CARPENTER

Fracture is a 2007 film is noted for its impeccable casting of Ryan Gosling and the
magnanimous Anthony Hopkins. Set in the modern landscape of the state of alifornia! it
features the intricacies of the criminal "ustice system and ho# one scheming and $indicti$e %ed
ra#ford #as able to orchestrate the murder of his #ife and his subse&uent attempt to e$ade
liability. Gosling's character! (illiam )eachum! take on prosecuting the case in the hope of
adding another #in to increase his line of litigation successes. Ho#e$er! his ambition to claim
yet another $ictory #as foiled by the cunning machinations of ra#ford! #ho despite his lack of
"udicial e*pertise! #as able to en"oy impunity due to his careful planning of the crime he
committed.
(hile the film should be lauded for its artistic choices and praise#orthy e*ecution! it is best to
lea$e the appreciation therefor to the critics. Another area #orth looking on is the film's portrayal
of the #orkings of the criminal "ustice system! #hich deser$es e&ual attention. %he film #as
successful featuring the intricacies of the la#. )ut in so doing! it #as able to highlight age+old
dilemma in the legal system that the guilty may not at all get punished. ,n film! it #as clear that
%ed ra#ford #as the one perpetrated the murder of his #ife. Ho#e$er! in a s#ing of irony! the
la# #hich seeks "ustice #as itself the one #ho caused in"ustice.
%his paper #ill deconstruct the film using the point+of+$ie# of the legal system. ,n so doing! it #ill
try to ans#er the &uery as to #hether %ed ra#ford's culpability may be properly ad"udged
under the -hilippine -enal la#.
Propriety of the Charge
,n the film! ra#ford #as charged Attempted .urder. /nder Section 0 of the Re$ised -enal
ode! an attempt is made #hen the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or
o$er acts! and does not perform all the acts of e*ecution #hich should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident other than this o#n spontaneous desistance. ,n the film!
ra#ford #as able to perform all the acts necessary for the e*ecution of the murder. Ho#e$er!
his $ictim #as not killed for causes independent of his o#n #ill. %herefore! the it should ha$e
been Frustrated .urder. /nder the same section of the R-! it is stated that frustrated murder
is #hen the offender performs all the acts of e*ecution #hich #ould produce the felony as a
conse&uence but #hich! ne$ertheless! did not produce it by reason of causes independent to
the #ill of the perpetrator. ,t should be noted that in the film! ra#ford inflicted a fatal #ound on
his #ife #hich #as the pro*imate cause of the resulting in"ury. %he crime has already passed the
attempted stage because! it #as not the spontaneous desistance of ra#ford #hich pre$ented
the death of the $ictim.
,t is also note#orthy to glean upon the in&uiry as to #hether the crime could ha$e been
classified as one specified under Article 217 of the R-. /nder said article! any legally married
person #ho ha$ing surprised his spouse in the act of committing se*ual intercourse #ith another
person! shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter! or shall inflict
upon them any serious physical in"ury! shall suffer the penalty of destierro. %his cannot apply
because ra#ford inflicted the in"ury but not #ithin the occasion of any se*ual act bet#een his
#ife and her paramour. ,t must also be remembered that he shot his #ife hours after the bi+
#eekly rende2$ous of his #ife #ith 3unally.
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
4ue to ra#ford's careful planning! he #as able to mitigate! if not completely eliminate! the
chances of him being con$icted by controlling the e$idence that may be used against him. %he
most damning thereof is the spontaneous confession that he has gi$en to 3unally himself #ho
is also to be the in$estigating officer. 4uring trial! ra#ford #as successful in impeaching
3unally as a #itness by insinuating that his confession #as #renched from him under duress as
it #as made before an allegedly $indicti$e paramour. %he court sided #ith the former and ruled
that 3unally #as not a proper #itness by $irtue of the circumstance of the affair and
conse&uently denied admissibility of the confession under the rule of the fruit of the poisonous
tree.
%he court's ruling in this point may be erroneous. /nder the Rules of ourt! #hene$er an
accused presents an affirmati$e defense! such as the e*istence of duress! it is incumbent upon
him to present e$idence to that effect. ,n the film! no such e$idence #as presented as it #as
merely ra#ford's unsubstantiated allegations that sustained 3unally's impeachment. Ho#e$er!
due to the failure of the prosecution to present their prompt ob"ections! the ruling of the court
should be upheld.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
)ecause of 3unally's impeachment! the only e$idence that can best sustain ra#ford's
con$iction is the presentation of the murder #eapon itself. %his #as not done ho#e$er due to
the accused's cle$er concealment of the #eapon #hich turned out to be in the possession of
3unally all this time5 #ith no e$idence to be presented! ra#ford #as successful in mo$ing for
dismissal on the ground of insufficiency of e$idence. /nder -hilippine la#! a dismissal on the
ground of insufficiency of e$idence is a dismissal on the merits #hich is e&ui$alent to an
ac&uittal. %hus! first "eopardy attaches and a second prosecution is barred under the 4ouble
6eopardy rule. %he -hilippine onstitution under Article 7 Section 28 pro$ides that no person
shall be t#ice put in "eopardy of punishment for the same offense. %he Rules of ourt also
pro$ides9
Rule 887 Sec. 7. Former con$iction or ac&uittal5 double "eopardy. : (hen an
accused has been con$icted or ac&uitted! or the case against him dismissed or
other#ise terminated #ithout his e*press consent by a court of competent
"urisdiction! upon a $alid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in
form and substance to sustain a con$iction and after the accused had pleaded to the
charge! the con$iction or ac&uittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall
be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged! or for any attempt to commit
the same or frustration thereof! or for any offense #hich necessarily includes or is
necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.
