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 evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given. (175 SCRA 422, 432). With no other evidence linking the accused to the crime except the questionable in-court identification and inconsistent, albeit tainted, testimony of Freddie Alejo, there is no strong basis for pinning culpability to these accused-appellants. In such an instance, their defense of alibi gains credibility and should be looked into by the court. This Court has, in a number of cases, given credence to alibi as summed up and enumerated in People vs. Gregorio, (G.R. NO. L-35390, June 29, 1982): Where the evidence of the prosecution is weak and betrays lack of concreteness on the question on whether or not the defendant is the author of the crime charged, alibi as a defense assumes importance. (People vs. Bulawin, 29 SCRA 710). Where the identification of the accused as the author of the crime is unreliable, his defense of alibi assumes importance and may be given credence. (People vs. Cunanan, 19 SCRA 769). Although alibi is the weakest defense that an accused can avail of, it acquired commensurate strength where no positive and proper identification has been sarisfactorily made by witnesses of the offender’s identity. (People vs. Baquiran, 20 SCRA 451) Also, in another case, this Court ruled: …where the evidence for the prosecution against the accused as author of a crime charged is weak, doubtful, unconvincing, unreliable or unsatisfactory, the defense of alibi assumes importance and acquires commensurate strength, and therefore, may be given credence. (People vs. Tabayoyong, et. al., G.R. No. L-31084, May 29, 1981 citing People vs. Cunanan, et. al. 19 SCRA 769, 783; People vs. Bulawin, 29 SCRA 710, 721-722; People vs. Cruz, 32 SCRA 451, 460-461; People vs. Basuel, 47 SCRA 207, 222-223; People vs. Beltran, 61 SCRA 246, 255- 256; People vs. Salas, et. al, 66 SCRA 126, 132-133; People vs. Lim and Lim, 80 SCRA 496). Indeed, we must “emphasize the fact that courts should not at once look with disfavor at the defense of alibi… When an accused puts up the defense of alibi, the court should not at once have a mental prejudice against him. For, taken in the light of all the evidence on record, it may be sufficient to acquit him. (People vs. Villacorte, et. al., 55 SCRA 640, 655). Given the foregoing, we invoke the oft-repeated formulation that in criminal prosecution, the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence, and not on the Page 104 of 127 104
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 weakness of defense, to establish the guilt of the accused. As we likewise implore the doctrine that the guilt of the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. IX. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE AND CO-RELATE THE PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SEVERAL ACCUSED AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THEIR ARREST WHICH SHOW AS UNLIKELY BOTH GUILT AND CONSPIRACY, BELYING THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS TO THAT EFFECT. This is indeed a classic case of rounding up the usual suspects, this time disparate and motley group of unlikely conspirators – no mastermind, no motive, and no capability for a political assassination (and for some of the accused, no knowledge even of Abadilla). There were even serious inter-personal rifts involving criminal charges and counter-charges between accused Joel de Jesus on one hand and Lorenzo delos Santos and Augusto Santos on the other. How then, can this motley group of quarrelling individuals agree to come together and carry out the killing of Abadilla? This also goes against the ruling on evident premeditation which apparently has just been presumed by the trial court. How can there be evident premeditation among individuals who have deep animosities between them even hailing each other to court? Absent such evident premeditation, the imposition of death penalty by the trial court goes against an earlier death penalty case for murder where the Supreme Court modified the penalty by reducing the RTC’s death sentence to reclusion perpetua because the killing, although qualified by treachery, was not attended by evident premeditation or any other aggravating (as well as mitigating) circumstance. 19 In light of the weak and unreliable evidence linking the accused to the actual commission of the crime as the identity of the suspects were not sufficiently established and no strong link was ever presented to tie up and pin the identity of all the accused with 19 People vs. Saliling (294 SCRA 185). Page 105 of 127 105
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:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 103: 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?