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 13, 1996 cannot be trusted, if this witness can err on pointing to a person whom he allegedly saw for a longer period than the other witnesses whom he saw for only a brief moment, then there is more reason to doubt his credibility in accurately pinpointing the assailants whom he had seen only for the first time and for a very brief moment, under stressful and life-threatening circumstances. The way the witness related how he saw the four men surrounding the car of the victim, not all of them were facing him directly, in fact, two were standing with their back towards the witness. The prosecution tried to establish that the perpetrators whom they numbered 2, 3 and 4 during the trial, faced the witness when they heard their companion, labeled number 5 shouted “Dapa!” to the witness. When witness gave his narration of the incident during the police investigation, he said that he was nervous and dumbfounded when a gun was pointed at him that he could not move. (Question and Answer # 17, Exhibit L) During the trial, however, he said, he did not become nervous (TSN, Testimony of Freddie Alejo, September 4, 1996, pp. 20- 22, 26) and made the court believe that he saw the other three perpetrators face him. (TSN, Testimony of Freddie, August 20, 1996, p. 45; August 21, 1996, p. 76; September 4, 1996, p. 27-28) This attempt by the witness to make it appear that he was not nervous to show that he was able to observe clearly and objectively the incident casts a doubt to his credibility considering that his spontaneous statement given before the police investigator voluntarily acknowledged his nervousness and fright during the shooting incident. A person to whom a gun was pointed would normally focus his attention to the person who points the gun. This is the natural reaction to such a startling event as the fear that one might get shot at would make the person attentive to the one holding the gun. However, in his testimony in open court, the witness said that he looked at the three other perpetrators who faced him simultaneously. How can a person look at the faces of three different persons at three different locations at the same time? The physical impossibility Page 48 of 127 48
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 of this feat points to the incredibility of Alejo’s testimony certain details of which run counter to human nature and experience. As this Court has ruled in People vs. Belaje and reiterated in People vs. Atadero “Under the law on evidence, to be credible, testimonial evidence should not only come from the mouth of a credible witness, it should also be credible, reasonable, and in accord with human experience. It should be such that under the common experience and observation of mankind the testimony in question would lead to no other inference than its probability under the circumstances. This holds true especially in cases where there is no test by which to determine its veracity except its conformity to our knowledge, observation and experience.” (People vs. Belaje, G.R. NO. 125331, November 23, 2000, 345 SCRA 604, citing People vs. Atad, 334 Phil. 235, 248 and People vs. Manambit, 338 Phil. 57, 91, reiterated in People vs. Atadero, et. al., G.R. Nos. 135239-40, August 12, 2002). The witness only saw the perpetrators for a brief moment. In fact, in his own words, he admitted this to the police investigator when he answered “mabilis ang mga pangyayari, sir.” (Question and Answer #22, Exhibit L-2) The swiftness by which the crime was committed and the physical impossibility of memorizing the faces of all the perpetrators of the crime whom the witness saw for the first time and only for a brief moment under life-threatening and stressful circumstances raise serious doubts as to whether the witness could accurately remember the identity of the perpetrators of the crime. The eyewitness’ ability to correctly identify the perpetrators of the crime was seriously undermined when one of the accused, Lorenzo delos Santos, whom the witness allegedly saw for a longer period of time, was acquitted by the trial court after presenting evidence that he was not at the crime scene at all. This raises a serious doubt as to whether the accused, who have been languishing in jail for more than seven years now, are the actual persons who were at the crime scene and who perpetrated the acts complained of. The fact that this lone eyewitness presented in open court has added material details in his testimony and whose recollection of the assailants is shady cast a serious and not just a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused whose lives hang in the balance with the imposition of the death penalty by the lower court are the actual authors of the crime complained of. Page 49 of 127 49
Page 1 and 2: Republic of the Philippines SUPREME
Page 3 and 4: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 47: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 99 and 100:
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
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?