:30 PM and
went back home at 9:25 PM. She directly went upstairs to her room but she heard
the accused and the victim talking. Then later that night, she found her dead.

She further stated that Mrs. French had her previous will revoked and a new one
drafted and that the accused had knowledge of such will one week before the
murder.

On cross-examination, the defense counsel stated that there were two wills executed
by the victim. On the previous will, Mrs. Janet Mckinzie had a large part to be
received. However, as she had stated, such will was revoked and a new one was
executed wherein the accused was the principal beneficiary. As to her claim that she
heard the accused and the victim talking, this was considered untenable because she
was proven to be suffering from a slight hearing impairment and as a result, could
not have clearly deduced that the voice she heard was from the accused himself. She
further admitted that she applied to the National Health Insurance for a hearing aid.

The prosecution also presented Christine Helm, the alleged wife of the accused, as a
witness against him. Though her credibility was questioned, the prosecution stated
that she can appear as witness since her marriage with the accused was void for
being bigamous.

She testified that the accused left their house at 7:30 PM and went home by 10:10
PM. He was breathing hard and was very excited when he threw off his coat and
examined the sleeves. She was then asked by the accused to clean the cuff of the coat
because there were blood stains in it. He also exclaimed that he had killed Mrs.
French.

The defense contended that a wife cannot give evidence harmful to her husband
because of the marital bond between them.
 QUESTION 1

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the judge to have
allowed the wife to testify against the husband

DEFENSE’S SIDE:
Yes, there was a grave abuse of discretion.

BASIS:

1. Presumption of Marriage - It was alleged that Christine, the wife of the

accused, contracted her first marriage without the knowledge of her subsequent
spouse, the accused. Therefore, unless otherwise proven, Christine’s marriage with
Leonard is valid.

Rule 130 Section 3 (aa) of the Rules of Court – The presumption are satisfactory if
uncontradicted that a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife
have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.

2. Rule 130 Section 22 of the Rules of Court - Disqualification by reason of

marriage. Under the qualification of witnesses in the rules of court, “During their
marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other
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
latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.”

Reason for the rule:

(a) Identity of Interest: Compelling a person to testify against the spouse is
tantamount to compelling the witness to testify against himself
(b) To avoid the danger of being able to admit a perjured testimony and avoid the
witness spouse from committing perjury
(c) Public policy of preserving marriage, family unity, solidarity and harmony
(d) To be able to prevent the danger of punishing the spouse by hostile testimony
especially in cases where there is domestic trouble

3. Rule 130 Section 24 (a) of the Rules of Court - Disqualification by reason

of privileged communication. - The following persons cannot testify as to matters
learned in confidence in the following cases:

(a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined
without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by
one from the other during the marriage 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 latter’s
direct descendants or ascendants

JURISPRUDENCE:

In the case of Zulueta v. Martin GR No. 107383, the Supreme Court ruled that
the law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making
it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without
the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists. Neither may be
examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in
confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save for specified exceptions.
 QUESTION 2

ISSUE:

Whether or not the new evidence obtained by the defense after the agreement
between the prosecution and the defense to terminate the trial and submit the
matter for court’s decision be valid as a ground for the reopening of the case.

DEFENSE’S SIDE:

It is Valid.

BASIS:

RULES 121 of the Rules of Court Provides among other that:

1. Section 1 of the Rules of Court on New Trial and Reconsideration provides

that at any time before a judgement of conviction before 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.

2. Section 2(b) further provide that new material evidence has been discovered
which the accused could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and
produced at trial and which if introduced and admitted would probably change
the judgement.

RULE 124 of the Procedures of Court of Appeals

1. Section 14 of the said rules of procedures of the court of appeals on Motion for
New Trial provides at at any time after the appeal has been perfected and before the
judgement of the Court of Appeals convicting the accused becomes final, the latter
may move for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence material to his
defense.

JURISPRUDENCE

In the case of Alegre vs Reyes - GR No. L-56923, it was held that in the light of
the foregoing jurisprudence, and the relevant facts, the trial court had acted
unreasonably, capriciously, whimsically and oppressively in spurning Alegre’s plea
for reopening the trial so that he may present additional evidence. The court’s denial
of the motion to reopen the trial to present additional defense after the close of the
trial before the promulgation of judgement was an error on the part of the trial court.

Rule 132 Section 12 of the Rules of Court - Party may not impeach his own
witness. - Except with respect to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of
Section 10, the party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility.
Rule 132 Section 10 (d)(e) of the Rules of Court - Leading and misleading
questions. A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining
party desires is a leading question. It is not allowed, except:
(d) Of an unwilling or hostile witness; or
(e) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of
a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse
party

Note:
Wife can be presented as a hostile witness for the accused.
 QUESTION 3

ISSUE:

Whether or not the love letters allegedly sent by the wife of the accused Christine
Vaugh to an alleged lover named Max be admissible as evidence.

DEFENSE’S SIDE:
Yes, the love letters can be admitted as evidence for the accused.

BASIS:
1. Rule 130 Section 2 of the Rules of Court - Documentary evidence.
Documents as evidence consist of writing or any material containing letters, words,
numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of
their contents.

2. Rule 130 Section 20 of the Rules of Court - Proof of Private Document.

Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity
must be proved either:

a. By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or,

b. By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker

Note:
The wife through her testimony, admitted that she wrote those letters to Max.
We have to discredit the testimony of the principal witness (wife) in this criminal
case.
The wife can be charged of Perjury under Article 180 of the Revised Penal Code
which penalizes any person who gives a false testimony against the defendant in a
criminal case.
Sec 3 Article 3 of the Bill of Rights - Violation of the Bill of Rights precisely as a
constitutional guarantee can be done only by public officials.

JURISPRUDENCE

In the case of Moncado vs. People’s court (80 Phil. 1), it was held that the right
of the defendant is not to be able to exclude the incriminating documents from the
evidence but to be able to recover the possession of the articles that were taken
wrongfully from him. It was also held that the taking of the goods that serves as
evidence irrespective of what was taken or what use made of it given that the law
declares it as competent and admissible notwithstanding unlawful search and
seizure should be admissible
In the case of Alfredo Martin v. Alfonso Felix Jr the court ruled that the said
documents and papers were admissible in evidence and that the use of these
evidences by the petitioners attorney did not result or show grace misconduct and
malpractice.

In People v. Marti, the court ruled that the said packages were admissible in
evidence as it is a result of private search. The prohibition against unreasonable
search and seizure cannot be invoked as this provision only applies to searches by
the state and not by private individuals.

In People v. Carlos, the court ruled that where a privileged communication from
one spouse to another comes into the hands of any third party may it be legally
obtained or not, without collusion or voluntary disclosure from any of the said
spouses, it becomes admissible.