REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 1
QUEZON CITY

People of the Philippines, plaintiffs

Versus

Christine Vole (Accused)

________________________________

Decision

At bar is the above captioned case charging the accused Christine Vole of the
crime of parricide.

In an Information charging the accused reads as follows:

“On December 4, 2020 4:30PM at the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch
1, after the acquittal of Leonard Vole in the Case of People v. Vole. Christine Vole,
shocked by the fact that her then husband Leonard Vole has supposedly met
another woman and is planning to go abroad with her. Stabbed Mr. Vole using a
Knife which was previously presented as evidence”
CONTRARY TO LAW

The accused after having been arraigned entered her respective plea of GUILTY.
On February 4, 2021, pre-trial was conducted pursuant to the provisions of the
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended by the 1988 Rules on Criminal
Procedure. The prosecution was represented by the Assistant City Prosecutor,
Jamil Mabuay.

The following proposals for admission was introduced by the Prosecution:

1. That Christine Vole who is here today is the same Christine Vole who is the
accused in these cases, which was admitted by the defense;
2. That the Honorable Court has the jurisdiction to try these cases over the
person of the accused, which was admitted by the defense;
3. That in so far as those cases are concerned, we have already presented
witnesses and we have already formally offered some documents in the
petition for bail, which were admitted by the defense;
4. That there were previous stipulations and markings insofar as the other
accused are concerned and the same be adopted as far as Christine Vole is
concerned.
5. And likewise, the testimonies of the witnesses be considered as retaken
subject to cross-examination of the same, which were admitted by the
defense.

After the trial of the case of People v. Vole. The accused and Wilfred Robarts, who
at the time was Mr. Voles' counsel were discussing the outcome of the case. The
accused then revealed that she was in fact assisting the deceased by operating as a
witness to the adverse party. The deceased then joined them in their conversation
admitting that he was in fact guilty of the crimes, then declaring that he would go
abroad with his paramour. The accused then stabbed the deceased using a bread
knife which was earlier used as evidence. Suffering a direct blow to the heart, the
deceased collapsed and bled to death from the mortal wound before any medical
assistance could arrive.

The issues proposed are as follows:

1. Whether or not Christine Vole is guilty of the crime of parricide

pursuant to article 246 of the Revised Penal Code
2. Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of passion and
obfuscation is attendant

Christine Vole, 28 years old, working as an actress and a resident of 2c Old Bailey
Condominium, London Street, Quezon City. After being sworn in testified as
follows:

Christine Vole’s testimony offered for purpose in providing the following

allegations in this court: That the deceased’s sudden declaration of leaving the
country for the purpose of eloping with his paramour incited a deep uncontrollable
rage in the accused. 2.That she had loved him enough to be willing to commit the
heinous crime of perjury in our courts.

Ruling:

Christine Vole was charged before our courts with the crime of Parricide as
follows:

“ARTICLE 246. Parricide. — Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or
child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants,
or his s​ pouse​, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of
reclusión perpetua to death.”

The accused admits that she did in fact kill her husband. However the defense
maintains that the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation as provided
in paragraph 6, article 13 of the revised penal code is attendant. In order for the
mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation to be appreciated there ​must
be an unlawful act to produce such a condition ​(Mr. Vole’s act of concubinage).
Another is that the act be far removed from the commission of the crime​,
which in the case at bar was immediately after Mr. Vole’s declaration of leaving
with his paramour. True, her love for her husband must have been so great as she
was even willing to lie in court for the sake of her husband. However the court
condemns the accused’s previous actions. Committing the heinous crime of perjury
even for the sake of her then husband. It is not a crime to be taken lightly.

Applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code which states that single indivisible
penalties must be applied to regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance attendant that single indivisible penalty shall be applied. Thus the
presence of a mitigating circumstance is inconsequential to the case at bar.

Wherefore​ in light of the foregoing circumstances, the court finds the defendant
GUILTY​ beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide as provided in the
Revised Penal Code. The Penalty of ​Reclusion Perpetua​ is hereby imposed ot the
defendant ​Christine Vole​.