Introduction:

The case that I had to handle under the supervision of Atty. Danny
Villanuevas Law Office, is a case of Murder. Since the client wished to keep
his name under a fictitious name and has also requested that his photo not
be shown for confidential purposes, I will not include his photo in this report
and change the name for his sake.

Facts:
1) Accused is one Robert Santos Jr. (not his real name), 33 years old,
married, living in Nueva Highway, San Pedro Laguna, working as a
security guard for a company named CRC Securities;
2) That the accused Robert Santos Jr. is being implicated in the serious
crime of Murder just because he was present when accused Juan Paras
(not his real name), 27 years old, single, living-in the quarters of CRC
Development Corporation shot the victim, one only known as
Chocoball (not his real alias);
3) All the witnesses had declared

that

accused

Santos

had

no

participation in the killing of Chocoball except his presence at the

scene of the crime and his alleged failure to stop Juan Paras from
shooting Chocoball;
4) Truth to tell, accused Santos did employ everything under his power to
stop and prevent Juan Paras from shooting Chocoball as testified to by
other several eyewitnesses. In fact, accused Santos followed accused
Paras shouting an order to stop from chasing Chocoball. This, however,
was disregarded by the investigating prosecutor in determining who
shall be charged for the killing of Chocoball;
5) Well-settled is the rule that conspiracy must be proven as clearly as
the commission of the crime itself. (People v. Quilaton, 324 SCRA 670).
Also, conspiracy is not implied by a persons mere presence at the
crime scene.

The following is the transcript of our interview:

Me: Magandang araw po, maaari po bang pakibanggit ang pangalan nyo po,
edad, tirahan at kung may-asawa po?
Santos (not his real name): Roberto Santos Jr., 33 na taong gulang, nakatira
sa Nueva Highway, San Pedro Laguna. May asawa at anak.
Me: Maaari ninyo po bang ikwento ang buong pangyayari?
Santos: Nagtratrabaho po ako bilang security guard para po sa isang agency,
naka-assign po ako sa CRC Development Corporation, doon po yun sa may
National Highway sa San Pedro Laguna. Kasama ko po si Juan Paras sa
trabaho bilang security guard din po na siyang bumaril kay Chocoball.
Bandang alas-nuebe po kasi yun ng gabi. Dumaan ako sa CRC para maginpseksyon, eh pagdating ko po doon, nadatnan ko pong nilusob ng limang
tambay yung guardhouse. Lima po yun, bale si Chocoball at yung apat pang
tambay, may dalawang babae silang kasama. Si Chocoball po kasi kasama
nya sina Jaime (not his real name), Jenny (not her real name) at yung iba pa
nyang mga kabarkada. Sabi ko sa kanila: ang kulit kulit nyo. Pinagbababato
po kasi nila yung guardhouse, at hinahamon po nya si Jaime. Lumbas po ako
ng building at inawat ko yung isang tambay, yung lider nila si Chocoball.
Nasa likuran ako ni Jaime, at inaawat ko yung tambay, biglang nakarinig po
ako ng putok. Tumakbo yung ibang mga tambay Pinigilan ko po talaga siya
na wag na nyang habulin si Chocoball. Sabi ko sa kanya wag mo na syang
habulin pa, dahil hindi na dapat. Hinabol ko po siya para awatin pero nabaril
po niya si Chocoball. Doon ko lang din po nalaman yung pangalan niya na si
Chocoball pala siya.
Me: Talaga po bang nandoon po kayo noong binaril ni Juan Paras si
Chocoball?

Santos: Opo. Kaharap po ako nung binaril ni Juan si Chocoball. Sinabi ko nga
sa kanya na wag na nyang ituloy.
Me: Ano po nangyari pagkatapos?
Santos: Hindi po ako umalis. Sinabihan ko po yung mga kasamahan ko na si
Juan yung nakabaril kay Chocoball. Hinintay kong dumating yung mga pulis.
Nung dumating na po sila, kusang loob na po akong sumama sa kanila.
Gumawa na ako ng kontra-salaysay. Kasi hindi naman po talaga ako ang
nakabaril kay Chocoball. Nagkataon po na andun ako nung nangyari yun at
pinigilan ko po talaga si Juan. Sana maibasura na po yung kaso laban sa akin.
Me: Salamat po.

Legal Advice:
After listening to the accused and reading the affidavits against him, I have
spoken with the legal counsel in this case, that because of inconsistencies
and technicalities, the accused may be and should be given bail. I have read
the affidavits of the witnesses and found some inconsistencies such as:
1) The statement was given by two- 17 year olds, both were just mere
tambays or vagrants, one of whom cannot read or write, yet the
report read like it was in a professional tone, or someone who was
learned giving a statement. Statements like: humigit-kumulang
alas

9:30

ng

gabi

ilang

sandali

lang

po

sabay

sinikmuraan pa ito these statements are made by someone

learned or whose way of speaking is that of someone from Collegiate
or University, by analysis the terms used shouldve been: pasado
9:30 na po yun / mag 9-9:30 na po yunbiglang sinuntok
pa po niya;

2) Since the statements were given by vagrants, who cannot read or

write, the written affidavits made by them should be written as
verbatim as it should;
3) The ballistics report or presence of gunpowder residue on the palms of
the accused showed negative, so he should be released based on the
evidence against him;
4) That the elements in the crime of conspiracy were not present. For the
crime to be considered as a crime of conspiracy the following, under
Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code should be present:
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. - Conspiracy and proposal
to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law
specially provides a penalty therefor.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement

concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
In the given definition given under Article 8 the Revised Penal Code,
the crime to commit conspiracy didnt materialize. From the first
sentence of Article 8 which provides: A conspiracy exists when two or
more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. The accused, did not come to an
agreement with Paras concerning the commission of the felony (which
is the shooting and eventual killing of Chocoball), and the decision to
commit it, when well in fact the accused even tried to stop the coaccused Paras from committing the same. Also, the second sentence of
said Article, which provides: A conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony

and decide to commit it. With regard to the second sentence of said
Article, both the accused DID NOT come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony. From the statement of Mr. Santos:
Hinabol ko po siya para awatin pero nabaril po niya si Chocoball, we
can surmise that he DID NOT come to an agreement concerning the
commission of the felony, rather he ran after Paras to stop him, but
Paras shot the victim.
5) That the liability of Mr. Santos for the serious crime of murder should
be extinguished, for he DID NOT shoot the victim known as Chocoball.
The results from the laboratory showed that there was no gunpowder
residue on the hands of the accused Santos. Therefore, accused Santos
should not be charged for such crime.

Conclusion:
Our legal system though pretty much the same from that of other countries,
should be on guard when it comes to technicalities. Comparing it with other
legal systems such as Koreas justice system, where by technicality a person
can go free based on just evidence alone and statements that were made
with accuracy, not just in the words of those who helped in the creation of
the written statements or reports. Even in the US justice system, the reports
and tests made should be taken into account, even by mere technicality, an
error can lead to a dismissal of a case, but as I have noticed, the tests were
not taken into account, especially the affidavits made by the witnesses, they
were inconsistent. Over all, the interview experience was great, it gave me a
sense of preparedness that when I will be in the practice of law, I know what
to do and how to properly write a report.