Ho#e$er! the con$iction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for
an offense #hich necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or
information under any of the follo#ing instances9
;a< the gra$er offense de$eloped due to super$ening facts arising from the same act
or omission constituting the former charge5
;b< the facts constituting the gra$er charge became kno#n or #ere disco$ered only
after a plea #as entered in the former complaint or information5 or
;c< the plea of guilty to the lesser offense #as made #ithout the consent of the
prosecutor and of the offended party e*cept as pro$ided in section 8;f< of Rule 880.
,n any of the foregoing cases! #here the accused satisfies or ser$es in #hole or in
part the "udgment! he shall be credited #ith the same in the e$ent of con$iction for
the gra$er offense.
%he elements of 4ouble 6eopardy are9 ;a< $alid complaint or information5 ;b< a
competent court5 ;c< the defendant had pleaded to the charge5 and ;d< the defendant
#as ac&uitted! or con$icted! or the case against him #as dismissed or other#ise
terminated #ithout his e*press consent. ,n the case! the dismissal #as $ia a motion by
the accused himself. =rdinarily a termination of the case #ith the consent of the accused
pre$ents the entitlement to the protection of the double "eopardy rule. Ho#e$er! as #as
held by the Supreme ourt in the case of -eople $s. Acosta
i
! an appeal taken by
the -eople against an order of the ourt of First ,nstance dismissing a criminal case
upon motion of the accused after the presentation of e$idence by the prosecution should
be dismissed as such appeal if allo#ed #ould place the accused in double "eopardy.
(hile there are recogni2ed e*ceptions to the rule as pro$ided by Rule 887 Section 7! it is
clear therefrom that the second prosecution must stem out of a "udgment of
=3>,%,=3 and not a "udgment of ac&uittal. A "udgment of ac&uittal! no matter ho#
erroneous! pro$ides the accused #ith the protection against a second indictment for the
same offense.
%he Supreme ourt elucidated on the purpose of the 4ouble 6eopardy rule in this #ise
ii
9
?@#Aithout the safeguard this article establishes in fa$or of the accused! his
fortune! safety! and peace of mind #ould be entirely at the mercy of the
complaining #itness! #ho might repeat his accusation as often as dismissed by
the ourt and #hene$er he might see fit! sub"ect to no other limitation of
restriction than his o#n #ill and pleasure. %he accused #ould ne$er be free from
the cruel and constant menace of the ne$er ending charge! #hich the malice of
the complaining #itness might hold indefinitely suspended o$er his head! #ere it
not that the "udiciary is e*clusi$ely empo#ered to authori2e! by an e*press order
to that effect! the repetition of a complaint or information once dismissed in the
cases in #hich the la# re&uires that this be done. Such is! in our opinion! the
fundamental reason of the article of the la# to #hich #e refer.?
iii
,n the film! ra#ford #as ac&uitted of the charge of Attempted .urder. Ho#e$er! in light of his
subse&uent surrender of the murder #eapon and confession to )eachum! a ne# trial for murder
$ia appeal took place. /nder -hilippine la# ho#e$er! that #ill be improper. Rule 887 Section 7
clearly states that the protection of the double "eopardy rule e*tends not only to the crime
charged but also to e$ery same or similar offense arising out of the same facts. ,n the case of
.elo $s. -eople
i$
the Supreme ourt defined the phrase same offense as being construed to
mean! not only that the second offense charged is e*actly the same as the one alleged in the
first information! but also that the first and second offense are identical. %here is identity
bet#een the t#o offenses #hen the e$idence to support a $ictim for one offense #ould be
sufficient to #arrant a con$iction for the other. %his is called the ?same e$idence test.? /nder
the Rules of ourt! there is identity bet#een the t#o offenses! not only #hen the second offense
is e*actly the same as the first! but also #hen the second offense is an attempt to commit the
first! or a frustration thereof! or #hen it necessarily includes in the offense charged in the first
information. %herefore! regardless of any subse&uent de$elopment in the case! the subse&uent
murder charge is still considered as a same offense as it #as culled from the same set of facts.
/nder this "urisdiction! double "eopardy has already attached.

)ased on the foregoing! it is clear that #hile the con$iction of ra#ford could ha$e been
obtained under more desirable circumstances! the inherent errors committed by the prosecution
cannot be a shield against the 4ouble 6eopardy rule. As #as stated abo$e! regardless of the
impropriety of the "udgment of ac&uittal! "eopardy already attaches pre$enting a second
indictment for the same offense. %he framers of the onstitution! in creating such a right! may
not at all be blind to alike unfortunate cases such as that of ra#ford's #here the guilty goes
free. %hey may in $ie#ing the grand scheme of things! recogni2e that punishing the guilty in
isolated cases cannot defeat the need to protect the greater number of e&ually innocent people
#ho may not ha$e the capacity and resources to fight against a multitude of prosecution.
i
B+270C7! =ctober 2D! 8D0E
ii
6ulia $s Sotto ;2 -hil 217<
iii
ibid
iv
EC -hil 700 ;8D00<