Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF
People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al.
S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64
The gravest error of the trial court in denying accused Lumanog and Fr.Reyes a
chance to present additional/vital evidence on the ABB angle of true responsibility for the
Abadilla murder is its disregard of the Supreme Court’s guidance of liberality in death
penalty situations like the case at bar. It is time that we recapitulate this guidance, some
of which was pointed to the trial court to no avail:
1. The ruling in People vs. Del Mundo (262 SCRA 266, at 273):
Furthermore, the penalty imposed on accused-appellant
is death. Here is a situation where a rigid application of the rules
must bow to the overriding goal of courts of justice to render
justice to secure to every individual all possible legal means to
prove his innocence of a crime of which he is charged.
The rule for granting a motion for new trial, among
others, should be liberally construed to assist the parties in
obtaining a just and speedy determination of their rights. Court
litigations are primarily for the search for truth, and a liberal
interpretation of the rules by which both parties are given the
fullest opportunity to adduce proofs is the best way to ferret out
such truth. The dispensation of justice and vindication of
legitimate grievances should not be barred by technicalities.
(italics supplied)
2. And the ruling in People vs. Marivic Genosa (G.R. No. 135981, September 29,
2000, at pp. 11, 14):
Accused persons facing the possible death penalty must
be given fair opportunities to proffer all defenses possible that
could save them from capital punishment…
Thus, consistent with the principle of due process, a
partial reopening of the case is apropos, so as to allow the
defense the opportunity to present expert evidence consistent
with our foregoing disquisition, as well as the prosecution the
opportunity to cross examine and refute the same. (italics
supplied)
3. Then, there is the Decision in People vs. Ernesto Ebias (G.R. No. 127130,
October 12, 2000) with some parallelisms to the case at bar like the confession made by
another person that it was he who really committed the murder, in relation to issues of
newly discovered evidence and new trial as against earlier positive indentification during
the trial. There is also citation (in p. 17 of Ebias) of the ruling in People vs. Del Mundo.
The important point or principle in Ebias is that “We cannot in good conscience convict
Page 121 of 127
121