01.12.2012 Views

Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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 />

A: No sir, when <strong>the</strong> first man pointed his gun at me it was a<br />

little longer and when <strong>the</strong> second man pointed his gun at<br />

me “dumapa na po ako at sinubsob ko ‘yong ulo ko sa<br />

baba.”<br />

Q: When you did that, you were inside <strong>the</strong> guard house?<br />

A: Yes sir, I was inside <strong>the</strong> guard house.<br />

Q: Now, when <strong>the</strong> 3 men near <strong>the</strong> car faced you, as you<br />

said, it was for about a minute or less than a minute?<br />

[…]<br />

A: Less than a minute sir. (TSN, August 21, 1996, pp. 74 –<br />

84)<br />

If in fact, <strong>the</strong> witness had seen <strong>the</strong>se two men walking to and fro in front <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

guardhouse where he was stationed prior to <strong>the</strong> shooting incident and he recognized <strong>the</strong>se<br />

two men as <strong>the</strong> ones who pointed <strong>the</strong>ir guns at him, he would have easily concluded that<br />

<strong>the</strong>se two o<strong>the</strong>r persons are part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group which carried out <strong>the</strong> ambush <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> victim.<br />

Then, he would have related to <strong>the</strong> police <strong>of</strong>ficers who conducted <strong>the</strong> investigation that<br />

he saw six men who carried out <strong>the</strong> ambush. But this witness categorically stated to <strong>the</strong><br />

police investigators that <strong>the</strong>re were only four (not six) men he saw shoot at <strong>the</strong> victim.<br />

The acts attributed by <strong>the</strong> witness to <strong>the</strong> two men whom he referred to as those<br />

whom he saw walking to and fro in front <strong>of</strong> his guardhouse prior to <strong>the</strong> shooting incident<br />

are very vivid and detailed that he could not have failed to remember <strong>the</strong>m when he<br />

executed his sworn statement on <strong>the</strong> very same day that <strong>the</strong> incident happened. This is<br />

exactly “a very important detail <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> incident that one relating <strong>the</strong> incident as an<br />

eyewitness cannot be expected to fail to mention” which <strong>the</strong> court referred to in a line<br />

<strong>of</strong> decisions. (People vs. Narvaez, et. al., G.R. NO. 140759, January 24, 2002; People vs.<br />

Castillo, 261 SCRA 493 citing People vs. Calegan, G.R. No. 93846, June 30, 1994, 233<br />

SCRA 537).<br />

Since <strong>the</strong> witness failed to mention <strong>the</strong>se details when he narrated <strong>the</strong> events just<br />

five hours after <strong>the</strong> incident happened, it raises a very strong doubt that <strong>the</strong>se details ever<br />

happened at all.<br />

Page 33 <strong>of</strong> 127<br />

33

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!