Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
Special 16​th ​Division

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- versus - C.A. G.R. SP No. 153885

LEONARD STEPHEN VOLE,

Defendant-Appellant.
​x-------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

​Defendant ​LEONARD STEPHEN VOLE​, through the

undersigned counsel, unto this honorable Supreme Court,
respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the above-titled
case and aver that:

PREFATORY

This case is a test of the fortitude of the institutions of law

against attacks to its foundation — justice as fairness. The idea that
no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law is so fundamental because it is the shield that protects
the citizen from an overbearing State, and the wall that guards the
separation between law and politics.

While Defendant has very strong views about the inherent

unfairness of the process that has been manipulated to ensure his
pre-trial detention for non-bailable charges, he believes that the truth
about his case is accurately reflected in the Decision of the majority
of the Members of the Honorable Court itself and the emphatic
dissents of its other members.

Nothing proves the truth of the matter in this case and the
injustice that Defendant has been made to bear more than a
straightforward analysis of the Decision in this case—what it says and
does not say; the internal incoherence of its arguments; the
incompatible positions of members of the majority; and the sense of
deep frustration and utter disbelief of some of the dissenting justices.

PARTIES

Plaintiff ​EMILY FRENCH is of legal age, widowed, and residing

at 1042, England ​where she may be served with legal processes and
notices issued by this Honorable Court.

Defendant ​LEONARD VOLE is of legal age, married, and

residing at 55 Tottenhem Court Road, London, United Kingdom,
where he may be served with legal processes and notices issued by
this Honorable Court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In order that this honorable court may be enlightened and

guided in the judicious disposition of the above entitled case, cited
hereunder the material, relevant and pertinent facts of the case to wit:

1. Mr. Leonard Stephen Vole is an individual who has no previous

convictions, is a man of good character, and possesses an
excellent war record. Serving in the Army unsettled him a bit.
He was stationed in Germany, where he met his wife Christine,
an actress. Mr. Leonard Vole used to work in a department
store, specifically at the toy section, demonstrating children’s
 building sets. He used to work in a petron station, testing
electric blankets, and and in a motor servicing firm, servicing as
a mechanic. Mr. Vole is sort of an inventor of little household
things. The trouble is that he would need some money for
manufacturing and promotion.

2. Mr. Leonard Vole and Mrs. Emily French met on the third of
September. It was Christine’s birthday. Mr. Vole was window
shopping on Oxford Street, daydreaming about what to buy for
his wife if he had any money.

3. Mr. Vole casually looks into the shop and sees Mrs. French, the
saleslady was putting a conservative hat on her. Mrs. French
was studying herself in the mirror when he became aware that
Mr. Vole is looking at her. Mrs. French turns towards her and
Mr. Vole shakes his head as sign of disapproval, Mrs. French
accepts his decision and try another one and look again to him.
Mrs. French tried for the 3​rd time and this time Mr. Vole like this
one. Mrs. French rushes out of the shop to talk to him. Mr. Vole
gave her advice and Mr. Vole get on the bus. Mr. Vole said that
he was trying to be nice to her and make her feel good.

4. Mr. Vole never thought that they will meet again. A few weeks
later. While Mr. Vole was paddling his egg beater and the
business was a little slow. Mr. Vole went to Movie Theater when
Mrs. French, wearing the hat he recommend met again. During
the Movie Theater encounter, Mr. Vole has no idea that Mrs.
French is well off. Mr. Vole state that Mrs. French seemed to be
very lonely.

5. Mr. Vole came to Mrs. French’s house to demonstrate his egg

beater. The housekeeper was with them, preparing tea. The
housekeeper is not very welcoming and also a bit sarcastic
 towards Mr. Vole. After the visit to Mrs. French’s home, Mr.
Vole would see her once or twice a week. Mrs. French would
keep a bottle of Sherry for him and they would talk, play
canasta, or listen to her old phonograph records.

6. On the evening of the murder, Mr. Vole went to see Mrs. French
at about 8:00 P. M.. Mrs. French fixed him a sandwich. They
talked a bit and listened to the Mikado before Mr. Vole left at
about 9:00 P.M..

7. Mr. Vole never received money from Mrs. French but according
to him, Mrs French liked him. Mrs. French pampered him like an
aunt. Mr. Vole told Mrs. French that he is a married man but Mr.
Vole never took his wife along when he met Mrs. French. Mr.
Vole reason out that Mrs. French was under the impression that
Christine and Mr. Vole didn’t get along well because Mrs.
French seemed to want to believe it that way. Such is not true
because according to him, he and Christine love each other.

8. Mr. Vole never corrected Mrs. French of the said impression

because Mr. Vole was afraid that Mrs. French would lose
interest in him. Mrs. French was rich and in a way, Mr. Vole was
after her money. Mr. Vole was hoping to get a loan amounting
to a couple of hundred pounds for his invention - an honest
business proposition. Mr. Vole knew that that evening it was the
housekeeper’s day off. Mr. Vole went there because he thought
that she would be lonely. Mr. Vole left Mrs. French at 9:00 P.
M.and walked home.

