Memorandum TO: From: RE

1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Atty. John Doe, Senior Associate
FROM: Ruby Rose Faith G. Moreno, Legal Aid
RE: Application of Philippine Laws and Jurisprudence
People of England vs. Leonard Steven Vole
DATE: November 4, 2017
ISSUES
Under Philippine law and jurisprudence, are the following
allowed in Philippine court?
1. Whether or not the wife be allowed to testify against her husband,
considering that their marriage is bigamous.
2. Whether or not a case pending for decision be reopened on the
ground of a new evidence obtained by the defense.
3. Whether or not the love letters, which is a private
correspondence between Christine Vole and “Max”, an
admissible evidence.
Moreover, what possible defense can the firm set up in behalf of
Christine Vole, who killed her husband, Leonard Vole because of
resentment toward his betrayal.
BRIEF ANSWERS
1. No, the wife is not allowed to testify against her husband. Rule 130,
Sec. 22 of the Rules of Court prohibits such.
2. Yes, the case may be reopened if the evidence obtained is such
that would alter the decision that would be made by the court.
3. Yes, the love letters are admissible evidence. This is so because it
is not obtained through unlawful means but through a private

2
person. Hence, the right of privacy of communication and
correspondence may not be invoked.
4. Christine Vole is recommended to admit her guilt. Moreover, she
can also raise the mitigating circumstance of passion.
FACTS
Leonard Steven Vole was prosecuted for the murder of Emily
French. His alleged wife, Christine Vole, was called as a witness for
the prosecution. The court allowed Christine to testify against her
husband because the prosecution proved that their marriage was
bigamous and therefore void. Hence, Christine was not legally his wife.
After the trial, the defense obtained evidence which may alter the
decision of the court. The evidence was the love letter sent by Christine
to a certain Max, where the former confessed her plan to falsify her
testimony in court. The court reopened the case and Christine was
called upon again, now as a hostile witness for the defense.
The court ruled in favor of Leonard Vole. After the courtroom was
vacated, Christine confessed to the defense attorney that her
testimony and the letters were all ploys for Leonard’s acquittal and that
he was indeed Emily’s murderer. Leonard then confessed to Christine
that he has found a paramour and that he is leaving her. Thereafter,
Christine stabbed Leonard to death.
DISCUSSION
Wife as witness against husband
Philippine laws protect and recognize the sanctity of marriage
and thus attempts to avoid to strain the relationship between husband
and wife. This is manifested in Rule 130, Section 22 of the Rules of

3
Court which provides that the wife cannot testify as to matters learned
in confidence by her from her husband during the marriage. Moreover,
even if the marriage between Christine and Leonard is bigamous the
rule still applies. The validity of marriage cannot be attacked collaterally
and must be proven in a separate trial. Since there is still no judicial
declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage, Christine as Leonard’s
wife cannot testify against him.
Reopening of the case due to new evidence obtained
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 valid under the Philippine laws. The rationale is
that such circumstance is controlled by no other rule than that of the
paramount interests of justice (Alegre v. Reyes, 1988). Moreover, Rule
119, Sec. 24 of the Rules of Court provides that “at any time before
finality of the judgment of conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or
upon motion, reopen the proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice.”
Hence, the evidence obtained which may alter the decision of the case
is a valid ground for the reopening of the case.
Private correspondence as evidence
The private correspondence obtained, even without the consent
of Christine and Max can be considered as evidence under Philippine
laws. The right of privacy of communication and correspondence may
not be raised in the case because the letters were obtained by the
prosecution through an anonymous person, and hence, not a fruit of
the poisonous tree or any unlawful searches and seizures. This is so
because Sec. 3 (2) of the Bill of Rights provides that the right of privacy
4
and communication is not meant to be invoked against act of private
individuals. Hence, the private correspondence is a valid evidence.
The case of Christine Vole
The killing of Leonard Vole by his wife, Christine Vole is an
undisputable fact. The accused is undeniably guilty of the crime of
parricide, punishable by reclusion perpetua. Hence, a proper defense
for the case is for Christine to admit the crime committed. This will
entitle her the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt which will
decrease the period of her penalty. Moreover, the feeling of resentment
resulting from Leonard’s betrayal was the driving force of Christine’s
act of killing him. Hence, the mitigating circumstance of having acted
upon an impulse so powerful as to naturally have produced passion or
obfuscation can also be raised.
With two mitigating circumstance and in the absence of an
aggravating circumstance, Christine may be entitled to a privileged
mitigating circumstance that would lower the degree of her penalty.
Hence, instead of reclusion perpetua, her penalty would only be
reclusion temporal.
CONCLUSION
From the instant case, the following are deduced. First, a wife
cannot testify against her husband. Second, case pending for decision
may be reopened on ground of a new evidence. Third, a private
correspondence acquired through a private individual is a valid
evidence. Lastly, the strongest defense for Christine is to admit her
guilt, and raise the mitigating circumstance of passion.

