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 “The general rule has always been that discrepancies between the statements of the witness in his affidavit and those he makes on the witness stand do not necessarily discredit him because it is a matter of judicial experience that an affidavit taken ex parte is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate. The exceptions thereto, which impair the credibility of the witness, are: (1) when the narration in the sworn statement substantially contradicts the testimony in court, or (2) when the omission in the affidavit refers to a very important detail of the incident that one relating the incident as an eyewitness cannot be expected to fail to mention. The point of inquiry is whether the contradictions are important and substantial…” (People vs. Narvaez, et. al., G.R. NO. 140759, January 24, 2002; People vs. Castillo, 261 SCRA 493 citing People vs. Calegan, G.R. No. 93846, June 30, 1994, 233 SCRA 537). Freddie Alejo’s narration in the sworn statement is not only substantially contradicted by his testimony in open court but it also omitted a very important detail of the incident that one relating the incident as an eyewitness cannot be expected to fail to mention. In his salaysay given before PO1 Nicanor on June 13, 1996, witness Freddie Alejo recalled having seen only four suspects at the crime scene. (Exh. L) In open court, however, he testified that there were six persons involved in the shooting. In his affidavit, there was no mention whatsoever of two persons walking to and fro in front of the guardhouse where he was stationed prior to the shooting incident yet he testified before the court that these two persons were walking to and fro in front of his guardhouse for more than an hour just before the shooting incident occurred. He further testified that both these two persons pointed their guns at him with one commanding him to get down from the guardhouse just after the other four suspects shot at the victim. The question propounded to the witness by Prosecutor Chua Cheng: “When you reported for duty on June 13, 1996 at about 7:00 o’clock in the morning, was there anything unusual that you noticed while performing your duty as security guard?” (TSN, Testimony of Freddie Alejo – Direct, Hearing held on August 20, 1996, p. 15) and the question asked by SPO1 Nicanor to witness Freddie Alejo at 1:55 p.m. or just five hours from the shooting incident in the morning of June 13, 1996: Page 28 of 127 28
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 “Habang ikaw ay naka-duty bilang guwardiya sa 211 Katipunan Road, Quezon City, itong araw na ito, may napansin ka bang hindi pangkaraniwang pangyayari?” ( Exh. L) are similarly framed and to which the witness both answered in the positive. When asked however what the incident was, the witness gave different answers. In open court, he declared, “I saw two (2) men walking back and forth infront (sic) of my post, mam.” (TSN, Testimony of Freddie Alejo – Direct, Hearing held on August 20, 1996, p. 15) but in his salaysay, he went straight to the shooting incident: “May binaril na sakay ng kotse sa harap ng puwesto ko sir.” (Exh. L). It would have been impossible for the witness not to remember the two men walking to and fro in front of his guardhouse just five hours after the incident if indeed he saw those two men for quite a long time as he testified: Pros. Chua Cheng: Q: For how long did you notice these 2 persons walking to and fro in that area? A: It was quite a long time from 7:30 in the morning to about past 8:00 o’clock in the morning, sir. (TSN, August 20, 1996, p.28). On cross examination, he even insisted that he noticed these two men walking to and fro in front of his guardhouse for more than an hour. Atty Buted: Q: And while you were at the guard house you noticed 2 men walking to and fro infront of you, you stated that? A: Yes sir. Q: And you consider that unusual? A: Yes sir. Q: Why? A: Because I think these 2 persons are not just passers by they were walking to and fro. (sic) […] Q: Alright, then what, if any, did you do when you noticed that there was unusual movement by these 2 persons? A: I became alert sir. Page 29 of 127 29
Page 1 and 2: Republic of the Philippines SUPREME
Page 3 and 4: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 27: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 79 and 80:
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?