9. Christine saw him when he got home at exactly 9:26 P.M.. Mr.
Vole knew the time because he went right to work on a new sort
of clock he had been tinkering with.
10. Mr. Vole knew nothing about the will of Mrs. French. According
to the will, Mrs. French left him with £80,000.00. Mr. Vole‘s wife
knew that he was seeing Mrs. French.

11. Mr. Vole, according to the housekeeper, helped Mrs. French

with her business affairs, particularly her income tax return.

12. The cut on Mr. Vole’s wrist was his fault when he was cutting
bread and the knife slipped. It happened after the murder.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

13. Thus, Defendant-Appellant filed a complaint before the State

Prosecutor.

14. Chief Inspector Hearne​, the arresting officer, pointed out that a
jacket was found in Mr. Vole’s flat, which is handed to the lab to
test for blood stains. They found blood stains and an attempt
had been made to wash them out. The test in the lab was to
determine whether the blood is of human and to classify its
group or type. The blood type is O, which is much with the
human. Mr. Vole showed Hearne the recently healed scar on
his wrist and Mr. Vole told him that he had cut himself with a
kitchen knife while slicing bread. The same thing was told to
Hearne by Mr. Vole’s wife. The wife showed the knife. Hearne
did not analyze Mr. Vole’s blood from the accident.

15. Thereafter, Mr. Vole Counsel provide a certificate stating that

Leonard Stephen Vole is a blood donor at the North London
Hospital and that Mr. Vole’s Blood group is O. There was
possibility that the bloodstain is Mr. Vole’s blood from the
accident.
16. Also, ​Janet McKenzie, ​Mrs. French's housekeeper and a
prosecution witness, pointed out the clear ulterior motive of
Defendant in filing the complaint.

McKenzie worked for ten years with Mrs. French. McKenzie

likewise knew that Mr. Vole needed money but was too clever
to ask Mrs. French. McKenzie was aware of the arrangements
Mrs. French had made for the disposal of her money. McKenzie
knew that Mrs. French’s old will was revoked and a new one
was drawn up. In the old will that was revoked, McKenzie was
to receive the bulk of Mrs. French’s estate. In the new will,
except for a bequest to McKenzie of a small annuity, the
principal beneficiary is Leonard Vole. McKenzie says she heard
Mr. Vole and Mrs. French talking together. She didn’t hear what
they were actually saying but she heard that they were
laughing. McKenzie was very sure that the laughing was not
from the television because it was sent for repair. McKenzie
was registered under the National Health Insurance Act where
she had to pay four and six each week, which is terrible lot of
money for a working woman to pay. McKenzie applied to the
National Health Insurance for a hearing aid six months before
the hearing, which she still haven’t gotten.

17. Further, ​Christine Vole​, the accused's wife, assailed that she
and Leonard went through a marriage ceremony in Hamburg.

18. Thereafter, Christine, in the ceremony of marriage itself, also

lied when she swore to love and to honor and to cherish her
husband.

19. Since the police questioned her about Mr. Vole who believed
that they were married and that they loved each other, Christine
told the police what Mr. Vole wanted her to say - that he was at
home at twenty five minutes past nine was a lie. Christine, when
she said that Mr. Vole intentionally cut his wrist, was a lie.
Christine, at the hearing told a new story entirely, was asked if
she is lying then or lying now or if she is chronic and habitual
liar. The production of the letter address to certain Max was
presented, it contains words that state the Christine lied on
purpose to be with certain Max. Confronted with the letters,
Christine confessed everything. She had invented the whole
story to ruin him.

ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
ALLOWING THE WIFE TO TESTIFY AGAINST THE
HUSBAND.

II.
WHETHER THE VALIDITY OF NEW EVIDENCE
THAT WAS OBTAINED BY THE DEFENSE, A VALID
GROUND FOR THE REOPENING OF THE CASE
AND CALLING WIFE AGAIN, THIS TIME AS A
HOSTILE WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE.

III.
WHETHER ALLOWING THE ADMISSION OF THE
LOVE LETTERS ALLEGEDLY SENT BY THE WIFE
OF THE ACCUSED TO AN ALLEGED LOVER,
CONSIDERING THEY WERE PRIVATE
CORRESPONDENCE BY THE WIFE TO CERTAIN
MAX, BOTH OF WHOM DID NOT GIVE THEIR
 CONSENT TO USE THEM OR TO DIVULGE THEM IN
THE TRIAL.

ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSION

I.
The Respondent Judge committed grave abuse of Discretion in
allowing the wife to testify against the husband. Invoking the following
Rules of Court:

A husband cannot be examined for or against

his wife without her consent; nor a wife for or
against her husband without his consent, 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 in a criminal case for a crime committed by
one against the other.

