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 basis of other provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, particularly those which are pro-life, pro-human rights and pro-poor. To quote Fr. Gomez again: In this context, how may one say that to defend human life we have to reimpose the death penalty for heinous crimes? As Joaquin Ruiz-Jimenez, who was for a time the Defender of the People in Spain, said: “To proclaim the right to life and to maintain at the same time the death penalty is an essential contradiction.” And he added: “If you want life, promote life and not death… How may one be pro-life and pro-death penalty?” We submit that if the constitutional provisions relevant to the death penalty themselves give rise to conflicting interpretations on the status of the death penalty in the Constitution, then the pro-life, pro-human rights and pro-poor thrusts should prevail over whatever opening given to Congress to reimpose an abolished penalty “for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.” We ask the Court “to take a second look at” and reflect on the question again in the light of new perspectives” (following the spirit of Munoz) broader than those in the majority opinions in the Echegaray cases. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN THIS CASE OF MURDER AND FIVE DEATH SENTENCES WITH ITS OVER-RELIANCE ON AND GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE LONE ALLEGED EYEWITNESS PRESENTED IN COURT, SECURITY GUARD FREDDIE ALEJO, FOR THE PROSECUTION WHICH IS CHARACTERIZED BY MATERIAL OMISSIONS, CONTRADICTIONS, UNRELIABILITY, INCREDIBILITY, AND DISCREPANCIES. The trial court based the conviction of the five accused mainly on the “positive identification” made in open court by Freddie Alejo, the only eyewitness presented by the prosecution. “9. All in all, therefore, the court finds the accused Joel de Jesus, Rameses de Jesus, Cesar Fortuna, Lenido Lumanog and Augusto Santos have not produced enough evidence to overcome the strength of the evidence of positive identification adduced by the prosecution through its eyewitness SG Freddie Alejo.” (Joint Decision, p. 29) Page 26 of 127 26
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 Positive identification alone, made by a witness whose credibility is tarnished by major inconsistencies between his sworn statement and his testimony in open court, is a shaky foundation upon which to base a conviction for a very serious crime of murder. More so if even with the identification made by the witness, there is still doubt as to whether the suspects seen by the witness are the same persons as the accused. The possibility of identifying all the perpetrators of the crime with certainty when the witness saw the suspects for the very first time and only for a brief moment under stressful and life-threatening circumstances is highly questionable. This Court has in fact written about the dangers of unreliability in eyewitness testimony in People vs. Teehankee, Jr: “Identification testimony has at least three components. First, witnessing a crime, whether as a victim or a bystander, involves perception of an event actually occurring. Second, the witness must memorize details of the event. Third, the witness must be able to recall and communicate accurately. Dangers of unreliability in eyewitness testimony arise at each of these three stages, for whenever people attempt to acquire, retain, and retrieve information accurately, they are limited by normal human fallibilities and suggestive influences. (G.R. Nos. 111206-08, October 6, 1995) The credibility of the lone eyewitness presented in open court in this case is not only suspect because of major inconsistencies and omissions which when summed up point to a faulty, if not, tainted recollection of the whole incident but also because of an apparent inability to capture the right words in describing the suspects and moreso, because of the suggestive influences surrounding the circumstances of his identification of the accused. We thus assail the credibility of this lone eyewitness presented in open court on the following points: A. The sworn statement of Freddie Alejo executed before SPO1 Edilberto S. Nicanor on June 13, 1996 at 1:55 p.m. or just about five hours after the shooting incident, omitted material details which omission greatly affects his credibility as a witness. This court, in a line of decisions has ruled: Page 27 of 127 27
Page 1 and 2: Republic of the Philippines SUPREME
Page 3 and 4: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 25: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 77 and 78:
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127:
show all

Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?