EXHAUSTIVE

LEGAL OPINION 28

16
JULY 8

EXHAUSTIVE LEGAL OPINION

DEFENSES FOR THE MURDER OF LEONARD VOLE
Assuming Christine Helm/Vole is charged with the murder of Leonard Vole committed after
the trial for the murder of Mrs. Emily French upon which Leonard Vole was acquitted

JERICO MARCELO YOU

 EXHAUSTIVE LEGAL OPINION 29

FACTS:
After the trial of the murder of Mrs. Emily French, Christine Helm/Vole

approached the counsel for the defense of Leonard Vole. She claimed

that the testimony she presented is perjurious as well as she

fabricated the letters to a certain Max and impersonated an informant

in order for the acquittal of Leonard Vole to prosper. After which,

Leonard Vole approached the counsel and Christine Helm/Vole

confirming that he committed the crime of murder. After which, a

certain Diana, together with her entourage arrived. Leonard Vole,

then, told Christine Helm/Vole that he was replacing her with a

younger woman and proceeded in kissing Diana. This prompted

Christine Helm/ Vole to stab Leonard Vole with a knife that was earlier

used as evidence. Leonard Vole immediately died after receiving a fatal

knife wound.

Defenses for the accused (Christine

Helm/Vole):
Considering the facts of the case as well as what has transpired during

the trial for the murder of Mrs. French, it has come to the attention of

the counsel of Christine Helm/Vole of the possible defenses in case she

is charged with Murder.

1st Defense: Homicide not Murder

The crime, if any, should not be murder considering the circumstances

of the case as the law would define murder with the presence of any of

the following circumstances:

30 EXHAUSTIVE LEGAL OPINION

1
Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of
murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death, if committed with any of the
following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with
the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the
defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or
locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or
with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the
preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a
volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the
suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or
corpse. (Revised Penal Code)

The accused, as seen from the facts of the case, did not commit any of

the circumstances provided in the definition of murder as stated by

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, murder is not the

crime committed if any. The correct crime should be homicide as

defined:

2
Art. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the
attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next
preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be
punished by reclusion temporal. (Revised Penal Code)

With this defense, the possible penalty may be reduced greatly as

Murder is a graver offense than homicide which logically entails a lower

penalty than that of the previous one.

2nd Defense: Plea of Insanity

The plea of insanity is an exempting circumstance that may acquit the

accused from the crime committed.

1 Revised Penal Code
2 Revised Penal Code
 EXHAUSTIVE LEGAL OPINION 31

3
Art. 12. Circumstances, which exempt from criminal liability. —
The following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted
during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act
which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order
his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established
for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to
leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
(Revised Penal Code)

This plea is not usually available as a successful defense. Usually

insanity is used as an exception rather than a general rule with regard

to human nature.

4
Art. 800. The law presumes that every person is of sound mind,
in the absence of proof to the contrary. (Civil Code of the
Philippines)

As such, in purview of Article 800 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,

there is a presumption of insanity which when raised by the accused, it

must be settled in a civil proceeding declaring whether the accused is

insane or not.

However, in the present case, this is one of the defenses that shall

absolve the perpetrator from the commission of the crime. It is

considered to be an exempting circumstance.

Considering what has transpired during the trial, Christine Helm/Vole

may be considered as insane and has been performing sociopathic

behavior in testifying against her husband perjuriously, fabricating

letters to a certain Max, fabricating a marriage certificate to a certain

Mr. Helm and posing as an informant. As enunciated in the case of

People vs. Celestino Bonoan Y Cruz, G.R. No. L-45130, insanity may

lead uncontrollable acts that may lead to the commission of the crime.

3 Revised Penal Code
4 Civil Code of the Philippines
32 EXHAUSTIVE LEGAL OPINION

That such kind of evidence is not necessarily proof of the sanity

of the accused during the commission of the offense, is clear
from what Dr. Sydney Smith, Regius Professor of Forensic
Medicine, University of Edinburg, said in his work on Forensic
Medicine (3d ed. [London], p. 382), that in the type of dementia
præcox, "the crime is ussually preceded by much complaining
and planning. In these people, homicidal attacks are common,
because of delusions that they are being interfered with sexually
or that their property is being taken." (People vs. Celestino
Bonoan Y Cruz, G.R. No. L-45130)

It is therefore submitted that Christine Helm/Vole should have herself

clinically examined and tested for possible traces of insanity and have

her certified as insane. Furthermore, the defense should procure of an

expert testimony that would support such defense. 5Under Philippine

law, where the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act

which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his

confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons

thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first

obtaining the permission of the same court.

3rd Defense: Mitigating Circumstance under the 5th

paragraph under article 13 of the Revised Penal Code

In this defense, the problem lies with the accused admitting to the

crime and that there shall be no acquittal but merely reduction of the

penalty by one degree.

Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The following are mitigating

circumstances;
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a
grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his
spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees. (Revised Penal Code)

5 http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014junedecisions.php?id=430
 EXHAUSTIVE LEGAL OPINION 33

Nonetheless, when the case is futile, this would bring about lesser

burden than homicide in its higher penalty. The accused, Christine

Helm/Vole, committed the crime of homicide in the immediate

vindication of a grave offense to her committed by Leonard Vole when

he kissed a certain Diana and told her that he, her husband, will leave

her for a younger woman considering the circumstance that she

sacrificed her liberty by committing perjury to acquit him for the

murder of Mrs. Emily French.

Even if what is charged is murder and was not contested as being

homicide, 6the proving that this circumstance is present would lead to

the negation of the circumstances listed in murder and as such the

crime would naturally be reduced to murder as enunciated in the case

of People vs. Arthur Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 130608.

4th Defense: Impeachment of Testimony of the paramour

In anticipation of the prosecution procuring Diana as a witness, the

defense shall move towards the impeachment of the testimony by

showing bad reputation. 7Section 11, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court

allows the impeachment of testimony in the aspect of integrity. Diana

has been seen as someone who is always at the bar seducing married

men and has solicit money from them. She has been known as the

paramour of the deceased husband and has great interest over the

money inherited by Leonard Vole. This shows motive that her

testimony is likely to be malicious against the lawful wife, Christine

Helm/Vole.

6 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/aug99/130608.htm
7 Rules of Court
34 EXHAUSTIVE LEGAL OPINION

Impeachment of testimony has the effect of having her testimony

being stricken off the records. Ultimately, without such testimony, the

accused may be acquitted.