TO: Atty. Juan R. Aureada, Partner, J.R.

Aureada &

Associates

FROM: Atty. Yasser R. Aureada, Junior Associate

SUBJECT: Guidance to the Wife as Witness for the

Prosecution and Other Remedies

DATE: November 9, 2017

The alleged wife of the accused Leonard Steven Vaugh,

Christine was presented by the prosecution to testify against said

accused. Was it proper for the court to have allowed the wife to

testify against the husband?

No. If she had proven that she is legally married with

Leonard, she may not testify for or against the husband 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 latters direct descendants or ascendants.

After the prosecution and defense counsels agreed to

terminate the trial and submit the matter now for decision of the court,

can the new evidence that was obtained by the defense the after be a

valid ground for the reopening of the case and calling the wife again,

this time as a hostile witness for the defense, be allowed?

Indeed, in those jurisdictions which allow one spouse to be

subjected to examination by the adverse party as a hostile witness

when both spouses are parties to the action, either the interests of

the spouses are separate or separable, or the spouse offered as a

witness is merely a formal or nominal party.

 Can the love letters allegedly sent by the wife of the

accused Christine Vaugh to an alleged lover named Max, be admissible in

evidence considering that they were private correspondence by the wife to

a certain Max, both of whom did not give their consent to use them or to

divulge them in the trial?

No. It may have violated Republic Act (RA) 4200, or An Act

to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping And Other Related Violations of the

Privacy Of Communication and for Other Purposes. This law primarily

protects private communication by making it illegal and punishable to

record conversations without the consent of the parties involved in the

communication.

With the surprising turn of events, it is clear that the wife

Christine Vaugh will now be prosecuted for murder. What are the possible

defense could we set up in her behalf?

There are several defenses that could apply to a murder

charge. This may include, actual innocence, self defence, or intoxication.

Most defendants assert that they didn't actually commit the crime. Other

defendants admit to killing the victim, but claim some sort of justification.

Attorneys call these types of defenses affirmative defenses. As with most

criminal cases, the result of a defense strategy will depend on the facts

surrounding the charges and the laws of the jurisdiction.

Vole is accused of murdering Mrs Emily, a rich, older widow

who had become enamored with him, going so far as to make him the

main beneficiary of her will. Strong circumstantial evidence points to Vole

as the killer, but it believes that Vole is innocent. Leonard

became the witness for the prosecution. She testifies that Leonard

admitted to her that he had killed Mrs French, and that her conscience

forced her to finally tell the truth. However, the affair revealed by this

correspondence gives Christine such a strong motive to have lied that the

jury finds Leonard not guilty. She had instead given testimony implicating

her husband, had then forged the letters to the non-existent Max, and had

herself in disguise played the mysterious woman handing over the letters

which then discredited her own testimony and led to the acquittal. She

furthermore admits that she saved Leonard even though she knew he was

guilty because she loves him. Leonard has overheard Christine's

admission and, now protected by double jeopardy, cheerfully confirms to

Sir Wilfred that he had indeed killed Mrs French. Sir Wilfrid is infuriated at

being had. Leonard then coldly tells Christine that he has met a younger

woman and is leaving Christine. In a jealous rage, Christine grabs a knife,

which had earlier been used as evidence by the defense, and stabs

Leonard to death. After she is taken away by the police, Sir Wilfrid, urged

on by Miss Plimsoll, declares that he will take on Christine's defense.

Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court

provides, Disqualification by reason of marriage. 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 latters direct descendants or ascendants.

The reasons given for the rule are:

1. There is identity of interests between husband and wife;

2. If one were to testify for or against the other, there is consequent

danger of perjury;

3. The policy of the law is to guard the security and confidences of

private life, even at the risk of an occasional failure of justice, and to

prevent domestic disunion and unhappiness; and

4. Where there is want of domestic tranquility there is danger of

punishing one spouse through the hostile testimony of the other.

In order to avail of the defense of self-defense, he must

meet the requirements, prescribed in Article11 of the Revised Penal Code.

(1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed

to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of

the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical

assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person.

There must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger,

which puts the defendant’s life in real peril. In the case at bar, there was

no unlawful aggression shown by the victim.