Madman version FRACTURE Opens with a man making out with a woman.

Not sure if its the husband or a lover or just one night stand. Then movie shifted to a scene with a rich man obsessing himself with a weird yet impressively complicated metal piece with running balls. It seems like this man is the husband since he is too much interested with the affair of the 2 character and because he actually have a keycard to the house where the two are making out? House or hotel? Okay, now im sure he is the husband because of the confrontation. This man is a lot creepy. Looks like hes gonna kill anytime. Then he actually shoots after kissing his wife. Disgusting. Gardener heard the gunshot, approached the house to know what happened. Then Mr. old man fired 3 more shots. I do not know or understand why. Interesting turn of events, the paramour/lover is the lieutenant detective. For sure he wont be able to act professionally because of her relation to the victim. And honestly, I think it is too stupid of him to think that the real husband does not know about their affair. And why does he have to enter the house alone? Okay, theres a public attorney, a good public attorney with 97% prosecution rate. Trying to get out of his old job to get a better one with higher pay. Takes the case of this tangled story, and screw up the first time around. Old man, confesses guilt to the investigator, signed papers to attest. Waived right to counsel and waived right to prelim. Hearing. I wonder if it is allowed here in the Philippines. I mean, representing yourself to the court even if you are not a lawyer. Havent heard of anything like that. I was thinking of possible excuses/defenses: Mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation? Exempting circumstance/ exceptional circumstancelawful spouse surprises other spouse and paramour- but maybe not applicable to this because wife was shot not during the sexual act, they were only swimming when husband saw them and they were not immediately attacked, husband only shot wife when they were already at home. Aggravating circumstance of treachery because wife was caught off guard when shot. Minor offense of alarm for shooting thrice up in the air. Public attorney Ryan Gosling thought this would be an easy win case because of the confession but he was so wrong. He was surprised that lieutenant was the paramour of the victim. Confession was not admitted by court because husband said he was only forced by the detective to admit guilt. He was under duress. Thus court cannot admit confession as evidence if taken under duress. Since wife is still alive, only in coma, attempted murder or homicide. Gun cannot be traced back to defendant husband. It was not fired. No evidence to support accusation. Lawyer was approached by detective to simulate or fake the evidence available. Make it appear like it was really the accused who used it and fire it so they can win the case and put the man to jail. But lawyer refused to cheat. Ends up with no evidence at all, thus accused was released by judge. Only hope of Gosling was to wait for the victim wife to recover so they can make her a witness and directly point at the victim. But doctor told him that it is impossible. Victim might not wake

up, or even if she did, she might not remember the incident. When accused was allowed to leave jail, he decided to pull the plug, thus wife died. TRO issued against Gosling, Court order against husband was not given by Gosling on time. End of career for lawyer? Lawyer did not get the high paying job, was frustrated with the case so even if it was over already, he cant seem to move on. Continued to investigate and look for more evidences. The CCTV shots are too weak as evidence because face cannot be directly attributed to husband since he was with hat and shades. Face was not clear. While reviewing this, received a phone call from the husband, wittingly insulting him, then because of the mistaken getting of phone by the other detective with the similar phone, it occurred to him what happened. Went to husbands house, confronted him about the story, husband was proud of his seemingly beautiful effective story when he traded his gun for the gun of the detective paramour so he will walk out with the only piece of evidence without anyone suspecting. And that same gun was used by the paramour to kill himself. Revealed everything to gosling, invoking that even if Gosling now knows the truth, it is useless because the case has been closed. And he cannot be charged once more because of double jeopardy. But he was wrong, he was charged with attempted homicide before, now that his wife is dead, he can be charged anew with murder (since crime has been consummated because of death), and new evidence can be presented since it is already a new trial for a new crime.

