Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

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