TRIAL BRIEF NASTASHA DOMINIQUE G.

ORTIZ LUIS
TRIAL TECHNIQUE JUSTICE SINGH

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH __

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,

- versus - CRIM. CASE NO. 2014-__
For: Murder
STONY HEART,
Accused
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

TRIAL BRIEF OF DEFENDANT STONY HEART


The question in this case is whether the accused Mr. Stony Heart is guilty of
having committed the crime of murder in conspiracy with PO2 Devil May Care
and Mrs. Majes Ty, in killing Mr. Royal Ty.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND


FACTS
DISPUTED
YES or NO?
EVIDENCE
DEFENSE
EVIDENCE
PROSEC.
1. The victim, Mr. Royal Ty
was a famous international
race car driver.
No
2. Mr. Royal Ty was married to
Mrs. Majesty Ty, a model by
profession.
No Marriage
License
3. In the evening of June 12,
2014, while Mr Royal Ty
was on his way to Clark
Speedway, Pampanga for a
racing competition was shot
and ambushed by a
motorcycle riding in tandem
gunmen on the corner of
Visayas Avenue and
Congressional Avenue in
Quezon City.
No Police Reports

Death
Certificate
4. Mr. Royal Ty died on the
spot due to fatal gunshot
wounds inflicted on his head,
neck and arms.
No Medical Report
5. On August 23, 2014, PO2
Devil May Care was arrested
in a buy-bust operation and
No The arrest of PO2
Devil May Care
for drug charges
Police Reports

CCTV footage
was implicated in the
shooting of Mr. Royal Ty

does not involve
Mr. Stoney Heart.
of corner
Visayas
Avenue and
Congressional
Avenue in
Quezon City
6. PO2 Devil May Care was
presented to the media as
one of the gunmen in the
slaying of Mr. Royal Ty.
Yes Testimony of
PO2 Devil
May Care
made to the
press stating
that Mr. Stony
Heart is the
mastermind
(extrajudicial
confession)

7. PO2 Devil May Care and Mr
Stony Heart are long time
friends.
Yes Extrajudicial
confession:
Hearsay evidence
inadmissible
against Mr. Stony
Heart.

Testimony of
PO2 Devil
May Care
made to the
press.

(Possible Cross
examination of
PO2 Devil
May Care
during trial.)
8. PO2 Devil May Care stated
that he was paid P100,000
by Mr Stony Heart as he
along with Mrs. Majesty
were the masterminds behind
the shooting of Mr. Royal
Ty.
Yes Police report on
the buy bust
operations

Extrajudicial
confession was
invalid: Counsel
was not present
during custodial
investigation

Extrajudicial
confession:
Hearsay evidence
inadmissible
against Mr. Stony
Heart.

Testimony of
PO2 Devil May
Care recanting his
statements
(extrajudicial
confession)

Possible:
background
check on
PO2s financial
or bank
records.
Witness
testimony of
whether or not
Mr. Stony Heart
knows PO2 Devil
May Care
personally.

(Prosecution has
no proof of the
alleged P100,000
payment)
9. Testimony made to police
investigators by Mr. John
Cruise, a friend of the victim
claiming that Mr. Stony
Heart is having an affair with
the victims spouse Mrs.
Majes Ty
Yes Cross examine
witness or object
to the statement
as hearsay

(Determine the
credibility of Mr.
Cruise:
interactions with
both the spouses
Ty and with the
accused Mr.
Heart. Are they in
the same social
circle? Are their
instances that
they would have
interacted
prompting
suspicion that
Mrs. Ty and Mr.
Heart is having an
affair?
Witness
testimony of
Mr. John
Cruise
10. Based on PO2 Devil May
Cares statement to the
police, the accused Mr.
Stony Heart was arrested for
the murder Mr. Royal Ty in
conspiracy with PO2 Devil
May Care and the victims
spouse Mrs. Majes Ty.
Yes Witness
testimony:
Denial of
allegation

Counter
Affidavit: Stony
Heart denial of all
allegations
against him.

Testimony of
PO2 Devil
May Care
made to the
press stating
that Mr. Stony
Heart is the
mastermind
(extrajudicial
confession)

11. PO2 Devil May Care
recanted his earlier statement
to the police. He stated that
he was a victim of a frame-
up in a drug bust case by the
police.
No Affidavit:
Statement of PO2
Devil May Care
recanting his
previous
confession.


Police report on
the buy bust
operations

Extrajudicial
confession was
invalid: Counsel
was not present
during custodial
investigation


Factual Issues

1. Mr. Stony Heart and Mrs. Majes Ty are having an affair
2. Mr. Stony Heart is in conspiracy with Mrs. Majes Ty and PO2 Devil May
Care in the killing of Mr. Royal Ty.
3. Mr. Stony Heart paid P100,000 to PO2 Devil May Care to kill Mr. Royal
Ty.
4. Due to the drug charges filed against PO2 Devil May Care, he was forced to
implicate Mr. Stony Heart in the murder of Royal Ty.

Legal Issues

1. Whether or not the extra-judicial confession made by PO2 Devil May Care
is admissible as evidence to prove the conspiracy between Mr. Stony Heart,
Mrs. Majes Ty and PO2 Devil May Care in the killing of Mr. Royal Ty?
2. Whether or not Mr. Stony Heart is liable for the murder of Mr. Royal Ty?

Evidence to be presented

1. Stony Hearts Counter Affidavit denying all allegations and charges against
him.
2. Affidavit: Statement of PO2 Devil May Care recanting his previous
confession.

