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 This particular suspect who pointed a gun at the witness attained a greater significance to the witness as this particular suspect put the witness’ very life in danger. So, if there was anyone whom the witness would strongly remember, it would have been this suspect whom he narrated in his sworn statement to have pointed a gun at him and twice yelled at him to come down from the guardhouse. But the testimony of the witness reveal that he cannot even place this suspect who pointed a gun at him as among the four he and other suspects saw around the victim’s car. Several witnesses, including Alejo, saw only four suspects surround the black Honda and shot at the victim. The person who pointed a gun at Freddie Alejo and who shouted to him twice must necessarily be among this four suspects. Yet, based on Freddie Alejo’s testimony and his identification of the suspects made in open court, this person who pointed a gun at him, whom he identified as Joel de Jesus, was not among the four persons he saw around the victim’s car. He named those he allegedly saw around the victim’s car as Rameses de Jesus, Cesar Fortuna, Lenido Lumanog, and Augusto Santos. This glaring inconsistency points that the memory of this witness is highly suspect to be able to recall with certainty the appearances of the assailants. The in-court identification made by Freddie Alejo is likewise weak. Only two of the suspects were described by Freddie Alejo in his sworn statement. And both these descriptions given did not tie up with the physical appearances of the accused pinpointed as those earlier described. For the rest of the accused, no prior description was ever given by the witness. Augusto Santos, Rameses de Jesus, and Cesar Fortuna were never described by the witness. Thus, the in-court identification of these accused utterly lacks basis for want of any prior description of the suspects upon which to anchor the identification made in open court. The witness was never made to identify these accused from the time of their arrest until the day that the in-court identification was made. Neither was there any attempt to have these accused identified by the other eyewitnesses who came forward to Page 44 of 127 44
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 the police investigators The in-court identification of these particular accused, therefore, is nothing but a mere cursory pointing to the accused which can never amount to a positive identification. Interestingly significant is the fact that Freddie Alejo’s description of the suspect given to the police investigator just five hours after the shooting incident did not match with the characteristics of the accused identified in open court as Lenido Lumanog. He described the suspect who opened the car, took the clutch bag, grab the victim by the neck, drag the victim out of the car and shot at the victim when the latter was already sprawled at the pavement, as “Iyong sumakal sa biktima at nang-agaw ng clutch bag nito ay 25 – 30 ang edad, payat, mahaba ang buhok na nakatali, maitim, may taas na 5’5” – 5’6”.” Such description did not match with the physical appearance of Lenido Lumanog, 40 years old, with short hair, and fair complexioned. From the way the witness used maitim and kayumanggi in describing two of the suspects, he appears to have a good sense of telling the different hues of skin color. He described the person who pointed a gun and shouted at him to be kayumanggi while he described as maitim the suspect whom he said he saw open the car, took the victim’s clutch bag, grab the victim by the neck, dragged the victim out of the car and shot at the victim when the latter was already sprawled on the pavement. The difference in maitim and kayumanggi is readily understood by ordinary persons. Kayumanggi is lighter than maitim. And the witness himself used these words without coaching from anyone. These were the words he associated with the skin color of the persons he saw at the crime scene. If indeed it was Lenido Lumanog whom the witness saw near the left front side (driver’s side) of the victim’s car, he would not have used maitim in describing the suspect. Far from being just kayumanggi, Lenido Lumanog is fair-complexioned. If indeed Lenido Lumanog was the person whom the witness saw at the crime scene, to describe him as maitim would be to point to a mistake and flaw in the witness’ perception and his ability to relate what he has observed. And this point goes Page 45 of 127 45
Page 1 and 2: Republic of the Philippines SUPREME
Page 3 and 4: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 43: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 95 and 96:
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
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?