Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
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 />
XI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING LENIDO<br />
LUMANOG AND OTHER ACCUSED A LAST CHANCE,<br />
WHILE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WITH DEATH<br />
SENTENCES WAS STILL UNDER RECONSIDERATION, TO<br />
INTRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE HITHERTO<br />
UNDEVELOPED ALEX BONCAYAO BRIGADE (A.B.B.)<br />
ANGLE OF TRUE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ABADILLA<br />
AMBUSH-KILLING, CONTRARY TO THE SUPREME<br />
COURT'S GUIDANCE IN DEATH PENALTY CASES.<br />
XII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING FR. ROBERTO<br />
REYES' "URGENT INDEPENDENT MOTION FOR LEAVE OF<br />
COURT TO PRESENT VITAL EVIDENCE'' ALSO ON THE<br />
A.B.B. ANGLE, AN ANGLE WHICH PROVES THE<br />
INNOCENCE OF ALL THE ACCUSED.<br />
We shall discuss <strong>the</strong>se two assignment <strong>of</strong> errors toge<strong>the</strong>r since <strong>the</strong>y both involve <strong>the</strong><br />
ABB angle and <strong>the</strong>y both pertain to motions and proceedings after <strong>the</strong> trial and judgment<br />
<strong>of</strong> conviction but while this was still in <strong>the</strong> reconsideration stage. Assignment <strong>of</strong> Error<br />
XI involves <strong>the</strong> appealed Order dated January 25, 2000 (Annex B), while Assignment <strong>of</strong><br />
Error XII involves <strong>the</strong> appealed Orders <strong>of</strong> January 26 & 28, 2000 (Annexes C & D,<br />
respectively).<br />
At first glance, this would appear to involve <strong>the</strong> same issue/s raised in <strong>the</strong><br />
companion certiorari case <strong>of</strong> G.R. No. 142065 (Lumanog vs. Salazar, Jr., 363 SCRA 719)<br />
which was consolidated with <strong>the</strong> case at bar. But that involved a petition mainly for<br />
certiorari (Rule 65) where <strong>the</strong> main cause <strong>of</strong> action was respondent trial judge’s grave<br />
abuse <strong>of</strong> jurisdiction amounting to lack or excess <strong>of</strong> jurisdiction in denying <strong>the</strong> petitioners<br />
led by accused Lenido Lumanog a last opportunity to prove <strong>the</strong>ir innocence by way <strong>of</strong><br />
introducing additional evidence on <strong>the</strong> hi<strong>the</strong>rto untouched but plausible ABB angle. In<br />
fine, <strong>the</strong> certiorari case dealt with an error <strong>of</strong> jurisdiction. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, herein<br />
Assignment <strong>of</strong> Errors XI & XIII deal with errors <strong>of</strong> judgment, even without grave abuse<br />
<strong>of</strong> discretion. The certiorari decision is final and is not <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>of</strong> herein<br />
appeal/automatic review. The subject <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> latter are <strong>the</strong> above-mentioned Orders <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
trial court. We have to be clear about <strong>the</strong>se distinctions.<br />
Page 111 <strong>of</strong> 127<br />
111