Architect Version FRACTURE Series of events: Opens with a man making out with a woman. The man from this scene is not the womans lawful husband. The lawful husband went to the place where his wife and paramour were staying but did not do anything. After entering their room, he went out and the next scene was that he is already in the house. He had a rather peaceful conversation with her wife. Obviously, he knows about the affair already and decided to shoot the wife. Gardener heard the gunshot, approached the house to know what happened. Then Mr. old man fired 3 more shots. Interesting turn of events, the paramour/lover is the lieutenant detective. A public attorney (who is about to leave his job for a new one in a private firm) takes the case of this tangled story, and screw up the first time around. Old man, confesses guilt to the investigator, signed papers to attest. Waived right to counsel and waived right to preliminary Hearing. Possible defenses based on Philippine laws: Mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation? Exempting circumstance/ exceptional circumstance- lawful spouse surprises other spouse and paramour- but maybe not applicable to this because wife was shot not during the sexual act, they were only swimming when husband saw them and they were not immediately attacked, husband only shot wife when they were already at home. Aggravating circumstance of treachery because wife was caught off guard when shot. Minor offense of alarm for shooting thrice up in the air. Public attorney Ryan Gosling thought this would be an easy win case because of the confession but he was so wrong. He was surprised that lieutenant was the paramour of the victim. Confession was not admitted by court because husband said he was only forced by the detective to admit guilt. He was under duress. Thus court cannot admit confession as evidence if taken under duress. Since wife is still alive, only in coma, attempted murder or homicide. Gun cannot be traced back to defendant husband. It was not fired. The CCTV shots are too weak as evidence because face cannot be directly attributed to husband since he was with hat and shades. Face was not clear. Only hope of atty. was to wait for the victim wife to recover so they can make her a witness and directly point at the victim. But doctor told him that it is impossible. Thus there is no evidence to support accusation. Ends up with no evidence at all, accused was released by judge. When accused was allowed to leave jail, he decided to pull the plug, thus wife died. Lawyer was frustrated with the case so even if the accused was acquitted already, he stayed fixated. Continued to investigate and look for more evidences. While reviewing the case, received a phone call from the husband, wittingly insulting him, then because of the mistaken getting of phone by the other detective with the similar phone. Went to accuseds house, confronted him about the story, husband was proud of his seemingly beautiful effective story when he traded his gun for the gun of the detective paramour so he will walk out with the only piece of evidence without anyone suspecting. And that same gun was used by the paramour to kill himself. Revealed everything to gosling, invoking that even if Gosling now knows the truth, it is useless because the case has been closed. And he cannot be charged once more because of double jeopardy. But he was wrong, he was charged with attempted homicide before, now that

his wife is dead, he can be charged anew with murder (since crime has been consummated because of death), and new evidence can be presented since it is already a new trial for a new crime.

Carpenter Version FRACTURE A man was making love with a woman whom he does not know quite well. He didnt even know her last name. On the other hand, an old man who seems to work/own an aviation company was obsessing himself with a metal piece with complicated structure, where balls glide gracefully uninterrupted. This man went to the place where the man and the woman are making out. Walked into the place unnoticed and posses his own key card for the room. He saw the two in the pool but did not do anything. He went on with his day, went home early and met his wife there. The wife was surprised because her husband was home early. The woman- his wife, is the same woman who was making out with another man on the first scene. They had a rather peaceful yet bothering confrontation, the husband seemed to hint on the wife that he knows she is having an affair, but tried not to delve into the details. Thereafter, he fired a gun at her wife, causing her to fall and bleed, which was heard by the gardener. The house was surrounded by policemen, and surprisingly enough, one of the detectives who will negotiate with the old man is the wifes paramour. But at this point, the detective was clueless that his lover was the victim and that the lawful husband knew about their affair. When he saw the woman, he was very emotional and attacked the lawful husband. Mr. Crawford waived his right to counsel and opted to represent himself. He also waived his right to a pre-trial, thus, the court proceeded to the regular trial. Atty. Beachum, was about to leave his post as a public attorney and transfer to a private law firm, which promises a better pay and a brighter career when he got this new case. Thinking it was an easy win case because of the allegedly signed confession of guilt of the accused, he accepted the job. Unfortunately, the signed confession was not admitted by the court as evidence because it was alleged to be a fruit of the poisonous tree when Mr. Crawford alleged that he only did that because he was forced by the detective, who was his wifes paramour. The judge said that they cannot admit evidences if it was taken out of duress. Also, one of the primary evidence, the gun used against the victim cannot be found. The gun available for investigation did not reveal any sign that it was fired. Clearly, this was not the gun used by the accused against the victim. As for the video in the place where the wife and the paramour stayed and the accused was seen prior to the incident, it cannot be used as evidence either because it is not conclusive that it was really the accused who was on that video. The accused on the video was wearing a hat and a pair of sunglasses, which in turn makes his face a bit covered to be fully recognized. The only other option of Atty. Beachum as witness is the victim herself. However, the doctors told him that there is very little chance of the victim getting any better. And even if she be alive, theres a very slim chance that she can actually remember the tragic incident.

There being no evidence to use against the accused, he was allowed to freely go and the case was dismissed. As a result, the lawyer did not get his new job and almost got kicked out of his old job. Although he was frustrated with the result of the case, he did not give up. He continued investigating and suddenly, the very secret of this messed up case occurred to him. Upon watching the hotel video over and over again, together with the files and pictures gathered in the two tragic incidents ( the shooting against the wife and the suicide of the paramour), he found out that the gun of the accused and that of the detective paramour were intentionally interchanged by the accused himself. That was his very purpose of going to the place where his wife and the paramour stayed. Atty. Beachum went to Mr. Crawfords house immediately that night. He went there to directly tell the man that he already figured out everything. Mr. Crawford, unmoved and not surprised, boasted about his beautiful scheme. While he admitted to doing everything purposefully and strategically to ensure impunity, he was confident that Atty. Beachums findings are no longer useful because he has been acquitted already and that charging him once more will violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. However, the good lawyer had already thought of this situation and was very sure that the idea of double jeopardy shall not apply now that the wife is dead. He argued that Mr. Crawford was charged with attempted murder when he was acquitted. However, now that the wife is already dead, he can be charged with homicide or murder, which is a different case, thus his acquittal on the former charge will not anyway affect the new trial.

