Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mock Trial Script PDF
Mock Trial Script PDF
Frustrated Murder
People vs. Benedito
CHARACTERS:
Hyacinth Santilices – Prosecution Counsel
Efren Fagtanac – Prosecution Counsel
Jedamica Mae Delos Santos – Complainant
Jim Dorozan – Boyfriend of the Complainant (Prosecution Witness)
Dr. Dingle – Expert Witness
Ronilo Subaan – Defense Counsel
Rabino – Defense Counsel
Marielle Benedito - Accused
Dr. Cherie Naomi Garcia – Expert Witness
Phoelvie Tulio – Officemate of Complainant (Defense Witness)
Gillian Torlao – Judge
Ma. Fatima Lim – Court Clerk
Jay-r Berida – Court Stenographer
Aquino, Mark - Narrator
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Narrator: Greetings Everyone! My name is Mark Aquino, the narrator of this group. We are happy that all of us gathered here. We would
like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who take part of our Mock trial especially to our Professor, Mr. Antonio Torres who taught
us what we need to learn in case we testify in the near future, to other professors who are present today, for giving us additional
knowledge on the related subjects and for supporting us. Lastly to our classmates and casts who made this Mock trial possible. Before
we start I would like to introduce our casts….
Narrator: Today, we are presenting our case: CRIMINAL CASE NO. 24689 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. MARIELLE BENEDITO. This
is the short storyline, Ms. Marielle and Ms. Jedamica are bestfriends and they were living in a same apartment. Ms. Benedito (the accused)
is madly inlove with Jim Dorozan which is Ms. Delos Santos’ fiancée. Because of that Ms. Marielle developed extreme jealousy towards
Ms. Jedamica which made her wanting to kill her by poisoning. You will witness how both parties defend their stand and see what will
be the verdict. Is it conviction or acquittal? On the first part, of our mock trial shows the Arraignment and Plea of the accused.
Clerk of Court: For arraignment, Criminal Case No. 24689 People of the Philippines v. Benedito for the crime of Frustrated Murder.
Appearance for prosecution and the defense counsel.
Prosecution Attorney: Your honor, I am Atty. Hyacinth Santilices (and atty. Efren Fagtanac) appearing as a prosecutor under the direct
control and supervision of the public prosecutor.
Judge: Do you have a lawyer or do you want the court to appoint a lawyer?
Judge: Atty. Ronilo Subaan and Atty. Rabino will be appointed as the lawyer for the accused.
Clerk of court: Criminal case No. 24689. People of the Philippines vs. Benedito.
On September 17, 2017, at about 6 PM, Ms. Delos Santos (the victim) with her fiancée Jim Dorozan was conducting a party as
celebration for their engagement in the apartment. On the said party, Ms. Delos Santos lost consciousness and taken to the hospital. The
findings of the doctor said Ms. Delos Santos ingested a cyanide-contained-substance a kind poison. According to Ms. Delos Santos she
ingested the grape juice and coffee given by Ms. Benedito during the day which was said that contained the poison.
Judge: Let it be on the record that the accused pleaded not guilty for the crime of frustrated murder. The information was read to him
in English, a language known and understood by the accused. Also, Atty. Subaan the defense counsel of the accused assisted him in this
arraignment.
Atty. Santilices: Your honor, we would like to set the case for trial on October 19, 2017.
Judge: Ok set the trial of the case on October 19, 2017. We only have one case for today?
Judge: In today’s trial, the arraignment of Benedito in Criminal Case No. 24689 is conducted. The information is read to him in English a
language known and understood by him. Defense counsel Atty. Ronilo Subaan and Atty. Rabino assisted the accused. The accused
pleaded not guilty for the crime charged against her.
No objections both for prosecution and defense, the case is set for trial on October 19, 2017. Notify the parties thereto. So ordered.
PROSECUTION
TRIAL
Clerk of Court: Please rise. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 130, is now in session, the Honorable Judge Gillian Torlao presiding.
Judge: Members of the prosecution, your duty today will be to determine whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty based only on
facts and evidence provided in this case. The prosecution must prove that a crime was committed and that the defendant is the person
who committed the crime. However, if you are not satisfied of the defendant’s guilt to that extent, then reasonable doubt exists and the
defendant must be found not guilty. Ms. Ma. Fatima Lim, what is today’s case?
Clerk of Court: Your Honor, today’s case is the Criminal Case No. 24689 People of the Philippines versus Benedito.
Judge: We will now hear the opening statements from the prosecution. Prosecutor Hyacinth Santilices please state your case.
