This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Capul, Christopher Estoy, Mary Grace “KICKED Mendoza, Charisse Mae Po, Glaisa Christine Sicat, Melissa
AND SLAPPED AROUND” SINCE HE
STATE WHETHER THE FOLLOWING ARE RELEVANT: 1. THAT THE ACCUSED IS AN 18-YEAR-OLD MAN WHO WAS 5 WHOSE FATHER WAS JAILED FOR FORGERY, WAS
ABANDONED BY HIS MOTHER AT AGE
WAS COMMITTED TO AN ORPHANAGE WHERE HE GREW UP.
-The following statements tend to establish the motive of the accused for killing his father, as he was “kicked and slapped around”. Relevant: Motive would be useful for the prosecution to prove who would most likely kill the victim when the identity of the accused is in doubt. If the testimony of the witness who alleged that she saw the accused stab his father would be discredited on the grounds that it was not certain whether or not she correctly identified the attacker as the accused as she does not have 20/20 vision, then the identity of the real killer is in doubt. Therefore, the said statements would be relevant for the prosecution to bolster their allegation that indeed it was the accused who killed the victim. Irrelevant: The accused was positively identified by a witness as the one who stabbed the victim so there is no doubt as to the identity of the accused; therefore, statements as to the existence of a motive is not relevant to the fact in issue of whether or not the accused did kill the victim. The statements do not have a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in the existence of the fact that the accused killed his father. Further, it does not necessarily follow that when a child is “kicked and slapped around”, he would kill his father. *Group’s decision: Irrelevant 2. THE
WITNESS’ TESTIMONY THAT HE HEARD THE ACCUSED SHOUT,
KILL YOU!” DURING A FIGHT
WITH HIS FATHER.
Relevant: For the prosecution, the statement is relevant as it tends to establish the fact that the accused was so angry that he even threatened to kill the victim. Irrelevant: The statement does not induce belief that the accused indeed killed the victim. First, they were fighting and during a fight, one could get emotional to the point that he may hurl threats to the other. The statement made by the accused could just be an expression of anger towards his father and is not really a threat on the latter’s life. Second, there is no indication that the said fight happened right before the victim was stabbed as to lead one to believe that the accused stabbed his father out of anger. The witness
may have heard the accused shout the said statement in another time, not particularly before the victim was killed. *Group’s decision: Irrelevant 3. THAT
THE MURDER WEAPON FOUND BY THE POLICE BESIDE THE BODY OF THE VICTIM WAS IDENTIFIED AS
THE SAME KNIFE EARLIER BOUGHT BY THE ACCUSED FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD JUNKSHOP
Relevant: The statement tends to induce belief that the accused did kill the victim as the knife he bought was identified as the same knife found by the police beside the body of the victim which was used as the murder weapon. He bought the knife, more likely he keeps it with him, and unlikely that he would let other persons borrow it (as who would want to borrow a knife???). *Group’s decision: Relevant 4. THAT
ABOUT BEING IN THE THEATER AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER BECAUSE UPON
QUESTIONING, HE COULD NOT EVEN REMEMBER THE TITLES OF THE MOVIES HE VIEWED, LET ALONE THE ACTORS WHO PLAYED IN THEM
Relevant: The statement could weaken the alibi of the accused that he was at the theater as it tends to establish the improbability of the fact that he was indeed at the said place. After having established that it was impossible for the accused to be at the theater when the victim was killed, then it could induce one to believe that he was at their house and that he indeed killed his father. Irrelevant: It does not mean that when the accused cannot remember the titles of the movies he viewed nor the actors who played in them, he did not watch the film and was not in the theater as to lead one to believe that he was at the scene of the crime and was the one who killed the victim. If he was indeed lying, i.e. he was not really at the theater, it does not automatically mean that he killed his father. He might even be a pathological liar. *Group’s decision: Irrelevant *5. THAT
PASSING TRAIN WAS PASSING TRAIN
(A WITNESS) ONCE LIVED THROUGH THE L-LINE AND “ALMOST UNBEARABLE”, BELYING THE WITNESS’ CLAIM
SAID THE SOUND OF THE OF HEARING SOMETHING AS TO
HAVE PROMPTED HER TO LOOK OUT AND THUS SAW THE STABBING THROUGH THE LAST TWO CARS OF THE
Relevant: The statement of the jury-witness bolsters the testimony of the witness who said that she heard something which prompted her to look out. The said witness claims that she saw the stabbing right after looking out which strengthens her credibility as a witness, therefore, would lead one to believe that the witness positively saw the accused stabbing the victim. Irrelevant: The sound of the passing train being “almost unbearable” does not have any relation to the fact being established, i.e., that the witness indeed saw the accused stabbing the victim. Whatever she did or did not hear does not determine whether or not the son killed the father. *Group’s decision: Irrelevant
