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 In the case at bar, there was other evidence indicative of the truthfulness of the ABB’s repeated and consistent claims of responsibility for the Abadilla killing, such as those already outlined above. Any fair and impartial tribunal would not have missed it. But the trial court had its “eyes wide shut.” It allowed “technical procedure, unreasoned rules of evidence… to overcome the truth” when it ruled that “The requisites on the applicability of the rule on declaration against interest, as an exception to the hearsay rule, were not convincingly shown before this court as being present in such alleged press statements of the ABB.” The January 26, 2000 hearing, revealed that the trial court was referring to the requirement of “unable to testify”, i.e. ABB leaders or spokespersons were not unable but only unwilling to testify. (TSN, 1/26/03, 14-16) But the reason of unwillingness is practically tantamount to inability in the face of what may be likened to the justifying circumstance of “avoidance of greater evil” (Revised Penal Code, Art. 11[4]) – in this case an ABB leader or member who takes the witness stand to claim command or direct responsibility for the murder of Col. Abadilla faces the very real risk of lethal retaliation from friends and supporters of the late Colonel, as well as that of arrest, detention, prosecution, conviction, imprisonment and execution under the criminal justice system. It is a matter of self-preservation, considered a supreme law of necessity. If “avoidance of greater evil” can justify an act which would otherwise be felony, including grave ones, then with more reason can it justify the omission of not taking the witness stand. The trial court then reversed the proper order of things when it stated “While the records do not indicate that accused were ABB operatives, the same records do not bear that they are not.” The trial court imposed on the accused the burden of proving that they were not ABB operatives! In the first place, the accused were not charged with a political offense such as rebellion, which would have favored them. But the truth of the matter is that they were/are not rebels. Page 116 of 127 116
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 For example, at the time of their arrests in June 1996, accused Fortuna was an SPO2 with the PNP Traffic Management Command (see his Exhs. 81 & 83) while accused Lumanog was a businessman with several enterprises in Fairview, Quezon City, including a security agency, with the usual police and military links (see the separate Affidavits of spouses Marilou Tiglao-Lumanog and Lenido Lumanog, Exhs. K & L, attached to accused-appellant Lenido Lumanog’s “Motion for New Trial and Related Relief” dated 26 April 2002 in this automatic review). At any rate, the trial court itself admits that “the records do not indicate that accused were ABB operatives.” Coupled with additional evidence on the ABB angle in the Abadilla killing, this should lead to the acquittal of the accused on at least reasonable doubt. Speaking of burden of proof, the defense does not have the burden of proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the ABB for the Abadilla killing. That is the job of the prosecution. As it is, they have shirked from their sworn duty to prosecute “all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved” (Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sec. 2). It has taken the defense to ferret out the ABB angle. But the defense does this not to go after anybody but rather to save the innocent accused. The defense knows with moral certainty that the accused are innocent beyond reasonable doubt. But its burden is only to establish reasonable doubt about their guilt to entitle them to an acquittal (Rules of Court, Rule 133, Sec. 2). The proposed additional evidence on the ABB angle serves this purpose and is sufficient in itself to tilt the balance against the trial court’s finding five accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of their “positive identification” by one security guard “eye witness”. The latest marshalling of proposed additional evidence on the ABB angle in the case at bar is found in accused-appellant Lenido Lumanog’s “Motion for New Trial and Related Relief” dated 26 April 2002 with 10 pages of argument and discussion plus 21 exhibits and 21 annexes submitted during this automatic review stage in accordance with the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 124, Sec. 14 in relation to Rule 125, Sec. Page 117 of 127 117
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:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 115: 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?