Following the rule o​f lex loci celebrationis, the law of the state
where a marriage is solemnized or performed will be observed. A
state will recognize a marriage performed or celebrated in another
state as long as it follows the requirements set by the law of that
state. Hence, a marriage validly solemnized or performed abroad will
also be valid in our country even though it did not comply with the
procedures and requirements set by the Family Code.

Applying the provision in Christine and Mr. Leonard’s marriage,

if the marriage abroad is considered valid in that country, which
means it complies with the procedure and requirements prescribed by
its laws, and it does not fall under the category of prohibited
marriages, then their marriage is also valid and will be recognized in
our country.
 Insofar as Philippine law is concerned without the
authentication to prove that their marriage is in fact bigamous, they
are presumed to be legally married hence the court committed grave
abuse of discretion in allowing Christine to testify.

II.
For one thing, a motion to reopen may properly be presented
only after either or both parties have formally offered, and closed their
evidence, but before judgment.

For another, a motion for reopening, unlike a motion for new

trial, is not specifically mentioned and prescribed as a remedy by the
Rules of Court. There is no specific provision in the Rules of Court
governing motions to reopen. It is albeit a recognized procedural
recourse or device, deriving validity and acceptance from long,
established usage.

The reopening of a case for the reception of additional evidence

after a case has been submitted for decision but before judgment is
actually rendered is, it has been said, controlled by no other rule than
that of the paramount interests of justice, resting entirely in the sound
judicial discretion of a Trial Court; and its concession, or denial, by
said Court in the exercise of that discretion will not be reviewed on
appeal unless a clear abuse thereof is shown. 1

A motion to reopen a case to receive further proofs was not in

the old rules but it was nonetheless a recognized procedural
recourse, deriving validity and acceptance from long, established
2
usage. This lack of a specific provision covering motions to reopen
was remedied by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which
took effect on December 1, 2000.3

1
​G.R. No. L-56923, May 9, 1988
2
G.R. No. 161330, February 20, 2007
3
​61 SCRA 226, 231.
 Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Section 24,
Rule 119 and existing jurisprudence stress the following requirements
for reopening a case: (1) the reopening must be before the finality of
a judgment of conviction; (2) the order is issued by the judge on his
own initiative or upon motion; (3) the order is issued only after a
hearing is conducted; (4) the order intends to prevent a miscarriage
of justice; and (5) the presentation of additional and/or further
evidence should be terminated within thirty days from the issuance of
the order.4

III.
Allow Admission by the court of the letters as evidence for the
accused.

● Policy of admissibility of evidence (Policy of Liberality)

● Rules of Court. Rule 132. Sec 20

Rule as to private documents: Section 20 provides that in order

for a private document to be admissible, it is necessary to prove the
“due execution and authenticity of the document” in that it is not
spurious, counterfeit or a different document. This is because private
documents are not self-authenticating.

How to prove a private document is authentic or genuine.

A. By direct evidence consisting of the testimony of witness

such as:
(i) the parties to the document
(ii) by an attesting /subscribing witness
(iii) by a person who was present and saw its execution
and

4
​G.R. No. 161330, February 20, 2007
 (iv) by the person before whom it was executed and
acknowledged
B. By proof or evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting
or signature of the maker or of the parties thereto.

It may be by any of the following:

Direct evidence consisting of the testimony of the maker or

party affirming his own handwriting.

Under Section 20, Rule 132, Rules of Court, before a private

document is admitted in evidence, it must be authenticated either by
the person who executed it, the person before whom its execution
was acknowledged, any person who was present and saw it
executed, or who after its execution, saw it and recognized the
signatures, or the person to whom the parties to the instruments had
previously confessed execution thereof. In this case, respondent
admits that King was none of the aforementioned persons. She
merely made the summary of the weight of steel billets based on the
unauthenticated bill of lading and the SGS report. Thus, the summary
of steel billets actually received had no proven real basis, and King's
testimony on this point could not be taken at face value. Under the
rules on evidence, documents are either public or private. Private
documents are those that do not fall under any of the enumerations in
Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Section 20 of the same
law, in turn, provides that before any private document is received in
evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either by
anyone who saw the document executed or written, or by evidence of
the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.|||
(Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Philippine Nails & Wires Corp., G.R.
No. 138084, [April 10, 2002], 430 PHIL 162-170)

In this case, the private documents in the form of the letters

may be used since Christine herself authenticated the said letters by
admitting to have written them and eventually admitting to everything
else written in the same.

PRAYER

​WHEREFORE​, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

for that this Honorable Supreme Court that Plaintiff-Appellee’s prayer
be DENIED for having no cause of action and the petition
DISMISSED for being clearly unmeritorious.

Other just and equitable reliefs under the foregoing are likewise
being prayed for.

Respectfully submitted

City of Manila; 24 October 2018.

BELARMINO CASPILLO MAGLINES OBAR TALENS

LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Defendant - Appellant
1M Bayoa Blg. Pamahres St., Manila City
Tel. No.: 430-8300
E-mail Add.: belcasmagobatal@gmail.com