Madman version

FRACTURE

Opens with a man making out with a woman. Not sure if it’s the husband or a lover or just one
night stand. Then movie shifted to a scene with a rich man obsessing himself with a weird yet
impressively complicated metal piece with running balls. It seems like this man is the husband
since he is too much interested with the affair of the 2 character and because he actually have a
keycard to the house where the two are making out? House or hotel? Okay, now im sure he is the
husband because of the confrontation. This man is a lot creepy. Looks like he’s gonna kill
anytime. Then he actually shoots after kissing his wife. Disgusting. Gardener heard the gunshot,
approached the house to know what happened. Then Mr. old man fired 3 more shots. I do not
know or understand why.

Interesting turn of events, the paramour/lover is the lieutenant detective. For sure he wont be able
to act professionally because of her relation to the victim. And honestly, I think it is too stupid of
him to think that the real husband does not know about their affair. And why does he have to
enter the house alone?

Okay, there’s a public attorney, a good public attorney with 97% prosecution rate. Trying to get
out of his old job to get a better one with higher pay. Takes the case of this tangled story, and
screw up the first time around. Old man, confesses guilt to the investigator, signed papers to
attest. Waived right to counsel and waived right to prelim. Hearing. I wonder if it is allowed here
in the Philippines. I mean, representing yourself to the court even if you are not a lawyer.
Haven’t heard of anything like that. I was thinking of possible excuses/defenses: Mitigating
circumstance of passion and obfuscation? Exempting circumstance/ exceptional circumstance-
lawful spouse surprises other spouse and paramour- but maybe not applicable to this because
wife was shot not during the sexual act, they were only swimming when husband saw them and
they were not immediately attacked, husband only shot wife when they were already at home.
Aggravating circumstance of treachery because wife was caught off guard when shot. Minor
offense of alarm for shooting thrice up in the air.

Public attorney Ryan Gosling thought this would be an easy win case because of the confession
but he was so wrong. He was surprised that lieutenant was the paramour of the victim.
Confession was not admitted by court because husband said he was only forced by the detective
to admit guilt. He was under duress. Thus court cannot admit confession as evidence if taken
under duress. Since wife is still alive, only in coma, attempted murder or homicide.

Gun cannot be traced back to defendant husband. It was not fired. No evidence to support
accusation. Lawyer was approached by detective to simulate or fake the evidence available.
Make it appear like it was really the accused who used it and fire it so they can win the case and
put the man to jail. But lawyer refused to cheat. Ends up with no evidence at all, thus accused
was released by judge.

Only hope of Gosling was to wait for the victim wife to recover so they can make her a witness
and directly point at the victim. But doctor told him that it is impossible. Victim might not wake
up, or even if she did, she might not remember the incident. When accused was allowed to leave
jail, he decided to pull the plug, thus wife died. TRO issued against Gosling, Court order against
husband was not given by Gosling on time. End of career for lawyer?

Lawyer did not get the high paying job, was frustrated with the case so even if it was over
already, he can’t seem to move on. Continued to investigate and look for more evidences. The
CCTV shots are too weak as evidence because face cannot be directly attributed to husband since
he was with hat and shades. Face was not clear. While reviewing this, received a phone call from
the husband, wittingly insulting him, then because of the mistaken getting of phone by the other
detective with the similar phone, it occurred to him what happened. Went to husband’s house,
confronted him about the story, husband was proud of his seemingly beautiful effective story
when he traded his gun for the gun of the detective paramour so he will walk out with the only
piece of evidence without anyone suspecting. And that same gun was used by the paramour to
kill himself. Revealed everything to gosling, invoking that even if Gosling now knows the truth,
it is useless because the case has been closed. And he cannot be charged once more because of
double jeopardy. But he was wrong, he was charged with attempted homicide before, now that
his wife is dead, he can be charged anew with murder (since crime has been consummated
because of death), and new evidence can be presented since it is already a new trial for a new
crime.
Architect Version

FRACTURE

Series of events:

Opens with a man making out with a woman. The man from this scene is not the woman’s lawful
husband. The lawful husband went to the place where his wife and paramour were staying but
did not do anything. After entering their room, he went out and the next scene was that he is
already in the house. He had a rather peaceful conversation with her wife. Obviously, he knows
about the affair already and decided to shoot the wife. Gardener heard the gunshot, approached
the house to know what happened. Then Mr. old man fired 3 more shots.

Interesting turn of events, the paramour/lover is the lieutenant detective. A public attorney (who
is about to leave his job for a new one in a private firm) takes the case of this tangled story, and
screw up the first time around. Old man, confesses guilt to the investigator, signed papers to
attest. Waived right to counsel and waived right to preliminary Hearing. Possible defenses based
on Philippine laws: Mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation? Exempting
circumstance/ exceptional circumstance- lawful spouse surprises other spouse and paramour- but
maybe not applicable to this because wife was shot not during the sexual act, they were only
swimming when husband saw them and they were not immediately attacked, husband only shot
wife when they were already at home. Aggravating circumstance of treachery because wife was
caught off guard when shot. Minor offense of alarm for shooting thrice up in the air.

