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 because of their familiarity with the suspects, were able to recognize them at the time they commit the crime and can readily identify them at any given time. However, such is not always the case. There are a lot of instances when witnesses do not personally know or are not even acquainted with the suspects whom they might have seen only for the first time. In such instances the witness’ recollection of the suspects should be subjected to a more rigorous test to rule out any mistake. It must not be enough that the witness cursorily point at the accused and tell the court that these are the persons he has seen commit the crime but all the circumstances that aid the witness in recalling with certainty the identity of the suspects must also be shown. Factors such as the distance of the witness from the suspects, the length of time that the witness has seen the suspects, the ability of the suspect to recall, the presence or absence of any distraction that could affect the witness’ attention to the appearances of the suspects, all become relevant and must all point to a certainty of establishing the identity of the suspects. But more importantly, the witness must be able to recall and relate certain specific characteristics of the suspects that would establish a well-founded belief that the suspect could not have been any other person than the accused. While it might be too stringent a test to require that witnesses must be able to point certain characteristics unique to the suspects, or if not, at least several memorable characteristics that pertain to the suspects indicating a convincing reason why those characteristics stuck to the witness’ mind, yet, it might be the only safeguard to rule out any possibility of a mix-up or mistaken identity. Besides, this would be in keeping with the rule in criminal prosecution that the guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt. This, in fact, has been crystallized by this Court when it adopted the totality of circumstances test in resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court and in- court identification of suspects. This test was adopted by this Court in People vs. Teehankee, Jr. (G.R. Nos. 111206-08, October 6, 1995) and reiterated by in People vs. Page 40 of 127 40
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 Timon (G.R. Nos. 977841-42, November 12, 1997) and in People vs. Arapok (G.R. Nos. 134974, December 8, 2000) in this wise: “Out-of court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. It is also done thru line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. Since corruption of out-of-court identification contaminates the integrity of in-court identification during the trial of the case, courts have fashioned out rules to assure its fairness and its compliance with the requirements of constitutional due process. In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz: (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.” Freddie Alejo made out-of-court identification of Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos. He also made in-court identification of Joel de Jesus, Lorenzo delos Santos, Rameses de Jesus, Lenido Lumanog, Cesar Fortuna, and Augusto Santos. We assail both identification as inherently weak and which should not have been relied upon as basis for conviction of accused-appellants following the totality of circumstances test cited above. The first time Freddie Alejo was made to identify Joel de Jesus was when the latter was arrested on June 19, 1996. The witness was first shown photos of Joel de Jesus and the police officers brought the witness along with them to identify Joel de Jesus in Fairview prior to the latter’s arrest. Freddie Alejo was again made to identify Joel de Jesus, this time together with Lorenzo delos Santos, allegedly in a police line-up conducted at the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) at Camp Karingal on June 21, 1996. Exhibit M, which is the additional statement of Freddie Alejo pointing to Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos as those who pointed guns at him, contains the following: “Declarant at this instance positively identified the suspects during a police line-up composed of D/P Johnny Page 41 of 127 41
Page 1 and 2: Republic of the Philippines SUPREME
Page 3 and 4: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 39: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 91 and 92:
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
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?