Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 55 views

    Hultman-Chapman Murder Case Analysis: Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

    Uploaded by

    Brando Braganza
    The accused in this case claims to have an alibi and denies involvement in the shooting. He argues the eyewitness identifications are unreliable and irregular. The accused also claims the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, citing issues with evidence like inconsistent witness descriptions of the gunman's car. The accused further argues he did not receive an impartial trial due to prejudicial publicity. Finally, the accused asserts the element of treachery was not established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hultman-Chapman Murder Case Analysis: Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

    Uploaded by

    Brando Braganza
    55 views3 pages
    The accused in this case claims to have an alibi and denies involvement in the shooting. He argues the eyewitness identifications are unreliable and irregular. The accused also claims the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, citing issues with evidence like inconsistent witness descriptions of the gunman's car. The accused further argues he did not receive an impartial trial due to prejudicial publicity. Finally, the accused asserts the element of treachery was not established.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    ANAYLISS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The accused in this case claims to have an alibi and denies involvement in the shooting. He argues the eyewitness identifications are unreliable and irregular. The accused also claims the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, citing issues with evidence like inconsistent witness descriptions of the gunman's car. The accused further argues he did not receive an impartial trial due to prejudicial publicity. Finally, the accused asserts the element of treachery was not established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    55 views3 pages

    Hultman-Chapman Murder Case Analysis: Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

    Uploaded by

    Brando Braganza
    The accused in this case claims to have an alibi and denies involvement in the shooting. He argues the eyewitness identifications are unreliable and irregular. The accused also claims the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, citing issues with evidence like inconsistent witness descriptions of the gunman's car. The accused further argues he did not receive an impartial trial due to prejudicial publicity. Finally, the accused asserts the element of treachery was not established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Hultman–Chapman murder case

    ANALYSIS

    The defense:
    Accused relied on the defense of denial and alibi. Accused claimed that during the
    shooting incident, he was not anywhere near the scene of the crime, but in his house
    in Pasig. Accused averred that he only came to know the 3 victims in the Dasmarinas
    shooting when he read the newspaper reports about it. Accused admitted ownership
    of a box-type, silver metallic gray Mitsubishi Lancer, with plate number PDW 566.
    He, however, claimed that said car ceased to be in good running condition after its
    involvement in an accident. Until the day of the shooting, his Lancer car had been
    parked in the garage of his mother’s house in Dasmarinas Village. He has not used
    this car since then. Accused conceded that although the car was not in good running
    condition, it could still be used.

    Eyewitness identification and out-of-court identification.


    The accused was convicted on the strength of the testimonies of 3 eyewitnesses who
    positively identified him as the gunman. However, he vigorously assails his out-of-
    court identification by these eyewitnesses.

    He starts by trying to discredit the eyeball account of Leino, the lone surviving
    victim of the crimes at bar. Appellant urges: First, that Leino’s identification of
    him outside an unoccupied house in Forbes Park was highly irregular; Second, that
    Leino saw his pictures on television and the newspapers before he identified him;
    Third, that Leino’s interview at the hospital was never put in writing; Fourth, that
    the sketch of appellant based on the description given by Leino to the CIS agents
    was suppressed by the NBI.

    Proof beyond reasonable doubt


    According to the accused, the trial court erred in not holding that the prosecution
    failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. First, he claims the trial court
    erred in citing in its Decision his involvement in previous shooting incidents.
    Second, the NBI failed to conduct an examination to compare the bullets fired
    from the gun at the scene of the crime with the bullets recovered from the body of
    Chapman. Third, the prosecution eyewitnesses described the gunman’s car as
    white, but the trial court found it to be silver metalic gray. Fourth, the accused
    could not have been the gunman, for Mangubat said that he overheard the victim
    Hultman plead to the gunman, thus: “Please, don’t shoot me and don’t kill me. I
    promise Mommy, Daddy.” The accused also contends that a maid in a house near
    the scene of the crime told Makati police Alberto Fernandez that she heard
    Maureen say: “Daddy don’t shoot. Don’t.” Fifth, the NBI towed accused’s car
    from Dasmarinas Village to the NBI office which proved that the same was not in
    good running condition. Lastly, the result of the paraffin test conducted on
    appellant showed he was negative of nitrates.

    The right to an impartial trial.


    The the accused blames the press for his conviction as he contends that the
    publicity given to his case impaired his right to an impartial trial. He postulates
    there was pressure on the trial judge for high-ranking government officials avidly
    followed the developments in the case (as no less than then Vice-President Estrada
    and then DOJ Secretary Drilon attended some of the hearings and, President
    Aquino even visited Hultman while she was still confined at the hospital). He
    submits that the trial judge failed to protect him from prejudicial publicity and
    disruptive influences which attended the prosecution of the cases.

    The presence of treachery


    The accused claims that treachery was not present in the killing of Hultman and
    Chapman, and the wounding of Leino for it was not shown that the gunman
    consciously and deliberately adopted particular means, methods and forms in the
    execution of the crime. The accused asserts that mere suddenness of attack does
    not prove treachery.

    You might also like