Public attorney Ryan Gosling thought this would be an easy win case because of the confession
but he was so wrong. He was surprised that lieutenant was the paramour of the victim.
Confession was not admitted by court because husband said he was only forced by the detective
to admit guilt. He was under duress. Thus court cannot admit confession as evidence if taken
under duress. Since wife is still alive, only in coma, attempted murder or homicide. Gun cannot
be traced back to defendant husband. It was not fired. The CCTV shots are too weak as evidence
because face cannot be directly attributed to husband since he was with hat and shades. Face was
not clear. Only hope of atty. was to wait for the victim wife to recover so they can make her a
witness and directly point at the victim. But doctor told him that it is impossible. Thus there is no
evidence to support accusation. Ends up with no evidence at all, accused was released by judge.
When accused was allowed to leave jail, he decided to pull the plug, thus wife died.

Lawyer was frustrated with the case so even if the accused was acquitted already, he stayed
fixated. Continued to investigate and look for more evidences. While reviewing the case,
received a phone call from the husband, wittingly insulting him, then because of the mistaken
getting of phone by the other detective with the similar phone. Went to accused’s house,
confronted him about the story, husband was proud of his seemingly beautiful effective story
when he traded his gun for the gun of the detective paramour so he will walk out with the only
piece of evidence without anyone suspecting. And that same gun was used by the paramour to
kill himself. Revealed everything to gosling, invoking that even if Gosling now knows the truth,
it is useless because the case has been closed. And he cannot be charged once more because of
double jeopardy. But he was wrong, he was charged with attempted homicide before, now that
his wife is dead, he can be charged anew with murder (since crime has been consummated
because of death), and new evidence can be presented since it is already a new trial for a new
crime.
Carpenter Version

FRACTURE

A man was making love with a woman whom he does not know quite well. He didn’t even know
her last name. On the other hand, an old man who seems to work/own an aviation company was
obsessing himself with a metal piece with complicated structure, where balls glide gracefully
uninterrupted. This man went to the place where the man and the woman are making out.
Walked into the place unnoticed and posses his own key card for the room. He saw the two in the
pool but did not do anything.

He went on with his day, went home early and met his wife there. The wife was surprised
because her husband was home early. The woman- his wife, is the same woman who was making
out with another man on the first scene. They had a rather peaceful yet bothering confrontation,
the husband seemed to hint on the wife that he knows she is having an affair, but tried not to
delve into the details. Thereafter, he fired a gun at her wife, causing her to fall and bleed, which
was heard by the gardener.

The house was surrounded by policemen, and surprisingly enough, one of the detectives who
will negotiate with the old man is the wife’s paramour. But at this point, the detective was
clueless that his lover was the victim and that the lawful husband knew about their affair. When
he saw the woman, he was very emotional and attacked the lawful husband.

Mr. Crawford waived his right to counsel and opted to represent himself. He also waived his
right to a pre-trial, thus, the court proceeded to the regular trial.

Atty. Beachum, was about to leave his post as a public attorney and transfer to a private law
firm, which promises a better pay and a brighter career when he got this new case. Thinking it
was an easy win case because of the allegedly signed confession of guilt of the accused, he
accepted the job. Unfortunately, the signed confession was not admitted by the court as evidence
because it was alleged to be a fruit of the poisonous tree when Mr. Crawford alleged that he only
did that because he was forced by the detective, who was his wife’s paramour. The judge said
that they cannot admit evidences if it was taken out of duress.

Also, one of the primary evidence, the gun used against the victim cannot be found. The gun
available for investigation did not reveal any sign that it was fired. Clearly, this was not the gun
used by the accused against the victim. As for the video in the place where the wife and the
paramour stayed and the accused was seen prior to the incident, it cannot be used as evidence
either because it is not conclusive that it was really the accused who was on that video. The
accused on the video was wearing a hat and a pair of sunglasses, which in turn makes his face a
bit covered to be fully recognized.

The only other option of Atty. Beachum as witness is the victim herself. However, the doctors
told him that there is very little chance of the victim getting any better. And even if she be alive,
there’s a very slim chance that she can actually remember the tragic incident.
There being no evidence to use against the accused, he was allowed to freely go and the case was
dismissed.

As a result, the lawyer did not get his new job and almost got kicked out of his old job. Although
he was frustrated with the result of the case, he did not give up. He continued investigating and
suddenly, the very secret of this messed up case occurred to him. Upon watching the hotel video
over and over again, together with the files and pictures gathered in the two tragic incidents ( the
shooting against the wife and the suicide of the paramour), he found out that the gun of the
accused and that of the detective paramour were intentionally interchanged by the accused
himself. That was his very purpose of going to the place where his wife and the paramour stayed.