Prosecutor: Thank you, your honor. Ladies and gentlemen, My name is Atty. Hyacinth P. Santilices and my assistant Atty. Efren Fagtanac
. On behalf of our State, We want to thank you for being here today. Under our criminal justice system, citizens charged with certain
crimes are entitled to have their case heard by a jury of their peers – people just like you. We are all grateful that you recognize your
civic duty and are willing to set aside you personal priorities to be here.
As you have heard, the defendant has been charged with the crime of frustrated murder. On September 17, 2017, at about 6 PM, Ms.
Delos Santos (the victim) with her fiancée Jim Dorozan was conducting a party as celebration for their engagement in the apartment. On
the said party, Ms. Delos Santos lost consciousness and taken to the hospital. The findings of the doctor said Ms. Delos Santos ingested
a cyanide-contained-substance a kind poison. According to Ms. Delos Santos she ingested the grape juice and coffee given by Ms.
Benedito during the day which was said that contained the poison. And while the defense will try to convince you that the defendant did
not know the poison contained in the beverage, the State will provide convincing arguments that he/she not only knew the poison but
also it was also given to Ms. Delos Santos and intentionally and with strong motive to kill her. Thank you.
Defense Lawyer: Your Honor, I am Atty. Ronilo Subaan and my assistant Atty. Rabino, We too would like to thank you for being here
today. Let me start with a very simple statement; under the law my client is presumed innocent until proven guilty. My clients have no
knowledge regarding the beverage that contained the poison. We will show later on our evidence that Ms. Delos Santos was attempting
to commit suicide since she has depression from the tragic she had in the past and having the hard time to get over with it. With this,
my client is innocent. As the State’s Attorney mentioned, please keep in mind that the burden of proof falls on the State. If at the end of
the trial you have any reasonable doubt in the State’s case, then you should find my client is not guilty. Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth in this case?
WITNESS: Jedamica Mae Delos Santos, 28 years of age, single, a Certified Public Accountant of the Accounting Division of Nestle
Philippines and a resident of Unit 143 Astral Apartment Padre Faura St. Ermita, Manila.
PROSECUTOR FAGTANAC: The witness is being presented to testify on the fact that the accused bought the rat killer and that the
substance that poisoned her was from the grapefruit juice which the accused prepared. May we proceed Your Honor?
JUDGE: Proceed.
Q: Jedamica Mae Delos Santos, will you please tell on this Honorable court where you were on September 17, 2017 at around 8 o’clock
in the morning?
A: I was in our apartment at Unit 143 Astral Apartment Padre Faura St. Ermita, Manila.
Q: I am showing to you this document previously marked as Exhibit A. Please go over this document and tell this Honorable Court if this
is the lease agreement you are referring to.
A: Yes, this document is the lease agreement.
Q: Whose signature is this above the printed name Jedamica Mae Delos Santos which is appearing on page 2 of this contract of lease?
A: My signature, sir.
Q: And this signature belongs to whom? (PROSECUTOR FAGTANAC pointing at the right portion of the document)
A: Our lessor, Mr. Bembo Bonapos.
PROSECUTOR FAGTANAC: Which for purposes of identification, Your Honor, I would like to request the marking of the signature appearing
above the printed name of Jedamica Mae Delos Santos as Exhibit A-1.
PROSECUTOR FAGTANAC: And the signature appearing above the printed name of Bembo Bonapos as the lessor be marked as Exhibit
A-2.
PROSECUTOR FAGTANAC: We would also like to request for the marking of stipulation no.8 in this lease agreement as Exhibit A-3.
Q: If that pitcher containing the grapefruit juice will be shown to you, will you be able to recognize it? (lawyer takes the pitcher showing
it to the victim)
A: Yes, that’s the one.
PROSECUTOR FAGTANAC: For the record, the pitcher, previously marked as Exhibit B was recognized by the victim as the pitcher
containing the grapefruit juice prepared by the accused for the complainant.
JUDGE: Sustained.
Q: So, if the accused is inside this courtroom, would you be able to identify and point to her?
A: Yes, Sir. (Victim pointed to the accused.) There.
JUDGE: Cross?
Q: And during what months did the lessor conduct these pest control measures?
A: February, May, August, and November of every year, Your Honor.
Q: Miss Witness, you testified that in cleaning the dirty kitchen, you used a rat poison to kill the rats there. Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: You did not use any gloves to protect your hands or your skin?
A: No, Your Honor.
Q: Miss Witness, did you know that a rat poison could also poison humans if accidentally swallowed?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: So, even if you knew that, you still did not use any protection for your hands?
A: Yes, because I planned to wash my hands after I cleaned the dirty kitchen.
