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 – 5’6”, maiksi din ang baril niya at naka-puting polo. Iyong iba ay maaaring makilala ko kung makikita ko uli. 22. T – Ang sabi mo, pagbangon mo sa pagkakadapa sa guardhouse ay wala na ang mga suspect, may napansin ka bang sasakyan sa pagtakas nila matapos mabaril ang biktima? S – Mabilis nga sir ang pangyayari. Wala na sila noong bangon ko na iyon. Wala din akong napansin kung may sasakyan man sila sa pagtakas.” (Exhibit “L”, “L-1”, “L- 2”) Scrutinizing his sworn statement, there was no mention whatsoever of two other men walking to and fro in front of his guardhouse. However, in open court, his testimony is filled with vivid details about the two men walking to and fro in front of the guardhouse before the incident. He also attributed the pointing of the guns to him to these two men whom he allegedly saw walking to and fro in front of his guardhouse for more than an hour prior to the shooting incident. (TSN, Testimony of Freddie Alejo, August 20, 1996, pp. 15, 28, 39, 40-41, 45-46, August 21, 1996, pp. 19, 20, 23-25, 74-82) In his sworn statement, the witness was very categorical when he declared that he saw four men during the shooting incident. When asked on that same day of the incident, “Sino naman ang bumaril sa biktima na ito kung kilala mo?” he readily answered, “Apat na hindi kilalang lalaki sir na armado ng baril.” He only mentioned four suspects. And continuing with his narration when asked (Question 16) “Ano pa ang sumunod na nangyari kung mayroon?” his answer was: “Isa sa suspect na nasa tapat ko ay tinutukan ako ng kanyang baril at sinigawan ako ng “BABA” Pinabababa niya ako sa guardhouse.” When he qualified his statement with the phrase “Isa sa suspect na nasa tapat ko” he could not have been referring to another person other than the “apat na hindi kilalang lalaki” he earlier referred to. Otherwise, if this person who pointed a gun at him were not among the four men, he would not have categorically declared that there were four men who perpetrated the shooting. And when asked, “Ano ang ginawa mo, kung mayroon nuong (sic) utusan ka na bumaba?” he answered, “Dahil sa nerbiyos ko ay hindi ako nakagalaw. Dito ay sumigaw Page 36 of 127 36
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 uli ang suspect ng “BABA! … Walang makikialam.” … at sa takot ko ay dumapa ako sa guardhouse.” The phrase “sumigaw uli ang suspect,” in the answer to question # 17 means that the same person who earlier shouted at him shouted again when he did not heed the command the first time it was given. When taken together with the phrase “Isa sa suspect na nasa tapat ko ay tinutukan ako ng kanyang baril at sinigawan ako” in the answer to question # 16 the phrase “sumigaw uli ang suspect” proves that the witness was referring to one and the same person who shouted “BABA!” for the first time and who repeated the same command “BABA!” and added “Walang makikialam,” when he did not come down from the guardhouse. Since the witness even qualified that the person who shouted at him was “isa sa suspect,” he could not have been referring to another person other than the four suspects whom he saw around the victim’s car. Otherwise, if the suspect who pointed a gun at him was not among the four he saw around the victim’s car, he would have easily concluded that there were five persons who perpetrated the act. But just five hours after the shooting incident, this witness freely and spontaneously narrated to the investigating officer that he saw four men shoot at the victim. It is also clear in his salaysay that when one of the suspects pointed a gun at him, he was nervous and could not move. In his own words, “Dahil sa nerbiyos ko ay hindi ako nakagalaw.” During his cross examination, however, the witness declared, “When only one suspect was pointing a gun at me, I wasn’t scared yet but when there were already two suspects pointing a gun at me, I went down because they might actually shoot me.” (TSN, September 4, 1996, p. 22) These discrepancies in the contents of the witness’ affidavit and his testimony in open court are important and substantial. Increasing the number of suspects from four to six significantly contradicts a material point that the witness stated in his affidavit. Page 37 of 127 37
Page 1 and 2: Republic of the Philippines SUPREME
Page 3 and 4: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 35: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 87 and 88:
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
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?