Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
National Capital Region
Manila City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM CASE NO. __

PLAINTIFF, FOR HOMICIDE

- versus -

LEONARD VOLE,
ACCUSED,
x------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED

Defendant, by counsel, respectfully states that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The accused Leonard Vole (herein “LeonardLeonard”) was charged before the
Regional Trial Court of the crime of Murder punishable by Article 248 Homicide under
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. On [insert date]On September 3, ,Leonard Vole (herein “Leonard”) was Formatted: Not Highlight
shopping in Oxford Street, when he sawmet a certain Emily French, (herein Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
“Emily”) a a
Formatted: Not Highlight

2. fifty-Fifty-six year old widow at aBoutique while she was fitting a pillbox Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman

hat at a boutique. Leonard affirmed was just looking through the window
and affirmed Emily’s choice of hat by signaling his approval through the
window. choice of pillbox hat. Enthusiastically, Emily went outside the
boutique, and and was complimented and convinced by Leonard to buy
the pillbox hat because it allegedly looked good on her..
A few weeks laterdays after, while Leonard was watching a movie was
watching a movie, Emily came when he chanced upon Emily who was at the row in front
of him. She invited Leonard to her house after the movie. . Because of such coincidence,
they were delighted to see each other again.
3. Emily invited Leonard to her house. Leonard also met her maid, Janet
MacKenzie (herein “Janet”), during his visit.
Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 0.79"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0.79", Tab
stops: Not at 0.79"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
 4. Leonard found out that she is rich, eccentric, and lived alone with one
maid.She, then, grew fond of Leonard would then after meet Emily’s company that she
frequently invites Leonard to come over her house at her house once or twice a week..
1. Emily French, a fifty-six-year-old widow,was killed in her houseA few days
later, she was foundJanet found Emily dead on the evening of October 14. to have been
murdered in her house.
2.5. During the presentation of evidence, a certain Christin Helm was
called for as witness for the prosecution.

ISSUES

Given the foregoing facts and circumstances, the following issues are
presented for discussion:
1. Whether or not the Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess jurisdiction in allowing the wife of the accused Christin to testify her
husband Leonard?
2. Whether or not the new evidence that was obtained by the defense thereafter
be a valid ground of re-opening the case?
3. Whether or not the letters should be admitted as new evidence?

ARGUMENTS

I. The judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess

jurisdiction under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

II. The new evidence obtained by the defense is a valid ground of re-opening the
case and calling Christin as a hostile witness for the defense. Rules of Court,
Section 24. Reopening. — At any time before finality of the judgment of Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt,
conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or upon motion, with hearing in either Font color: Text 1, Pattern: Clear
case, reopen the proceedings to avoid a miscarrage of justice. The proceedings
shall be terminated within thirty (30) days from the order granting it. In
Cabarles v Maceda, stresses the following requirements for reopening a case:
(1) the reopening must be before the finality of a judgment of conviction; (2)
the order is issued by the judge on his own initiative or upon motion; (3) the
order is issued only after a hearing is conducted; (4) the order intends to
prevent a miscarriage of justice; and (5) the presentation of additional and/or
further evidence should be terminated within thirty days from the issuance of
the order. Facts considered, that the defense counsel be allowed to interpose
and present an additional evidence thereafter. Considering that the matter of
proceeding had not yet pronounced the finality of the judgment of conviction.
That at this point in time, final address for the prosecution is about to be given
by the opposing counsel. That which the defendant has already been ceased to
present further arguments is immaterial where the interest of justice so holds
and contemplates to the given facts at hand. The filing for re-opening of the
case is not yet barred from the prescription of 30 days. In the case supra,

2
 xxxThis failure, to our mind, constitutes grave abuse of discretion and goes
against the due process clause of the Constitution which requires notice
and opportunity to be heard.xxx In fine, we are not unmindful of the
gravity of the crime charged; but justice must be dispensed with an even
hand. Regardless of how much we want to punish the perpetrators of this
ghastly crime and give justice to the victim and her family, the protection
provided by the Bill of Rights is bestowed upon all individuals, without
exception, regardless of race, color, creed, gender or political persuasion -
whether privileged or less privileged - to be invoked without fear or
favor.xxx The general rule is, party’s declaration of the completion of the
presentation of his evidence prevents him from introducing further evidence;
but where the evidence is rebuttal in character, whose necessity, for instance,
arose from the shifting of the burden of evidence from one party to the other;
or where the evidence sought to be presented is in the nature of newly
discovered evidence, the party’s right to introduce further evidence must be
recognized. In the case at bar, an anonymous woman who preferred not to
identify herself gave the counsel a packet of sealed “love letters” allegedly
written by Christin Helm herself. It was given before the finality of
conviction. The positive evidence at hand must qualify to defeat the testimony
of the witness’ denial of her relationship with the accused. Hence, additional
evidence is of noteworthy consideration to the attendant facts on whether the
evidence would qualify as a “good reason” and be in furtherance of “the interest
of justice.” Its significance lies on the credibility of the witness to admit herself
in testifying against the accused in due course of proceedings. Should the hostile
witness be admitted to testify against the accused it is but to defile the interest
of justice. Hence, must re-open the case to question its validity and credibility.

III. The letters should be admitted as new evidence of the case under Section 5,
Rule 30 of the Rules of Court.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed the judgement be

rendered in favor of the accused by
1. FINDING the judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess jurisdiction for allowing Christin, the wife of the accuse, testify against her
husband Leonard.
2. FINDING the re-opening of the case valid under Section 5, Rule 30 of the
Rules of Court.
3. ORDERING the letters to be admitted as new evidence for the case.

ATTY. ______________
Counsel for the Accused
Address:

3
 IBP No:
PTR No:
Roll No:
MCLE No:

Copy furnished:
Atty. ____________
Counsel for Plaintiff