Twelve Angry Men

1975

DECISION

Lopez, V.:

The facts are summarized in the People’s brief, as follows:

Around midnight, a Man was found dead in his apartment. According

to the Old Man living on the second floor underneath the room where
the murder took place, 10 minutes after midnight, he heard loud noises
in the upstairs apartment and he sounded it like a fight. He heard the
Son of the Man said to his father, “I’m gonna kill you”, then, a second
later, he heard a body falling. He immediately ran to the door of his
apartment, looked out and saw the kid running down the stairs and out
of the house. He right then called the police and the father was found
with a knife in his chest.

Another person also claimed to witness the said murder. She is Woman
living across the street. Her window is right opposite to the victim’s
window, across the el tracks. She swore that she saw the Son do the
crime.

The defendant-appellant pleaded not guilty of the crime of parricide. He

claimed he was at the movies when the crime happened.

Sec. 246 of the Revised Penal Code defines parricide as any person who shall
kill his father, mother or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his
ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall
be punished the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Based on the
testimonies of the witnesses. The relationship between the Son and his father
would not be considered the ideal relationship of a parent to his child. His
father beat him up since he was five years old. The Son was then eventually
entered reform school at age of fifteen for he was accused of several offenses
as a kid.

However, the court could not simply judge the appellant based his historical
records for everyone has the right to just treatment and due process between
the law. Justice is presented before the witnesses and evidence that proves
otherwise the innocence of the appellant. Thus, we must carefully look into
considerations the statements of our witnesses for the court raised some
doubt on some of the facts.

First, we already stated the fact that the appellant was a young delinquent at
the age of 15. He was also involve in a knife-fighting. This show that he should
be an expert on handling a knife. It turns out that the stab wound was made

1
in a downward angle. The boy is 5”8 tall and his father is 6”2 tall, the
downward angle is not reasonable to stab someone half feet taller. It could
be possible for someone who doesn’t know how to handle a knife but in this
case, the Boy was already involved knife fights, therefore, we could assume
his expertise or his ability is in higher level that normal person. Also, the said
knife, as originally claimed by the court to be “unique and one of the kind”
was later proved that could be bought by any one and in other places.

Second, let us dwell more on how the Old Man states the facts of the crime.
The appellant, the victim and the witnesses lived in the same area, before the
el train. The noise of an el train as it passed by is too loud to hear another
noise. To be consistent to the statement of the Woman, it seems that the
crime took place while the trains passed-by. Also, according to the Old Man’s
own word, He runs towards his door 15 seconds after hearing the falling body.
Run, for an Old Man who suffered 2 strokes and uses crane would be quite
challenging but running within 15 seconds would be impossible.

Lastly, if we put into consideration that the Woman who saw what happened
at past midnight while the train passed by, a question would be, how positive
are we to say that it was indeed the Son and not another person? Also, she
wore a bifocals and she testified that in the midst of her tossing and turning,
she rolled over and look casually in the window. Common sense would tell
that no person who was trying to sleep still wears his/her glasses. How could
then we give credit to a statement that could also be a blur?

Section 2 of Rule 133 of the Rules of the Court states that in a criminal case,
the accused is entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond
reasonable doubt. The evidences and testimonies give rise to new doubts of
whether or not the collective facts that leads to the guilt of the appellant.
None of the evidences are eligible enough to question the appellant’s
innocence.

We cannot deny that there were witnesses present for the death of the Man.
However, we find impossibility on the testimonies of the witnesses. The death
of one person should not lead to harm another innocent life. Justice should
be given to where it is due, not only for the victim but also for the accused.
His history of delinquency during his younger years should not be a basis of
his future. Poverty and lack of proper guidance should not be romanticized
that crime exist because of it for human are rational being.

WHEREFORE, for lack of evidence to establish appellant’s guilt beyond

reasonable doubt, appellant is hereby ACQUITTED for the death of the Man
and ordered RELEASED from confinement.

No cost.