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 Testifying in open court that there were two persons who each pointed a gun at him materially contradicts his earlier statement that only one of the four suspects pointed a gun at him. Making the court believe that he was not nervous and that the other suspects all faced him when one of the suspects pointed a gun and shouted at him when in his affidavit he related that he was nervous and could not move, is a material contradiction that goes directly into the possibility of correctly identifying the suspects. His declaration in his affidavit that he was nervous and could not move is but a natural reaction to a startling and threatening situation. His testimony in open court, however, suggests that the witness was coached in an attempt to bolster his credibility and ability to identify the suspects despite the threat to his own life at that moment. These discrepancies taken together all point out that the lone eyewitness presented in open court has added material details in his testimony in open court. These additions which directly and significantly contradicted his sworn statement gravely affected his credibility as a witness. As this honorable court ruled in People vs. Mandao: “As a rule, testimonial evidence or oral testimony commands greater respect than a mere affidavit. Hence, discrepancies between the two do not necessarily discredit a witness. However, this principle finds no application in a case in which the latter directly and significantly contradicts material matters made in the former. Accordingly, when there is an omission in an affidavit concerning a very important detail that may well determine the culpability of the accused, that omission can affect the affiant’s credibility.” (G.R. No. 135048, December 3, 2002, citing People v. Doinog, 332 SCRA 336, May 31, 2000). C. The witness’ recollection of the appearance of the assailants is highly unreliable and raises serious doubts as to whether the suspects he saw are the same persons as the accused or as to whether the witness has made a positive identification at all. Page 38 of 127 38
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 The trial court committed a reversible error when it relied heavily on the “positive identification” of the lone eyewitness presented in open court in convicting all the accused for the crime of murder. The witness’ recollection of the appearances of the assailants is highly unreliable that it is doubtful whether this particular witness had indeed made a positive identification of the suspects. For the identification of suspects by the witness to be positive, it must be established that aside from having seen the suspects at the crime scene, the suspects left indelible or at least memorable marks in the memory of the witness that facilitate his recall of their appearances. For unlike other methods of establishing the presence of suspects at the crime scene, i.e. DNA testing, fingerprint identification, which establish the suspects’ presence with scientific precision through a one-to-one correspondence of the samples taken from the crime scene and the samples taken from the person of the suspects, the process of cursorily pointing at the accused in open court and saying that these persons are the same ones whom the witness saw at the crime scene is fraught with dangers of mix-ups and mistaken identities. It would have been different if several witnesses were presented and all are one in identifying the suspects as the perpetrators of the crime complained of. Yet, when only one eyewitness is presented in court, the prosecution must endeavor to establish with certainty that the persons whom the witness saw at the crime scene are the same persons as the accused. Such identification should involve a degree of certitude that rules out any possibility of a mix-up or mistaken identity and cannot be convincingly accomplished by simply asking the witness to point to the suspects in court without showing any reference which the witness used in identifying the suspects. In most of the cases where this court upheld the conviction of the accused based on positive identification made by eyewitnesses, the suspect or suspects are either personally known or are already familiar to the witnesses beforehand. The witnesses, Page 39 of 127 39
Page 1 and 2: Republic of the Philippines SUPREME
Page 3 and 4: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 37: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 89 and 90:
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
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?