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 accused-appellant and impose upon him the death penalty when evidence which would possibly exonerate him may be presented by him in a new trial.” (italics supplied) The case was “reopened” and remanded for the purpose of allowing the defense to present testimony of the confessing person subject to rebuttal by the prosecution. 4. Still another Decision to consider is that in People vs. Gallo (315 SCRA 461) where the Supreme Court reiterated its “authority to suspend the execution of a final judgment or cause the modification thereof as and when it becomes imperative in the higher interest of justice or when supervening events warrant it.” (italics supplied) With more reason when judgment is not yet final like in the case at bar. Interestingly, in Gallo, the Court agreed with the OSG in its stand to join accused-appellant in praying for a modification of the sentence from death to reclusion perpetua. 5. There is the case of People vs. Alipayo (324 SCRA 447, at 465) where the Supreme Court itself admitted in evidence the birth certificate attached to the motion for reconsideration of one accused Jellie Lipa after the Court’s decision affirming the convictions, which proved his minority, even “while this issue was never raised below,” thus saving him from lethal injection. In the case at bar, the ABB angle was raised during the reconsideration stage in the RTC, and there is yet no Supreme Court decision of affirmation. In other words, with more reason should the instant Petition have been granted. 6. In People vs. Villaruel (261 SCRA 386), the mitigating circumstance of minority was also appreciated in favor of the accused even as “This point has not been raised either by the prosecution or the defense. But we consider it because an appeal in a criminal case opens it up for review on any question, including one not raised by the parties.” In the case at bar, the defense did raise the ABB angle but respondent judge suppressed it. Again, with more reason should the instant Petition have been granted. Page 122 of 127 122
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 7. Depriving the herein death convicts of a last chance to prove their innocence by presenting evidence on the ABB angle was/would be tantamount to “depriv(ing) the accused of a full and fair trial,” applying by analogy the rulings regarding depriving accused of a medical examination for deaf-muteness, as discussed in People vs. Parazo (G.R. No. 121176, July 8, 1999) citing People vs. Crisologo (150 SCRA 656), and regarding depriving accused of a mental examination, as discussed in People vs. Estrada (G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000). Parazo resulted in a re-trial while Estrada resulted in a remand “for further proceedings,” which is among the relief prayed for in the instant Petition. The foregoing very good rulings are all for very good reason: our courts, the Supreme Court included, cannot afford to commit any mistake in sentencing an individual to death. Thus, cases involving the death penalty should be treated with less reliance on technical rules, such as in the cases recapitulated. The herein accused- appellants invoke the equal protection that was given the accused in all those cases, something which the former have not enjoyed so far. In ending our long discussion of arguments on the assignment of errors, we note that there is, however, a consuelo de bobo of sorts in the appealed Order of January 26, 2000 (Annex C), namely, its last sentence: At any rate, as earlier stated, let this Urgent Motion for Leave of Court of Fr. Reyes be attached to the record as well as the TSN today be attached to the record to be considered as stated by Atty. Bagatsing [counsel for Fortuna] and Atty. Santos [counsel for Lumanog] as part of the offer of proof of the defense. (italics supplied) And going to the said TSN (1/26/00, pp. 8-9), one finds the trial court’s admission as offer of proof certain evidentiary documents on the ABB angle proferred by Atty. Bagatsing. These are covered, added to and explained in his “Supplemental To The Oral Manifestation of Accused Fortuna” dated February 10, 2000. Still on the said TSN (1/26/00, pp. 20-21), after questioning (but not placing on the witness stand) Fr. Reyes and his counsel, the trial court said: Page 123 of 127 123
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:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 121: 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?