Q: Not right after you put the poison into the rice, as you have said earlier?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: You testified that you drank the grapefruit juice. What was the color of the juice?
A: Yellow.
Q: Bitter?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
ATTY. SUBAAN: Did you not wonder why the juice was bitter?
A: No, Your Honor. The grapefruit juice really has a slight bitter taste, perhaps because it was so sour.
Q: You testified that before the accused left the house, she told you not to forget to drink the juice. Has she done this even before the
incident happened?
A: Yes, Your Honor. Both of us used to do that. We often leave food and drinks for each other.
Q: So, when she told you not to forget to drink the juice, it was nothing new to you, because both of you had that habit.
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: You testified that at 3 pm on September 17, 2017 you met with the accused at a coffee shop. When you were with the accused, did
you notice anything different about her?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Were you not really tired after cleaning the entire house?
A: Yes, I was quite tired, Your Honor.
Q: You also said that at the party you felt nauseous, and then you vomited and fell to the floor. Is that right?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: When you were already at the floor, were you still conscious?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: So you cannot see clearly at the time you fell to the ground?
A: Yes, because I was so dizzy.
Q: So you cannot possibly say that Marielle was really smiling when she held you?
A: I’m not sure Your Honor.
Q: Is this document the record of the treatment you went through under Dr. Cherie Naomi Garcia? (Atty. Subaan showing the summary
discharge report to the complainant)
A: Yes, Your Honor
ATTY. SUBAAN: For the record, the complainant has identified Exhibit 1 which was previously marked as Summary Discharge Report at
the Medical Center Manila.
Q: Miss Witness, did anything happen before you visited your psychiatrist?
A: I committed suicide.
JUDGE: Re-direct?
PROSECUTOR FAGTANAC: No, Your Honor. We will call on our next witness.
JUDGE: Miss Witness, You may step down. Call your next witness.
COURT CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth in this case?
WITNESS: Jim Dorozan, 30 years of age, single, head security officer of the Security Services Division of Nestle Philippines and a resident
of 299 Aguado St. San Miguel Quiapo, Manila.
PROSECUTOR SANTILICES: This witness, Your Honor, Jim Dorozan is presented to testify on the fact that the accused secretly fell in
love and could possibly be obsessed with him and may likewise began to hate the complainant secretly. May we proceed, Your Honor?
JUDGE: Proceed.
Judge: Sustained.
Q: Whenever you visit the complainant in their apartment, are there any persons around?
A: Yes, sometimes, Marielle was there.
Q: When you visit the complainant during weekend, was the complainant always there?
A: Not always, Your Honor.
Q: What do you mean when you said that the complainant was not always there?
A: She’s not there because she went out.
Q: Mr. Witness, what do you do whenever you visit the complainant at their apartment and she is not around?
A: I wait for her to come back, Your Honor.
Q: You said earlier that whenever the complainant is not around during your visit, Marielle was at the apartment, is that right?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: So there were times that only you and the accused were in the apartment, while you were waiting for the complainant?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: What transpires whenever you and the accused are alone in the apartment?
A: The accused flirts with me, Your Honor.
Q: What do you mean when you said she was flirting with you?
A: She wears revealing clothes, she says “I love you” jokingly, mga ganun.
Q: What do you tell the accused every time she flirts with you?
A: I don’t mind her jokes.
Q: Why?
A: Because I told her a few times about it.
Q: Mr. Witness, please examine this text message, and tell the court if you recognize it?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Why do you recognize it?
A: Because I received that text message from the accused on August 15, 2017.
Q: This text message purports to have been sent by the person owning this mobile number, 09452328879. Do you recognize the person
who owned this number?
A: Yes, that is the mobile number of the accused, Your Honor.
PROSECUTOR SANTILICES: Your Honor, for the record, these text messages appearing on the screen of the mobile phone of Mr. Dorozan,
previously marked as Exhibit C has been identified by the witness.
PROSECUTOR SANTILICES: This document is the printed copy of the text messages contained in the mobile phone of Mr. Dorozan. We
would like to request that it be marked as Exhibit C-1.
Q: How often does she send you this kind of text messages?
A: Almost everyday, Your Honor.
JUDGE: Cross?
Q: You also testified that Ms. Benedito sent you threatening text messages. What is you proof that it was indeed my client who sent you
those messages?
A: I am sure Your Honor because I am familiar with the way she constructs her messages.
Q: Mr. Witness, does the complainant use your mobile phone in sending text messages to her friends?
A: Yes, sometimes…
Q: How about you? Are there times when you borrow the complainant’s cellular phone?
A: Yes, there are times I use her phone.