Judge Version FRACTURE Theodore Crawford was lawfully married to Jennifer Crawford. Mrs. Crawford was having an affair with a police detective named Robert Nunally. Mr. Crawford was spotted in the place where his wife and the paramour Nunally were staying. He walked into the place unnoticed and immediately left after entering the hotel room of his wife and Nunally. The accused went on with his day, went home early and waited for Jennifer to arrive. The wife was surprised because her husband was home early. They had a rather peaceful yet bothering confrontation. The husband seemed to hint on the wife that he knows she is having an affair, but tried not to delve into the details. Thereafter, he fired a gun at her wife, causing her to fall and bleed, which was heard by the gardener. Immediately thereafter, policemen surrounded the house. Police detective Nunally went to the place to be the lead negotiator. At this point, the detective was clueless that his lover was the victim and that the lawful husband knew about their affair. When he saw the body of Jennifer lying on floor with blood, he was very emotional and immediately attacked the lawful husband. Mr. Crawford was charged with attempted homicide but waived his right to counsel and opted to represent himself. He also waived his right to a pre-trial, thus, the court proceeded to the regular trial. On the other hand, Atty. William Beachum, was about to leave his post as a district attorney, when he got this new case. Thinking it was an easy win case because of the allegedly signed confession of guilt of the accused, he accepted the job. Unfortunately, the signed confession was not admitted by the court as evidence because Mr. Crawford alleged that he only did that because he was forced by the detective, who was his wifes paramour. As a result, the evidence cannot be considered because it was supposedly taken out of duress. Also, one of the primary evidences, the gun used against the victim, cannot be found. The gun available for investigation did not reveal any sign that it was fired. Clearly, this was not the gun used by the accused against the victim. As for the video of the place where the wife and the paramour stayed and the accused was seen prior to the incident, it cannot be used as evidence either because it is not conclusive that it was really the accused who was on that video. The accused on the video was wearing a hat and a pair of sunglasses, which in turn makes the face a bit covered and difficult to recognize. The only other option for Atty. Beachum as witness is the victim herself. However, the doctors told him that there is a very little chance of the victim getting any better. And even if she be alive, there is a very slim chance that she can actually remember the tragic incident. There being no evidence to use against the accused, he was allowed to freely go and the case was dismissed.

Even after the acquittal, Atty. Beachum, continued investigating and suddenly, the very secret of this messed up case occurred to him. Upon watching the hotel video over and over again, together with the files and pictures gathered in the two tragic incidents (the shooting against the wife and the suicide of the paramour), he found out that the gun of the accused and that of the detective paramour were intentionally interchanged by the accused himself. That was his very purpose of going to the place where his wife and the paramour stayed. Atty. Beachum went to Mr. Crawfords house immediately that night of realization. He went there to directly tell the man that he already figured out everything. Mr. Crawford, unmoved and not surprised, boasted about his beautiful scheme. While he admitted to doing everything purposefully and strategically to ensure impunity, he was confident that Atty. Beachums findings are no longer useful because he has been acquitted already and that charging him once more will violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. However, the good lawyer had already thought of this situation and was very sure that the idea of double jeopardy shall not apply now that the wife is dead. He argued that Mr. Crawford was charged with attempted murder when he was acquitted. However, now that the wife is already dead, he can be charged with homicide or murder, which is a different case, thus his acquittal on the former charge will not, in any way, affect the new trial. The issue now to be resolved is whether or not Mr. Crawford can be charged anew with the crime of murder even after his acquittal on the first case. Article III Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution states that No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. However, In Melo vs. People, 85 Phil. 766, the Court held that "where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is responsible, which changes the character of the offense and, together with the facts existing at a time, constitutes a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the second offense." Also, in the case of People vs. City Court of Manila, Branch XI, G.R. No. L- 36342, April 27, 1983, it was stated that Well-settled is the rule that one who has been charged with an offense cannot be charged again with the same or identical offense though the latter be lesser or greater than the former. However, as held in the case of Melo vs. People, supra, the rule of Identity does not apply when the second offense was not in existence at the time of the first prosecution, for the reason that in such case there is no possibility for the accused, during the first prosecution, to be convicted for an offense that was then inexistent In the case at bar, Mr. Crawford cannot invoke his right against being put in double jeopardy because he was only acquitted of attempted murder on the first case. When his wife died and new set of evidences arose, nothing can bar the state for prosecuting him for a higher offense, which is the crime of murder.

FRACTURE (Madman, Architect, Carpenter and Judge Versions)

Submitted to: Atty. Ulpiano Ulan Sarmiento III

Submitted by: Cyndymhae V. Yumang Section 1-G