Memorandum TO: From: RE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorandum TO: From: RE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorandum TO: From: RE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

TO: Atty. John Doe, Senior Associate

FROM: Ruby Rose Faith G. Moreno, Legal Aid

RE: Application of Philippine Laws and Jurisprudence

People of England vs. Leonard Steven Vole

DATE: November 4, 2017

Under Philippine law and jurisprudence, are the following

allowed in Philippine court?

1. Whether or not the wife be allowed to testify against her husband,

considering that their marriage is bigamous.

2. Whether or not a case pending for decision be reopened on the

ground of a new evidence obtained by the defense.

3. Whether or not the love letters, which is a private

correspondence between Christine Vole and “Max”, an

Moreover, what possible defense can the firm set up in behalf of

Christine Vole, who killed her husband, Leonard Vole because of

resentment toward his betrayal.

Sec. 22 of the Rules of Court prohibits such.

2. Yes, the case may be reopened if the evidence obtained is such

3. Yes, the love letters are admissible evidence. This is so because it

is not obtained through unlawful means but through a private

person. Hence, the right of privacy of communication and

correspondence may not be invoked.

4. Christine Vole is recommended to admit her guilt. Moreover, she

can also raise the mitigating circumstance of passion.

Leonard Steven Vole was prosecuted for the murder of Emily

the prosecution. The court allowed Christine to testify against her

husband because the prosecution proved that their marriage was

called upon again, now as a hostile witness for the defense.

vacated, Christine confessed to the defense attorney that her

he was indeed Emily’s murderer. Leonard then confessed to Christine

that he has found a paramour and that he is leaving her. Thereafter,

Christine stabbed Leonard to death.

Wife as witness against husband

Philippine laws protect and recognize the sanctity of marriage

and thus attempts to avoid to strain the relationship between husband

and wife. This is manifested in Rule 130, Section 22 of the Rules of

in confidence by her from her husband during the marriage. Moreover,

even if the marriage between Christine and Leonard is bigamous the

rule still applies. The validity of marriage cannot be attacked collaterally

and must be proven in a separate trial. Since there is still no judicial

declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage, Christine as Leonard’s

wife cannot testify against him.

Reopening of the case due to new evidence obtained

The reopening of a case for the reception of additional evidence

actually rendered is valid under the Philippine laws. The rationale is

that such circumstance is controlled by no other rule than that of the

paramount interests of justice (Alegre v. Reyes, 1988). Moreover, Rule

finality of the judgment of conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or

upon motion, reopen the proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice.”

is a valid ground for the reopening of the case.

Private correspondence as evidence

The private correspondence obtained, even without the consent

of Christine and Max can be considered as evidence under Philippine

laws. The right of privacy of communication and correspondence may

prosecution through an anonymous person, and hence, not a fruit of

the poisonous tree or any unlawful searches and seizures. This is so

and communication is not meant to be invoked against act of private