Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
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 />
All I can probably do is like what I did with <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> documents <strong>of</strong>fered by Atty. Bagatsing and Atty. Santos. We<br />
can attach your real evidence [<strong>the</strong> Omega watch] to <strong>the</strong> record as<br />
well as this Motion for Leave <strong>of</strong> Court.<br />
We will just see whe<strong>the</strong>r what <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court will do<br />
with this. I am not <strong>the</strong> one who promulgated <strong>the</strong> rules <strong>of</strong> court,<br />
only <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court. I am not <strong>the</strong> source <strong>of</strong> this (sic) rules, I<br />
am just a trial judge. (italics supplied)<br />
[Defense counsels <strong>the</strong>n adopted <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fer <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> Fr. Reyes through counsel.]<br />
The trial judge was not equal to his task and so passed <strong>the</strong> buck to <strong>the</strong> Supreme<br />
Court. The buck stops here, and we can only hope and pray that <strong>the</strong> justices will be equal<br />
to <strong>the</strong>ir tasks.<br />
We submit that all <strong>the</strong> proposed additional evidence on <strong>the</strong> ABB angle, as<br />
marshalled in accused-appellant Lumanog’s “Motion for New Trial and Related Relief”<br />
dated 26 April 1999, and earlier incorporated herein and made an integral part here<strong>of</strong> by<br />
reference, be likewise all considered part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fer <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> defense. Take note<br />
that <strong>the</strong> prosecution (OSG and private prosecutor) never interposed any opposition to <strong>the</strong><br />
said Motion for New Trial nor to accused-appellant Lumanog’s “Urgent Motion for<br />
Reconsideration <strong>of</strong> 17 September 2002 Resolution” dated 14 October 2002 seeking<br />
reconsideration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> denial <strong>of</strong> new trial.<br />
Speaking <strong>of</strong> consuelo de bobo, this was precisely <strong>the</strong> trial court’s mode in its<br />
appealed Joint Decision <strong>of</strong> July 30, 1999 when it dismissed <strong>the</strong> first four minor charges <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ft and illegal possession <strong>of</strong> firearms before convicting <strong>the</strong> “Abadilla 5” for <strong>the</strong> main<br />
charge <strong>of</strong> murder and imposing <strong>the</strong> death penalty. But those first four dismissals may<br />
turn out to be more than just consuelo de bobo when given a good look.<br />
Take especially <strong>the</strong> dismissal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ft charge (Crim. Case No. Q-96-66679)<br />
which is closely tied to <strong>the</strong> murder charge (Crim. Case No. Q-96-66684). It was <strong>the</strong><br />
murder <strong>of</strong> Abadilla which made possible <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ft <strong>of</strong> his pistol, wrist watch and wallet in<br />
<strong>the</strong> same ambush incident. In fine, <strong>the</strong> murderers were also <strong>the</strong> thieves. Note that both<br />
murder and <strong>the</strong>ft charges were conspiracy charges. But Augusto Santos, while included<br />
among <strong>the</strong> conspirators charged with murder, was not included among <strong>the</strong> conspirators<br />
Page 124 <strong>of</strong> 127<br />
124