6. THE COMPRESSION MARKS ON THE RIDGE OF THE WITNESS’ NOSE Relevant: Compression marks could be seen on someone who wears glasses often. People who wear glasses do not have 20/20 vision. The witness in the movie testified that she was already in bed but could not fall asleep when she saw the stabbing. People who wear glasses do not usually wear them to bed. Therefore, if the witness did not have 20/20 vision and she probably did not have her glasses on at that time, then she testified that she saw the accused stab the victim, there is doubt if she was certain of the identity of the accused. As the compression marks tend to induce one to believe that the accused did not kill his father (although indirectly), then it is relevant. Irrelevant: The statement alone would not be relevant to the case, as the compression marks would not prove anything. Granted that the said marks could be seen on someone who wears glasses and that the witness’ eyesight was not 20/20, still there was no showing that the witness was not wearing her glasses when she saw the stabbing. The witness could have been wearing her glasses at that time so that she clearly saw the accused stab the victim. *Group’s decision: Relevant 7. JURY NUMBER 8
CONFESSED TO HIS COLLEAGUES
WITNESS TESTIFIED) THAT HE’D BOUGHT A
SWITCHBLADE FROM A PAWNSHOP IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE ACCUSED, BROUGHT IT OUT AND EVERYONE SAW IT LOOKED JUST LIKE THE EARLIER EMPHASIZED THAT IT WAS
WEAPON” EVEN AS ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE JURY
“A MOST UNUSUAL LOOKING KNIFE.” Relevant: The fact that there is another knife which looked just like the “murder weapon” leads one to conclude that the knife which was used in the murder was not unique so that there may be other persons who owns similar-looking knives. If there are other persons who own a knife similar to the murder weapon then the said fact would induce one to believe that the accused may not be the killer, and there may be other persons who could have killed the victim. *Group’s decision: Relevant 8. TESTIMONY
RE DOWNWARD DIRECTION OF THE WOUND NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT FATHER
(FIVE FEET SEVEN INCHES IN HEIGHT) Relevant: The direction of the wound would tend to establish the height of the attacker relative to the height of the victim. The downward direction of the wound would mean that the attacker is taller than the victim. As the victim was taller than the accused, the said fact would induce one to believe that the accused did not kill the victim. The direction of the wound may also show the positions of the victim and the accused relative to each other, more particularly if the angle of the wound would be shown. Irrelevant: Standing alone, the said statement could not prove anything. The accused could have jumped at his father so that he stabbed his father in a downward direction. The accused could also have stabbed his father while the latter was in a sitting position. As one of the witnesses testified that he
WAS TALLER AT SIX FEET TWO INCHES THAN THE ACCUSED
heard a “thud,” it is possible that the accused hit his father first, and the father fell to the floor, then the accused stabbed his father while the latter was on the floor. There was also a statement with regard to users of switchblades to the effect that users of switchblades stab in an upward direction. The said fact would induce one to believe several circumstances but would not establish the existence or non-existence of the fact that the accused killed his father. *Group’s decision: Relevant 9. DIAGRAM/LAYOUT OF THE WITNESS’ APARTMENT AND HIS TESTIMONY AS BASES Relevant: The diagram, taken together with the testimony of the witness regarding the stabbing, would tend one to believe that the accused did stab his father, or would cast doubt on the truth and accuracy of the testimony of the witness which imputes upon the accused the crime of killing his own father. *Group’s decision: Relevant 10. THE REENACTMENT Relevant: The reenactment would tend to establish the accuracy of the testimony of the witness who imputes the crime upon the accused. If, through the reenactment, it is established that the witness could not have reached the door in time to be able to see the accused darting out of the scene of the crime, then one may be induced to believe that the accused was not at the scene of the crime and that he did not kill his father. If, on the other hand, the reenactment establishes the fact that the witness would be able to reach the door in time and would be able to see the accused rushing away from the scene of the crime, then one may be induced to believe that the accused killed his father, and probably ran away because of guilt. Flight is an indication of guilt. Irrelevant: The reenactment is inherently subjective, i.e., the result of the scene would depend on the actors who act out the scene. The reenactment may not be accurate as to bolster the testimony of the witness. Further, the witness may have been driven by adrenalin rush after hearing the threat of the accused to kill the victim. The “thud” that he heard could have induced him to believe that something bad happened. With adrenalin rush, the witness could have walked faster than how he did during the trial. *Group’s decision: Relevant 11. WHEN
ASKED BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE JURY, ONE OF THEM WHO PERSONALLY KNEW THE WITNESS SAID HIS MOTIVE FOR COMING FORWARD WITH A FALSE TESTIMONY COULD POSSIBLY BE TO GET MUCHNEEDED ATTENTION, FOR THE WITNESS WAS A LARGELY IGNORED OLD MAN IN THE COMMUNITY
Relevant: The statement could cast doubt on the credibility of the witness and would therefore induce one to believe that the accused did not kill his father, as testified by the said witness. Irrelevant: Even if a man is old, largely ignored in the community, and just wanted attention, these would not mean that he is a liar and not telling the 4
truth. Further, there is no showing that the old man has a motive against the accused to impute to the accused a crime which he did not commit just to get attention. *Group’s decision: Irrelevant
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.