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 those of the suspects seen at the crime scene, the question of motive gains significance and comes to the fore in this instant case. The question of motive gains even more importance when viewed from the light that the prosecution touts Freddie Alejo’s testimony as free from any motive to falsely testify against all the accused. For while the prosecution is harping on the failure of defense to prove any improper motive on the part of their lone eyewitness to testify falsely against all the accused, the prosecution fails to see and realize that it is them which failed to advance any evidence that would prove any motive on the part of all the accused to kill the late Col. Rolando Abadilla. “Generally, proof of motive is not necessary to pin a crime on the accused if the commission of the crime has been proven and the evidence of identification is convincing.” (People vs. Alviar, No. L-32276, September 12, 1974, 59 SCRA 136, 160). In this case, the evidence of identification, far from being convincing, is actually doubtful, weak, and might have been colored to favor the prosecution so that the witness who was receiving benefits from the victim’s family could continue receiving those benefits. In such an instance, the court, in order to arrive at a verdict of conviction, should have considered whether motive was established by the prosecution to aid in nailing and pinning down the accused with moral certainty as the ones who actually committed the crime. X. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT OVERLOOKED OR FAILED TO GIVE MORE WEIGHT TO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, PARTICULARLY THE EXCULPATORY BALLISTICS AND DACTYLOSCOPY EVIDENCE, WITH Page 106 of 127 106
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 ACCOMPANYING EXPERT TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE. It is quite ironic that the prosecution, which has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused, never presented in court the physical evidence gathered from the crime scene. This attitude of the prosecution towards the physical evidence is revealing in that it raises the presumption that such evidence is withheld because it would be adverse to their cause. Relying heavily on the testimony of a single eyewitness, when there were other eyewitnesses present at the crime scene who came forward to the police investigators and expressed their willingness to testify (TSN, Testimony of P/Insp. Rogelio Castillo, August 7, 1996, pp. 116-118), plus the physical evidence gathered from the crime scene speaks volume about the prosecution’s fear that if these other evidences were presented in court, they would not be able to pin down the accused as the ones who did the crime. Irony upon irony, the trial court, whose duty it was to ascertain with moral certainty the guilt of the accused, simply disregarded the physical evidence presented by the defense but relied instead on the shaky testimony of the lone eyewitness presented before it. In a major case like this of murder and eventually five death sentences, the trial court should have been more careful about anchoring conviction on the testimony of one witness (considering there were so many others around during the incident), and should have been more desiring and discerning of better evidence. Physical evidence, for one, is more reliable because it basically speaks for itself (res ipsa loquitor) – it cannot be coached what to say; neither can it lose or change its memory. Coupled with expert evidence, then such evidence is as good as it gets. In the case at bar, the closest to this were the ballistics examination reports of PNP Crime Laboratory ballistics expert Reynaldo de Guzman and the relevant bullet slugs and spent bullet shells. But this is mentioned only “in passing” in one short Page 107 of 127 107
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:
Page 55 and 56: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 105: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 127: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
show all

Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?