Atty. Beachum went to Mr. Crawford’s house immediately that night. He went there to directly
tell the man that he already figured out everything. Mr. Crawford, unmoved and not surprised,
boasted about his “beautiful scheme”. While he admitted to doing everything purposefully and
strategically to ensure impunity, he was confident that Atty. Beachum’s findings are no longer
useful because he has been acquitted already and that charging him once more will violate the
prohibition against double jeopardy. However, the good lawyer had already thought of this
situation and was very sure that the idea of double jeopardy shall not apply now that the wife is
dead. He argued that Mr. Crawford was charged with attempted murder when he was acquitted.
However, now that the wife is already dead, he can be charged with homicide or murder, which
is a different case, thus his acquittal on the former charge will not anyway affect the new trial.
Judge Version

FRACTURE

Theodore Crawford was lawfully married to Jennifer Crawford. Mrs. Crawford was
having an affair with a police detective named Robert Nunally. Mr. Crawford was spotted in the
place where his wife and the paramour Nunally were staying. He walked into the place unnoticed
and immediately left after entering the hotel room of his wife and Nunally.

The accused went on with his day, went home early and waited for Jennifer to arrive. The
wife was surprised because her husband was home early. They had a rather peaceful yet
bothering confrontation. The husband seemed to hint on the wife that he knows she is having an
affair, but tried not to delve into the details. Thereafter, he fired a gun at her wife, causing her to
fall and bleed, which was heard by the gardener.

Immediately thereafter, policemen surrounded the house. Police detective Nunally went
to the place to be the lead negotiator. At this point, the detective was clueless that his lover was
the victim and that the lawful husband knew about their affair. When he saw the body of Jennifer
lying on floor with blood, he was very emotional and immediately attacked the lawful husband.

Mr. Crawford was charged with attempted homicide but waived his right to counsel and
opted to represent himself. He also waived his right to a pre-trial, thus, the court proceeded to the
regular trial.

On the other hand, Atty. William Beachum, was about to leave his post as a district
attorney, when he got this new case. Thinking it was an easy win case because of the allegedly
signed confession of guilt of the accused, he accepted the job. Unfortunately, the signed
confession was not admitted by the court as evidence because Mr. Crawford alleged that he only
did that because he was forced by the detective, who was his wife’s paramour. As a result, the
evidence cannot be considered because it was supposedly taken out of duress.

Also, one of the primary evidences, the gun used against the victim, cannot be found. The
gun available for investigation did not reveal any sign that it was fired. Clearly, this was not the
gun used by the accused against the victim. As for the video of the place where the wife and the
paramour stayed and the accused was seen prior to the incident, it cannot be used as evidence
either because it is not conclusive that it was really the accused who was on that video. The
accused on the video was wearing a hat and a pair of sunglasses, which in turn makes the face a
bit covered and difficult to recognize.

The only other option for Atty. Beachum as witness is the victim herself. However, the
doctors told him that there is a very little chance of the victim getting any better. And even if she
be alive, there is a very slim chance that she can actually remember the tragic incident.

There being no evidence to use against the accused, he was allowed to freely go and the
case was dismissed.
 Even after the acquittal, Atty. Beachum, continued investigating and suddenly, the very
secret of this messed up case occurred to him. Upon watching the hotel video over and over
again, together with the files and pictures gathered in the two tragic incidents (the shooting
against the wife and the suicide of the paramour), he found out that the gun of the accused and
that of the detective paramour were intentionally interchanged by the accused himself. That was
his very purpose of going to the place where his wife and the paramour stayed.

Atty. Beachum went to Mr. Crawford’s house immediately that night of realization. He
went there to directly tell the man that he already figured out everything. Mr. Crawford,
unmoved and not surprised, boasted about his “beautiful scheme”. While he admitted to doing
everything purposefully and strategically to ensure impunity, he was confident that Atty.
Beachum’s findings are no longer useful because he has been acquitted already and that charging
him once more will violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. However, the good lawyer
had already thought of this situation and was very sure that the idea of double jeopardy shall not
apply now that the wife is dead. He argued that Mr. Crawford was charged with attempted
murder when he was acquitted. However, now that the wife is already dead, he can be charged
with homicide or murder, which is a different case, thus his acquittal on the former charge will
not, in any way, affect the new trial.

The issue now to be resolved is whether or not Mr. Crawford can be charged anew with
the crime of murder even after his acquittal on the first case.

Article III Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution states that “No person shall be twice put in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same
act.” However, In Melo vs. People, 85 Phil. 766, the Court held that "where after the first
prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is responsible, which changes the
character of the offense and, together with the facts existing at a time, constitutes a new and
distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the second
offense."

Also, in the case of People vs. City Court of Manila, Branch XI, G.R. No. L- 36342,
April 27, 1983, it was stated that “Well-settled is the rule that one who has been charged with an
offense cannot be charged again with the same or identical offense though the latter be lesser or
greater than the former. However, as held in the case of Melo vs. People, supra, the rule of
Identity does not apply when the second offense was not in existence at the time of the first
prosecution, for the reason that in such case there is no possibility for the accused, during the
first prosecution, to be convicted for an offense that was then inexistent”

In the case at bar, Mr. Crawford cannot invoke his right against being put in double
jeopardy because he was only acquitted of attempted murder on the first case. When his wife
died and new set of evidences arose, nothing can bar the state for prosecuting him for a higher
offense, which is the crime of murder.
 FRACTURE

(Madman, Architect, Carpenter and Judge Versions)

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Atty. Ulpiano “Ulan” Sarmiento III Cyndymhae V. Yumang

Section 1-G