Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF<br />
People <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Philippines</strong> vs. Fortuna, et. al.<br />
S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64<br />
those <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> suspects seen at <strong>the</strong> crime scene, <strong>the</strong> question <strong>of</strong> motive gains significance<br />
and comes to <strong>the</strong> fore in this instant case.<br />
The question <strong>of</strong> motive gains even more importance when viewed from <strong>the</strong> light<br />
that <strong>the</strong> prosecution touts Freddie Alejo’s testimony as free from any motive to falsely<br />
testify against all <strong>the</strong> accused.<br />
For while <strong>the</strong> prosecution is harping on <strong>the</strong> failure <strong>of</strong> defense to prove any<br />
improper motive on <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir lone eyewitness to testify falsely against all <strong>the</strong><br />
accused, <strong>the</strong> prosecution fails to see and realize that it is <strong>the</strong>m which failed to advance<br />
any evidence that would prove any motive on <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> accused to kill <strong>the</strong> late<br />
Col. Rolando Abadilla.<br />
“Generally, pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> motive is not necessary to pin a crime on <strong>the</strong> accused if <strong>the</strong><br />
commission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> crime has been proven and <strong>the</strong> evidence <strong>of</strong> identification is<br />
convincing.” (People vs. Alviar, No. L-32276, September 12, 1974, 59 SCRA 136, 160).<br />
In this case, <strong>the</strong> evidence <strong>of</strong> identification, far from being convincing, is actually<br />
doubtful, weak, and might have been colored to favor <strong>the</strong> prosecution so that <strong>the</strong> witness<br />
who was receiving benefits from <strong>the</strong> victim’s family could continue receiving those<br />
benefits.<br />
In such an instance, <strong>the</strong> court, in order to arrive at a verdict <strong>of</strong> conviction, should<br />
have considered whe<strong>the</strong>r motive was established by <strong>the</strong> prosecution to aid in nailing and<br />
pinning down <strong>the</strong> accused with moral certainty as <strong>the</strong> ones who actually committed <strong>the</strong><br />
crime.<br />
X. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT OVERLOOKED OR<br />
FAILED TO GIVE MORE WEIGHT TO PHYSICAL<br />
EVIDENCE, PARTICULARLY THE EXCULPATORY<br />
BALLISTICS AND DACTYLOSCOPY EVIDENCE, WITH<br />
Page 106 <strong>of</strong> 127<br />
106