Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 of male persons drinking liquor and beer. The bisperas in a rural setting is a truly-people-crowded night. The “secret theory” of Rameses and Costibolo is thus difficult to dig. (Joint Decision, p. 27) In debunking the alibi presented by accused Lenido Lumanog and Rameses de Jesus that they were in Pampanga at the time when the late Col. Rolando Abadilla was ambushed, the trial court pronounced that the “secret-theory” of the accused is difficult to dig. The trial court reasoned out that “the bisperas in a rural setting is a truly people- crowded night” and as such it would have been impossible for the accused to be digging for gold, as what they are advancing in their defense because the presence of a lot of people. This reasoning by the trial court is not supported by any evidence but is rather based on mere conjectures. While it may be a tradition among rural folks to observe the bisperas of an occasion, yet this is not always the case. It normally depends, first and foremost, on the nature and grandness of the celebration and the means of the celebrants. Fiestas and weddings would normally include the bisperas in the celebration but not wedding anniversaries which, oftentimes, just involve immediate family members. It was thus error for the trial court to anchor its disregarding of Lumanog’s and Rameses de Jesus’ alibi on this basis. From the testimony of Costobolo and Rameses de Jesus, they helped in the cooking when they woke up at 10:00 a.m. of June 13, 1996. That the food were cooked just in time for lunch indicate that the wedding anniversary celebration was just a small one and therefore, disproving the trial court’s unsupported objection that there might have been a lot of people in the vicinity where the accused were secretly digging for gold from midnight until the wee hours of June 13, 1996. In assailing the defense presented by Lumanog the trial court reasoned out: c) Rameses and Costibolo executed sworn statements before the attorneys of the Human Rights Commission several days after their arrest complaining of torture, and yet, they never revealed anything about their alleged activities – gold-digging – on June 12 and 13, 1996 and subsequent days. By June 26, 1996 they would have known what the police authorities were blaming Page 100 of 127 100
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 them for and yet, there was absolute silence on their part of the defense they now poise upon this court. (Joint Decision, p. 27). Why should the trial court discredit the defense raised by the accused through the testimonies of Rameses and Costibolo because of the latter’s failure to mention said line of defense to the lawyers of the Commission of Human Rights? In the first place, when the CHR lawyers took the sworn statements of the accused, they were investigating the torture and other possible human rights violations committed against the accused by the police. These lawyers were not concerned about the defense of the accused in the murder case filed against the latter. Naturally, the questions would focus on the circumstances surrounding their arrests and how their rights were violated by the police officers. It is then absurd and unthinkable why the trial court expected the accused to raise their defenses before the lawyers of the CHR whose main concern was to investigate possible human rights violations against the persons of the accused. It might have also escaped the notice of the trial court that on June 26, 1996, all the accused were still reeling from the torture they suffered in the hands of the police that they were not in their normal state of mind at that time. In fact, on June 26, 1996 when the CHR doctor examined the accused, the doctor noticed hesitancy on the part of Lumanog to talk. In his testimony, Dr. Jesse Rey T. Cruel said: It is visible but it was not complained of. In fact, during that time he was very… parang ayaw niyang magsabi sa akin nang (sic) nangyari sa kanya. Ayaw niyang magtapat kung ano talaga ang nangyari sa kanya. Para bang walang tiwala sa akin o mga imbestigador. Nagdadalawang-isip siya kung magsasabi sir. So we said we come from Commission of Human Rights. We are ordered to investigate the violations committed to him while on detention. And little by little, slowly, he began to tell what happened to him. (TSN, December 11, 1997, pp. 188-189). What is evident in the doctor’s observation about the accused is the hesitation and the lack of trust to the persons conducting the investigation for human rights violations. Page 101 of 127 101
Page 1 and 2:
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME
Page 3 and 4:
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 99: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 127: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
show all

Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?