PATRICK JAMES TAN March 27, 2018

EVIDENCE

RASHOMON EFFECT

1. The most expected person for me to kill the Samurai was the bandit named
Tajomaru. I suppose that he killed the Samurai because of the circumstances
surrounding the case. First, he confess before the Court that he killed the
Samurai which is a self confession. His version also of the story describing
what happened is the most convincing and have a relation on the fact in
issue. I can say so, because the testimony of the first witness who saw the
crime scene is not categorical and consistent. His testimony is somehow
contradicting. Second, the testimony of the Samurai’s wife also shows
inconsistencies and self-serving which cannot stand alone. Lastly, the
testimony of the apparition has definitely no merit and incompetent. Also,
Tajomaru’s story have a logical connection to all the pieces of evidence
gathered in the crime scene. He has the motive to kill the Samurai in order to
pursue his main purpose of fulfilling his lewd desire on the woman. I
suppose that he cannot fulfill his main objective if he will not dispose of the
Samurai. And as a matter of fact he also admires the skill of the Samurai
who lasted with him fighting. Even though Tajomaru’s testimony maybe not
an absolute truth as it is somehow contradicting, thus,his testimony is more
worthy of credit and belief as against the others.

2. The wife of the Samurai was not raped. Analyzing all the testimonies of the
four is not so related with one another. It so difficult to judge what might
happen to the wife but I think what really happened is that she voluntarily
accept the act of Tajomaru in fulfilling the sexual intercourse. How can she
been raped if in the first place she have a dagger which she might used to
freed her husband Samurai and also which she can use to defend herself. The
victim testifying before the court shows no any injuries which might resulted
from the crime of rape. As what I learned raped victims generally present
injuries or scratches to corroborate the crime committed against them but in
this case there is nothing presented. I think there’s no aggression on the part
of the wife thus no rape has been done. Also on the story of one of the
witness who saw the crime, he said that he saw Tajomaru begging on the
woman for what he had done while the woman was crying lying on the
ground. As a general rule an opinion of the witness may not be accepted but
in some instances like in the present case it can somehow be accepted. As
what the witness said on the appearance or condition of the wife of the
Samurai it can be inferred that she was not been raped and thus voluntarily
accepted the sexual intercourse.

Yes, the law on evidence helps me in answering the questions post on this
case. First, the movie is somehow difficult to understand and analyze. It
leaves and open questions to every viewer of this movie. No one can
definitely determine what actually happen in this movie as it is open to all
kinds of interpretations. Learning the law on evidence is a big help in
analyzing and solving the issue on this movie.

The first thing I learned that applies to this case is the relevancy of the
evidence offered by each participant. In this movie the only kind of evidence
offered was testimonial evidence which is a kind of evidence elicited from a
witness on the witness stand or in any other proceeding. Also the rule on
judicial confession apply in this case as what Tajomaru clearly done in the
movie. Tajomaru’s testimony may be treated as an exception to the hearsay
rule and qualify as part of the res gestae. The competency of the witness like
in this case is also of big help where it refers to the qualification of a witness
who can, perceiving and making known his perception to others. Is
Tajomaru a competent witness? Yes, he is. Also the wife is a competent
witness but she fails to qualify on the credibility of the witness because I
believe that what she gave is a self-serving testimony just favorable to
herself. I agree with the comment of one of the characters in saying that you
cannot rely alone on the testimony of the wife because sometimes they make
stories that only favorable to herself. The requisite for the admissibility of
the evidence comes also on point in this case. Evidence to be admissible
first, it must be relevant to the issue sought to be proved, and second it must
be competent or not otherwise excluded by the law or any rules. I pointed
this out because the testimony of the apparition is not admissible. It does not
fall in the category of a dying declaration as what the law provided which is
an exception to the hearsay rule. There’s no necessity and trustworthiness on
the said testimony. In this case what can be admissible as an exception to the
hearsay rule is the res gestae which is the bandit’s testimony. Maybe in that
setting or period of time in the movie it can be accepted but under the
present rules on evidence it has no relevant and significance, thus it is
inadmissible. Correlating all the testimonies given be the each of the
witnesses, all of them are conflicting and not consistent. Thus, it may be said
that their testimony might be true in one thing but false in other thing.
However, the doctrine of “falsius in uno falsus in omnibus” is not an
absolute rule law. Even though the falsity and consistency in their
testimonies still we can appreciate the facts that might be true in order to
come to an interpretation in resolution of this case, thus by applying the
rules on evidence.