Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF
People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al.
S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64
E. The discrepancy in Alejo’s testimony and his sworn statement as to the
number of suspects was never explained by the prosecution and has greatly
eroded the credibility of the witness.
The witness actually saw four men at the crime scene. In fact, other witnesses also
narrated in their sworn statements that they saw four men around the car of the victim.
Increasing this number to six and testifying in such a way as to show concerted action
among them to establish conspiracy among all the suspects go directly to the
determination of the culpability of the accused. If the court would believe the testimony
of the witness there is a great likelihood that it will be convicting six (now reduced to five
when the lower court correctly acquitted one of the accused) men instead of four who
actually perpetrated the act. This would mean convicting men who are otherwise
innocent. This omission in the salaysay of the witness pertaining to a very material detail
that goes directly to the determination of the culpability of the accused shows that the
witness has, by his own account before the police investigator and his testimony before
the court, destroyed his own credibility, even committing perjury in the process.
During the trial on August 22, 1996, Atty. Bagatsing, on cross-examination of
witness Freddie Alejo, tried to clarify on the material discrepancy between the number of
suspects that the witness declared in his sworn statement given to SPO1 Edilberto S.
Nicanor. It is clear from the records that the prosecutors, instead of welcoming the
opportunity for the clarification of the material discrepancy, tried their best to block the
clarification.
Atty. Bagatsing:
Q: Now, Mr. Witness, in your sworn (sic) marked as
Exhibit “L”, which you gave to SPO1 Edilberto S.
Nicanor, on June 13, 1996, on or about 1:55 p.m. which
you testified to earlier, on cross by Atty. Buted, your
attention was called with reference to question an answer
in Number 16, and question and answer Number 17, in
relation to question and answer in Number 18. Now, this
is my question: In question Number 16, you were asked
and I quote: “Ano pa ang sumunod na pangyayari kung
mayroon?” Sagot: “Isa sa suspect na nasa tapat ko po ay
tunutukan ako ng kanyang baril at sinigawan ako ng
“dapa”, pinapababa niya ako sa guardhouse.” Question
NO. 17, Tanong: Anong ginawa kung mayroon nang
utusan ka na bumaba? Sagot: Dahil sa nerbiyos ko ay
Page 50 of 127
50