Q: So, is it possible that Ms. Benedito’s phone has also been borrowed by someone else and it was not her who sent you those text
messages?
A: Yes… it’s possible. But Your Honor I’m really sure she was the one who sent me those messages.
JUDGE: Re-direct?
PROSECUTOR FAGTANAC: No, Your Honor. We will call on our last witness.
COURT CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth in this case?
WITNESS: Yes.
WITNESS: Dr. Reynier Dingle, 28 years of age, single, emergency physician and a resident of Robinsons Tower, Padre Faura St., Ermita,
Manila.
PROSECUTOR SANTILICES: This witness, Your Honor, Dr. Reynier Dingle, will testify on the findings in the medico-legal report prepared
by him to prove the following: (i) that the effective cause of the complainant’s condition is chemical poisoning; (ii) that the dose taken
by the complainant is necessarily fatal; and (iii) that the possible source of the cyanide poison is the grape fruit juice prepared by the
accused. May we proceed, Your Honor?
JUDGE: Proceed.
Q: You declared that you are a doctor of medicine, Dr. Dingle, where did you finish your medical degree?
A: Emilio Aguinaldo College, United Nations Avenue, Manila.
Q: Since you became a licensed physician, have you attended seminars and undertaken training in connection with the practice of
medicine? When and where?
A: Yes. I have attended several training seminars on emergency medicine held here and abroad. In fact, I have also been invited as a
guest speaker to give special lectures on modern medical toxicology and the medico-legal aspect of poisoning. To name a few: One of
the international medical conferences I’ve attended was in Switzerland last September 2017 called Poisoning and Drug Overdose by Dr.
Barry Rumack and Dr. Allan Hall who were internationally recognized experts in internal medicine. Another would be the one held just
last January in Florida, USA entitled Emergency Medicine: Practicing According to the Evidence.
Q: How many medico legal cases so far have you testified? What kind of medico legal cases have you testified?
A: For the past 5 years, around two hundred (200) cases. Mostly homicide and murder cases involving food and chemical poisoning,
medical malpractice cases and industrial and vehicular accidents.
Q: Do you recall having attended on one Jedamica Mae Delos Santos at the Philippine General Hospital?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you recall how many days was she confined to the hospital?
A: She was confined for one week.
Q: After her discharge, did you require her to still see you for further medications?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Why?
A: I advised the patient to have a follow-up within 7 to 10 days after discharge to reevaluate and monitor for onset of delayed neurologic
manifestations.
Q: So Doctor, we are assured that the patient, complainant herein, is in a healthy state of mind?
A: Yes.
Q: Attached to the record of the case is a Medico Legal Report issued by one Dr. Reynier Dingle, is this the one you are referring to?
(Exhibit D)
A: Yes.
PROSECUTOR SANTILICES: For the record, the witness has identified the document previously marked as Exhibit D as the Medico Legal
Report issued by Dr. Reynier Dingle.
Q: There is a signature above the typewritten name Dr. Reynier Dingle, do you know whose signature is this doctor?
A: It is my signature.
PROSECUTOR SANTILICES: I respectfully request Your Honor, that the signature appearing in Exhibit D be marked as Exhibit D-1.
Q: Doctor, please read this particular entry. (Witness reading a portion of the medico legal report)
A: The patient came in the emergency room stretcher-borne, unconscious and in respiratory distress. Her vital signs then were: Blood
pressure 80/50 mmHg, Cardiac rate of 50 beats per minute, Respiratory Rate of 12 cycles per minute and temperature of 37.8 degree
Celsius. Patient’s skin was flushed.
Q: Could you please explain this finding in more simple terms for an ordinary person to understand?
A: The patient clearly was in an unstable condition, or in a very critical condition, warranting an immediate medical intervention, constant
monitoring for any sign of deterioration and further evaluation.
Q: Why is the condition of Jedamica Mae Delos Santos attributable to poisoning rather than to disease or some natural cause? Were tests
conducted confirming the existence of poisoning?
A: We did Toxin Screening with the patient’s blood. It revealed the presence of trace amounts of cyanide in the blood, and since cyanide
is not normally found in our blood and considering its chemical nature, it is poisonous.
Q: So you are saying that the actual or effective cause of the condition of the patient is…?
A: Chemical poison, which is harmful to the body or deadly to humans.
Q: Did the symptoms which appear resemble the typical symptoms of poisoning by the alleged poison?
A: Yes. The symptoms of cyanide poisoning are headache, nausea, vomiting, generalized body weakness, loss of consciousness, flushed
skin, and unstable vital signs – all of which are present in this case.
JUDGE: Sustained
Q: Would you please tell the Court what it was exactly that Miss Benedito told you?
A: The informant told me that during their coffee break on the day of the incident, the food intake of the patient consisted of tuna
sandwich, fresh green salad, green tea frappuccino, and during the party, she drank coke zero.
Q: Now, my question to you is: Is it possible Doctor that a grape fruit juice can be a source of the cyanide poison?
JUDGE: Sustained.
A: Actually, during the confinement of the patient in the hospital for one week, said patient mentioned to me that she also drank grape
fruit juice. It is possible that the grape fruit juice could be the source of cyanide considering that she ingested the same 3 hours before
the onset of symptoms.
Q: In your opinion, was the dose taken by the victim necessarily fatal?
A: An analysis of the patient’s blood would tell us the amount or level of cyanide in the blood. The patient’s blood was found to have 1.5
mg/dL cyanide content. Based from this definitive finding, I can extrapolate that the amount ingested by the patient is lethal or fatal.
PROSECUTOR SANTILICES: I will show you a document, previously marked as Exhibit E. This is the Toxicology Report from the NBI on
the results of their chemical analyses of the sample taken from the grape fruit juice in the pitcher and of the sample taken from the
rodenticide or rat killer, Rat-A-Rest, found in the apartment of the complainant and accused.
JUDGE: Cross?
Q: Doctor, when does ingestion of the cyanide poison cause the onset of symptoms of cyanide poisoning?
A: Patients who ingest potentially fatal amounts may not develop life-threatening symptomatology for up to 1 to 2 hours following
exposure.
Q: The patient-complainant also testified that she drank two glasses of the alleged source of the poison – the grape fruit juice – at around
2:45 pm and the onset of the symptoms of cyanide poisoning was about 6:00 pm. Thus, 3 hours had lapsed from the ingestion of the
alleged source (grape fruit juice) before the symptoms developed, am I right?
A: Yes.
Q: But you also said that symptoms of cyanide poisoning are expected to develop 1 to 2 hours following ingestion?
A: Yes.
Q: If that’s the case, don’t you think there is an inconsistency of the duration of ingestion and onset of symptoms between the patient’s
actual case and the established scientific findings of cyanide poisoning? With this, does it not mean that the condition of the patient
cannot be attributed to cyanide poisoning but to some other cause?
A: Yes. That is possible.
Q: Doctor, about the source of the poison, you only said possible sources, right?
A: Yes.
Q: That the grape fruit juice is just one possible source of the cyanide poison?
A: Yes.
Q: And that there are other possible sources of the cyanide as well?
A: Yes.
Q: So, is it safe to conclude, Doctor, that the cyanide poison may have come from another source considering that for that day, the
patient’s food intake comprised of different food and beverages?
A: Yes, that is possible.
Q: Are you aware of the history of said patient, that she had at one time in the past, attempted to end her life due to depression?
A: Yes.
Q: That she has a history of one previous suicidal attempt one year from the date of the incident?
A: Yes.
Q: In your opinion, is said fact relevant to the determination of the cause of the symptoms?
A: Yes. History of any previous suicidal attempts, history of the patient’s mental condition and history of business, marital and social
failures are taken into consideration in cases of poisoning.
Q: Is it safe to conclude then that it is possible that the poisoning is attributable to suicide?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE: Re-direct?
Q: Could you explain to the court what you mean by that Doctor?
A: Even though the normal duration is 1 to 2 hours, there are some cases in which the signs and symptoms of cyanide poisoning in a
patient may be delayed and appear beyond the normal duration. In the case of the patient Miss Manarang, there was a one-hour delay
of appearance of symptoms because as confirmed in her lab tests, her body produces abnormal amounts of sulfur and as I’ve mentioned
earlier, when there is more sulfur in the body, the cyanide detoxification in the body is hastened, thus, the serious toxic effects of cyanide
will be diminished. Lastly, the food intake of the patient may possibly contribute to such effect.
JUDGE: Re-cross?
JUDGE: Proceed
PROSECUTOR SANTILICES:
Exhibit A is the Contract of Lease being offered to prove that there is a stipulation on the quarterly conduct of pest control
measures by the lessor.
Exhibit A-1 and A-2 are the signatures of Jedamica Mae Delos Santos as lessee and Rhandell Matuloy as lessor to prove that
these two persons were the contracting parties to the lease agreement.
Exhibit A-3 is the stipulation regarding the pest control measures to prove that the lessor undertakes to conduct the quarterly
pest control measures.
Exhibit B is the pitcher from which a sample was taken and subjected to chemical analysis for the purpose of proving the fact
that the source of poison was the grapefruit juice prepared by the accused contained in the pitcher.
Exhibit C consists of text messages to prove that the accused nurtured feelings for the complainant’s boyfriend.
Exhibit C-1 consists of printed copies of the text messages to corroborate to the fact that the accused had been sending several
text messages to the complainant’s boyfriend to manifest her obsession.
Exhibit D is the Medico Legal Report issued by Dr. Reynier Dingle to prove the following: (i) that the effective cause of the
complainant’s condition is chemical poisoning; (ii) that the dose taken by the complainant is necessarily fatal; and (iii) that the possible
source of cyanide poison is the grapefruit juice prepared by the accused.
Exhibit D-1 is the signature of Dr. Reynier Dingle to be a part of his testimony that he was the attending physician of the
complainant.
Exhibit E is the Toxicology Report of the National Bureau of Investigation to prove the chemical analysis of the sample taken
from the pitcher for qualitative and quantitative determination of the poison.
Exhibit F is the Box of Rat Killer to prove the source of the poison which was bought by the accused.
ATTY. SUBAAN:
As to Exhibits A, A-1, A-2 and A-3 we admit the existence and authenticity, Your Honor.
As to Exhibits C and C-1, we can only admit as to the existence of the text messages but not its authenticity.
As to Exhibit D and D-1, we admit the existence and authenticity, Your Honor.
JUDGE: Acting on the formal offer of exhibits of the prosecutor and comments thereon by the defense counsel, the Court resolves to
admit all the exhibits offered by the defense counsel specified in the offer.
DEFENSE
JUDGE: Proceed.
COURT CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth in this case?
WITNESS: Yes Ma’am.
WITNESS: I am Dr. Cherie Naomi Garcia, 35 years old, single, a licensed psychiatrist at the Psychiatry Department, Medical Center Manila,
and a resident of 123 Krusada St. Quaipo, Manila.
ATTY. SUBAAN: Your Honor, the witness is presented to testify on the medical records of the complainant who underwent several
counseling sessions under her supervision and to prove the mental and emotional instability of the complainant. May we proceed, Your
Honor?
JUDGE: Proceed.
Q: When were you admitted to the practice of medicine?
A: In 1995, Your Honor.
Q: Doctor, what procedures or tests did you conduct on the complainant during the consultation?
A: I conducted physical examinations. I asked her to tell something about her, her work, her family, and other personal relationships. I
just listened to whatever she said. While she was talking, I observed her demeanor, the way she spoke, and her gestures.
Q: What did you notice about the complainant while she was talking to you?
A: At first, the patient was apparently normal. But when she began talking about her family, particularly her parents, she began to sob,
and then she cried. Her hands were trembling. She blamed herself for the death of her parents.
Q: What matters were revealed to you by the complainant in the course of the consultation?
A: The physical examinations revealed sleeping apnea, insomnia, hypertension, and migraines.
Q: Did you talk to anyone else regarding the patient’s emotional condition?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Doctor, from the examinations and observations, what did you conclude about the complainant’s condition?
A: The patient from suffered from single episode depression.
Q: What made you conclude that the patient was suffering from this condition?
A: The symptoms of SED, which include insomnia, loss of appetite, which may, or may not lead to weight loss, mood swings and hypnotic
spells, matched with the results of the patient’s physical examination.
Q: And what methods or procedures did you use to treat the patient?
A: I conducted supportive counseling, Your Honor.
Q: Will you tell this Honorable Court what supportive counseling meant?
A: Supportive counseling helps ease the pain of depression and addresses the feeling of hopelessness that accompanies the depression.
In the case of the patient, I talk to her about what happened to her during the past week. If the patient mentioned a negative event, I
ask her what she felt, why she felt that way and how she should have viewed the negative situation.
Q: The medical findings that you had on the complainant, were these reduced into writing?
A: Yes, Your Honor, I have made a psychiatric assessment on the medical findings.
Q: Does this document have any relation to the report that you have prepared? (Showing the psychiatric assessment)
A: That is the report that I have prepared, Your Honor.
ATTY. SUBAAN: For the record, the witness has identified this document previously marked as Exhibit 2 as the psychiatric assessment
record of Jedamica Mae Delos Santos.
Q: In the last page of this document, there appears a signature. Whose signature is this, Miss Witness?
A: That is my signature, Your Honor.
ATTY. SUBAAN: I respectfully request, Your Honor, that the signature appearing in this document be marked as Exhibit 2-A.
Q: Doctor, when the complainant was discharged, what was her condition?
A: There was an improvement in her condition in general, although she is not completely stable yet.
Q: Do you mean to say, Doctor, that the patient’s condition may recur?
A: If unguarded, Your Honor.
Q: Unguarded…?
A: If the patient does not follow the treatment plan, the possibility of relapse is high.
Q: Do you mean to say, Doctor, that, in the case of the complainant, there is a possibility of a relapse, considering she did not return to
you for further treatment?
A: Yes, Your Honr.
JUDGE: Cross?
Q: What made you conclude that the patient was emotionally stable?
A: During our last counseling session, there were no longer signs of the SED. She no longer showed signs of mood swings. She no longer
cried when I asked her about the death of her parents. She said she would not blame herself anymore.
Q: You also testified that your relationship with the complainant lasted for one month. Will you tell this Honorable Court why it lasted
only for such period?
A: The patient responded well during our counseling sessions. The anti-depressant pills which I have prescribed also worked positively
on her.
Q: The anti-depressant pills that you prescribed; do they have any side effects?
A: I asked the patient what she felt after taking the medication. She said she felt drowsy, which is a normal side effect of anti-depressants.
Q: Depends on what?
A: If the patient is under several medications and they are not followed, a relapse is highly possible. And if the patient does not submit
to further counseling sessions when required, a relapse is also possible.
Q: Would that also mean that, in the case of the complainant, such relapse may not happen?
A: Probably, Your honor.
JUDGE: Re-direct?
ATTY. SUBAAN: No, Your Honor. We will call on our last witness.
JUDGE: Miss Witness, You may step down. Call your last witness.
Direct Examination of Phoelvie Tulio by Atty. Rabino
ATTY. RABINO: May I call on our next witness, Miss Kate Nunez.
COURT CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth in this case?
WITNESS: I am Phoelvie Tulio, 32 years old, married, an officemate of the complainant and a resident of 345, Paco, Manila.
ATTY. RABINO: The witness is being presented to testify on the character and suicidal tendencies of the complainant. May we proceed,
Your Honor?
JUDGE: Proceed.
Q: In the two years that you’ve known the complainant, was there any untoward incident which involved her?
A: None sir.
Q: Was there any time that you noticed something different about the complainant?
A: Yes.
Q: What did you tell her after she said those words?
A: I asked her again what happened
Q: Miss Witness, on June 22, 2016, did you receive an e-mail from the complainant?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Who was the sender of that e-mail?
A: It was Jedamica, Your Honor.
Q: Miss Witness, please examine this writing, and please tell the court if you recognized it?
A: That is the e-mail sent by the complainant, Your Honor.
ATTY. RABINO: For the record, the witness has identified this document previously marked as Exhibit A as the printed copy of the e-mail
sent by the complainant.
Q: How sure are you that this is the same e-mail which you received from the complainant?
A: Because her signature appears at the bottom of the e-mail, Your Honor.
ATTY. RABINO: Your Honor, it is respectfully requested that the signature appearing in this Exhibit 3 be marked as Exhibit 3-A.
JUDGE: Cross?
JUDGE: Proceed.
COURT CLERK: Do you swear to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth in this case?
WITNESS: Marielle Benedito, 28 years of age, single, food toxicologist at the Research and Development Division Nestle Philippines, and
a resident of Unit 143 Astral Apartment Padre Faura St. Ermita, Manila.
JUDGE: Your witness.
ATTY. SUBAAN: Your Honor, the testimony of the witness is being offered to controvert the material allegations of the information against
Marielle Benedito and to testify that due to the complainant’s mental and emotional state, her perspective of the situation cannot be
relied upon. May we proceed, Your Honor?
JUDGE: Proceed.
Q: Miss Witness, are you the same Marielle Benedito who is the accused in this case?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Marielle Benedito, please tell this Honorable Court, where were you on September 17, 2017 at around 6pm?
A: I was at the engagement party of Jedamica and Jim .
Q: So could you positively say that you had no idea about what transpired on that day, September 17, 2017, before the incident at the
engagement party happened?
JUDGE: Sustained.
Q: Miss Witness, were you aware that the complainant suffered from a major depression?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Would you know the reason why she suffered from that depression?
A: Because she couldn’t accept the untimely death of her parents. She blamed herself for their death.
Q: After the death of the complainant’s parents, what happened to the complainant?
A: She became insomniac. There were nights that she couldn’t sleep. She also drank liquor more often. She began to lose weight. There
were also mood swings, particularly in the afternoon. There were times that she would just cry. Sometimes she just keeps quiet and not
talk to me.
JUDGE: Cross?
Q: So, you have knowledge of different kinds of chemicals and food substances?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it poisonous?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Miss Witness, were you aware of the provision in the lease contract which said that it is the responsibility of the lessor to conduct
quarterly pest control measures?
A: Yes, Your Honor. In fact, I was surprised why Jedamica bought rodenticide, well in fact our lease agreement provides that we should
report any complaints we have to the lessor.
Q: How long have you been staying with the complainant in the same apartment?
A: About 8 years now, Your Honor.
Q: Do you have any other companion in the apartment where you and Jedamica stay?
A: None
Q: Does this mean that either only you or Jedamica prepares the food and drinks that may be found in the apartment.
A: Yes. Except those which are ready to eat or drink. And sometimes if a close female relative from the province decides to stay for a
while in the city, we allow her to stay in the apartment.
Q: The night before Jedamica was poisoned, were there any other person staying with you in the apartment?
A: None sir.
Q: So during that time, all the drinks and food inside the apartment were either prepared by you or Jedamica?
A: Most probably, Your Honor.
Q: Are you aware of the findings of the doctor who attended by Jedamica that she was poisoned around 6 hours earlier before she was
brought to the Hospital?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: On the day of the incident, what time did you wake up?
A: The usual. 5:30 AM.
Q: During that time, did you notice any grapefruit juice in the ref?
A: Yes. We always have some stock of juice.
Q: You testified that you and the complainant were childhood friends. Were you not concerned during the time that she suffered from
depression?
(Pag overruled, ANSWER: I was concerned about her, but knowing her, she would not tell me how she feels because she liked keeping
things to herself)
(Pag sustained, reform the question to: WHAT DID YOU DO TO HELP THE COMPLAINANT DURING THE TIME SHE WAS SUFFERING
FROM DEPRESSION? Answer: I was always talking to her, asking her how she feels, if she was okay or not.)
Q: Did you not develop any ill feelings towards your best friend when you learned that she and Ritchie is getting married?
A: No, Your Honor. In fact, I’m happy for the both of them.
JUDGE: Re-direct?
ATTY. SUBAAN: No, Your Honor.
ATTY. SUBAAN: We can now formally offer our evidence Your Honor.
JUDGE: Proceed.
ATTY. SUBAAN:
Exhibit 1 is the Summary Discharge Report to prove the complainant’s admission for treatment at the Medical Center Manila.
Exhibit 2 is the Psychiatric Assessment issued by Dr. Cherie Naomi Garcia to prove mental and emotional condition of the
complainant at the time she was admitted for psychiatric treatment.
Exhibit 2-A is the signature by Dr. Cherie Naomi Garcia as part of her testimony attesting to the fact that she was the psychiatrist
of the complainant at Medical Center Manila.
Exhibit 3 consists of printed copies of the electronic mails sent by the complainant to witness Kate Nunez to prove the mental
and emotional instability of the complainant and her suicidal tendencies.
Exhibit 3-A is the printed copy of the electronic signature of the complainant to prove the authorship of the electronic mails sent
by her.
PROSECUTOR FAGTANAC:
As to Exhibit 1 and 1-A, we can admit its existence and authenticity, Your Honor.
As to Exhibit 2 and 2-A, we can only admit the existence but not the authenticity and truthfulness Your Honor.
JUDGE: Acting on the formal offer of exhibits of the defense counsel and comments thereon by the public prosecutor, the court resolves
to admit all the exhibits offered by the defense counsel specified in the offer.
JUDGE: Considering that the public prosecutor will not present rebuttal evidence, the court gives the parties 30 days from today within
which to file their respective memoranda. The case shall be deemed submitted for decision after the lapse of the said period, even
without the said memorandum.
Prosecution (Plaintiff): Your honor, today we have the burden of proof. As the evidence shown which is the medico-legal findings and
the testimony of our witnesses, it shows that Ms. Benedito intentionally poisoned Ms. Delos Santos because of her intense feelings for
Mr. Jim Dorozan which made her jealous. By that we ask for a verdict of guilty your honor.
Defense: Your honor, today the prosecution has the burden of proof and they have availed to prove it. Your honor they have not showed
beyond reasonable doubt that (accused) is guilty. The evidence does not show that Ms. Benedito poisoned and frustratingly murdered
Ms Delos Santos. It was clearly stated that Ms. Delos Santos intentionally committed suicide due to her depression. By that, we ask for
a verdict of not guilty your honor.
Judge: We have now heard arguments from both sides in the case of People of the Philippines vs Benedito I must now decide if the State
has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of frustrated murder.
I have been given material that will help understand the law regarding presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, as well as the
requirement for a unanimous verdict and the facts that the State must prove in order to find the defendant guilty.
JUDGE: Order.
JUDGEMENT
JUDGE: Will the defendant please stand.
(Ms. Benedito stand along with their lawyers)
You may read the verdict.