TO: Atty.

Ulpiano Sarmiento III

FROM: Atty. Cheyenne Hope Dumlao, Junior Associate

SUBJECT: Rules on Evidence and Defense for Ms. Christine Vole

People v. Vole

DATE: November 5, 2017

I. ISSUES

1. Whether or not the testimony of Christine Vole against her

husband, Leonard Steven Vole, is admissible under Section 22 of

Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence and Article 40 of the

Family Code.

2. Whether or not the new evidence obtained by the defense be a

valid ground for the reopening of the case under Section 5 of Rule

30 of the Rules of Court and/or Section 2 of Rule 121 of the

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

3. Whether or not the love letters of Christine Vole to an alleged lover

named Max be admissible as evidence under Article III of the 1987

Philippine Constitution.

4. What is the possible line of defense for Christine Vole for the

murder of Leonard Steven Vole?

II. BRIEF ANSWERS

1. No. Christine Vole cannot testify against her husband making her

testimony inadmissible.

Section 22 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence

provides: “During their marriage, neither the husband nor the wife

may testify for or against the other without the consent of the

affected spouse, 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 the latter's direct descendants or ascendants. (20a)”

In the case at bar, Christine Vole testified against her husband

without his consent during their marriage. Clearly, this falls under

the general rule of the above cited provision. Moreover, the case is

not under any of the two exceptions mentioned in the provision.

The victim in this case is Emily French, who is not a relative of the

wife.

The prosecution argues that Christine Vole can testify against

her husband since their marriage is void. It was established that

Christine was still married to her German husband when she and

Leonard celebrated their marriage. Thus, their marriage is

bigamous considered as void under Article 35 of the Family Code.

However, Article 40 of the Family Code provides: “The absolute

nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of

remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such

previous marriage void.” In the case of Roberto Domingo vs. Court

of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that the necessity of obtaining

a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage is not only for purposes

of remarriage. “Crucial to the proper interpretation of Article 40 is

the position in the provision of the word ‘solely.’ As it is placed, the

same shows that it is meant to qualify ‘final judgment declaring

such previous marriage void. Undoubtedly, one can conceive of

other instances where a party might well invoke the absolute nullity

of a previous marriage for purposes other than remarriage.”

(Roberto Domingo vs. Court of Appeals, 1993)

 Hence, Christine Vole should first obtain a declaration of nullity

of marriage before she can properly testify against Leonard Vole.

2. Yes. The new evidence obtained by the defense is a valid ground

for the reopening of the case.

Section 24 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court provides: “At any

time before finality of the judgment of conviction, the judge may,

motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either case, reopen

the proceedings to avoid a miscarriage of justice. xxx”

In the case at bar, the counsel for the defense motioned for the

reopening of the case before finality of the judgment of conviction

on the ground that the defense had come across substantial

evidence. In this light, the new and material evidence is compliant

to Section 2(b) of Rule 121 of the Revised Rules of Criminal

Procedure as the defense could not with reasonable diligence

have discovered and produced the evidence at the trial but which

if introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment.

The evidence discovered by the defense should still be

considered since it could tilt the judgment in favor of the accused.

In this light, the reopening of the trial is necessary to avoid a

miscarriage of justice.

3. No. The love letters of Christine Vole to an alleged lover named

Max is inadmissible, being a private correspondence between the

two and both of whom did not give their consent to use the letters

in the trial.

Under Article III of the 1987 Constitution, evidence obtained in

violation of the privacy of communication and correspondence,

 except upon lawful order of the Court or when public safety or

order requires otherwise is inadmissible. In the case at bar, there

was no lawful order from the Court. Christina and the Court were

actually surprised by the love letters presented by the defense.

Additionally, this case does not cover one of national security. In

the case of Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals and Martin, the Court

ruled that “the documents and papers in question are inadmissible

in evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring the privacy of

communication and correspondence to be inviolable is no less

applicable simply because it is the wife xxx who is the party

against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. xxx

Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained

inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.” (Cecilia Zulueta

vs. Court of Appeals and Alfredo Martin, 1996)

4. As defense counsel for Ms. Christine Vole, the most possible

option is to reduce the crime to that of Homicide instead of Murder.

Also, the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation could

be credited in her favor.

If fortunate, Ms. Christine Vole could be exculpated from

criminal liability if the prosecution would be unable to prove her

guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this light, the defense could

target the credibility of the only possible eyewitness for the

prosecution, the paramour of the deceased. The other persons

present at the scene of the crime were all members of the

defense.
REFERENCES:

Cecilia Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals and Alfredo Martin, 107383

(Supreme Court February 20, 1996).

Roberto Domingo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104818 (Supreme

Court September 17, 1993).

1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III

Family Code of the Philippines, Article 35

Family Code of the Philippines, Article 40

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 121, Section 2

Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 130, Section

Rules of Court, Rule 30, Section 5