Relevant Laws and Arguments

Conspiracy

Revised Penal Code Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony.

Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases
in which the law specially provides a penalty therefore.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. xxx

There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy
is not presumed. Like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, the
elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. While
conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence, for it may be inferred
from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of
the crime, all taken together, however, the evidence must be strong enough
to show the community of criminal design. For conspiracy to exist, it is
essential that there must be a conscious design to commit an offense.
Conspiracy is the product of intentionality on the part of the cohorts.
1



Extra-judicial Confession
Rule 130 Section 33. Confession. The declaration of an accused
acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily
included therein, may be given in evidence against him.
Rule 133 Section 3. Extrajudicial confession, not sufficient ground for
conviction. An extrajudicial confession made by an accused, shall not be
sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus
delicti.
It is always incumbent upon the prosecution to prove at the trial that prior to
in-custody questioning, the confessant was informed of his constitutional
rights. The presumption of regularity of official acts does not prevail over
the constitutional presumption of innocence. Hence, in the absence of proof
that the arresting officers complied with these constitutional safeguards,
extrajudicial statements, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, made during
custodial investigation are inadmissible and cannot be considered in the
adjudication of a case. In other words, confessions and admissions in
violation of Section 12 (1), Article III of the Constitution are inadmissible
in evidence against the declarant and more so against third
persons. This is so even if such statements are gospel truth and voluntarily
given.
2


It was stated that for an extrajudicial confession to be admissible, it must be:
(1) voluntary;
(2) made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel;
(3) express; and
(4) in writing.
3


Under the rule of multiple admissibility of evidence, [...] confession may not
be competent as against his co-accused [], being hearsay as to the latter, or
to prove conspiracy between them without the conspiracy being established
by other evidence, the confession [] was, nevertheless, admissible as
evidence of the declarant's own guilt (U. S. vs. Vega, 43 Phil. 41; People vs.
Bande, 50 Phil. 37; People vs. Buan, 64 Phil. 296), and should have been
admitted as such.
4


Presumption of Innocence - An accused has the right to be presumed innocent
unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.


1
Bahilidad v. People, G.R. No. 185195, March 17, 2010, 615 SCRA 597, 604.
2
People v Figueroa, G.R. No. 134056, July 6, 2000, 335 SCRA 249, 262. (Emphasis supplied.)
3
People v. Gallardo, G.R. 113684 (2000).
4
People v Yatco, G.R. No. L-9181 November 28, 1955.
1987 Constitution, Article III Section 14(2) - In all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.

Rules of Court, Rule 134 Section 2 - In a criminal case, the accused is
entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.

"In our criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is not whether
the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a
reasonable doubt as to his guilt. This determinant, with the constitution
presumption of innocence which can be overthrown only by the strength of
the prosecution's own evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
irresistibly dictate an exoneration in this case.
5
"The constitutional presumption of innocence is not an empty platitude
meant only to embellish the Bill of Rights. Its purpose is to balance the
scales in what would otherwise be an uneven contest between the lone
individual pitted against the People of the Philippines and all the resources at
their command. Its inexorable mandate is that, for all the authority and
influence of the prosecution, the accused must be acquitted and set free if his
guilt cannot be proved beyond the whisper of a doubt. That mandate shall
be enforced.
6

The presumption of innocence is not a mere procedural tool of the law. It is
not overcome by the presumption of regularity; indeed, it can be rebutted
only by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
7

"x x x the prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with
proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The proof against him must survive
the test of reason, the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway
judgment."
8

In order to convict an accused the circumstances of the case must exclude all
and each and every hypothesis consistent with his innocence."
9


Cross Examination Guide

1. PO2 Devil May Care Establish the facts surrounding his arrest and point
out irregularities of his extra-judicial confession alleging that Mr. Stony
Heart is the mastermind behind Mr Royal Tys murder.
2. John Cruise destroy the credibility of witness in relation to the facts
alleged.

Objections or Rebuttals

1. Object to the admissibility of the Extra-judicial confession made by PO2
Devil May Care.

5
People vs. Salangga, 234 SCRA 407, 423.
6
People vs. De Guzman, 194 SCRA 601, 606.
7
People vs. Alarcon, G.R. No. 125310. April 21, 1999.
8
People vs. Austria, 195 SCRA 700
9
People vs. Del Rosario, 234 SCRA 246, 254.

2. Object to the admissibility of Mr John Cruise testimony claiming that Mr.
Stony Heart and Mrs. Majes Ty has an affair as hearsay.

Closing Arguments

1. The alleged conspiracy between the three accused was not established by the
prosecution
2. The long time friendship between Mr. Stony Heart and PO2 Devil May care
is not evidence of conspiracy to commit murder.
3. The alleged affair of Mr. Stony Heart and Mrs. Majes Ty was not proven.
Assuming arguendo that the alleged affair is in fact true, this is not an
evidence of conspiracy to commit murder.
4. The prosecution failed to prove that Mr. Stony Heart is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.

Relief Sought

The defense prays that the criminal case against Mr. Stony Heart be dismissed.





ATTY. NASTASHA DOMINIQUE G. ORTIZ LUIS
Counsel for the Accused Stony Heart
6750 Legal Building, Ayala Avenue,
Makati City, Philippines
Attorneys Roll No.: 992788
IBP O.R. No., 2014-3912-12324-Makati City
PTR O.R. No., 2014-1238-1284-Makati City
MCLE Compliance No. 2014-23849-4423
October 3, 14





COPY FURNISHED: