Julia Campbell case

(all photos from my box)

Murder and robbery-with-homicide are both capital offenses; same gravity; life prison to death (well, the death penalty has been revoked).

 

What charges would be filed by the fiscal would depend on the evidence, or what the State can prove.

 

 

The suspect in the Julia Campbell case was not teetering/ never teetered between murder and robbery with homicide; he/ his lawyer did not bother to advance the theory that he robbed her and she got killed as a result thereof, because that’s also a capital offense; either way, in either crime, he’s dead; he/ his lawyer never wanted to go in that direction either.

 

 

Why did his lawyer (after the suspect made his extrajudicial admissions to ABS-CBN’s Jay Ruiz) allow him to confess during the custodial investigation, and even do a re-enactment? (Normally, a defense counsel would tell his/her client, “Shut up!” or “Don’t answer!”)

 

Because here, she came in too late; her client had already talked, on tape, on national tv; you could probably file exclusionary motions if the tapes are introduced; but it’s like a bell that had been rung;

you’re trying to figure if you can “unring” it, and the defense counsel probably thought, “I might as well make a case out of what he said, it’s a defense, and I don’t have a choice…”

 

 

So, his defense might be, not robbery with homicide because that goes in the same direction as life prison to death; but…the one usually used as a last resort…self-defense. Why is it a last resort? Because in all other cases, the State has the burden of proof; the accused doesn’t have to lift a finger or say anything; it’s the fiscal’s show and if he/ she fails, the accused walks, whether or not the accused is guilty. But in self-defense, the accused goes first in the criminal trial; he/ she has to present his/ her evidence first; the accused has the burden of proof (of self-defense), and if he/ she fails, he/ she is convicted. Why is it inverted, if self-defense? (I’m talking like a text message, soweee). Because the fact of the killing of the victim by the suspect is already admitted in evidence, so the fiscal does not have to work that; it’s the defense counsel and the accused who have to work initially at the trial and if they fail the accused is convicted.

 

(It of course depends on the evidence what the fiscal would file; for robbery with homicide, you need to show the robbery; here the accused already admitted the killing but said he thought she was his neighbor who was his enemy and he thought he would be harmed etc.)

 

The suspect’s defense however does not seem to be consistent with the published/ aired physical evidence. Fortunately, he apparently did not have access to all of the multi-media reports, having been in hiding in a remote hut and living on root crops. Otherwise, a well-read, criminal-law-literate suspect would be able to tailor his/ her defense to the physical evidence. (I’m not going to point out details in the published/ aired physical evidence because the case has not been filed). Next time however the police should refrain from disclosing details of the evidence until after indictment.