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 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
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 Atty. Corpus: hindi ako nakagalaw dito ay sumigaw uli ang suspect ng “baba” walang makikialam. Sa takot ko ay dumapa ako sa guardhouse.” There were two questions asked of you, one was Question Number 16 and another one in Question Number 17, and the question asked of you in Number 16, which was read to you earlier, “ Anong sumunod na pangyayari?” Sinigawan ako ng “baba”, that was your answer. Now, can you tell us whether the order uttered by the person who told you to go down and the order asked you “baba” emanated from one and the same person? The question, may we ask the cross examiner to simplify the question? Because the question is already kilometric. Atty. Bagatsing Q: Were the utterances and orders mentioned in Question and Answer Number 16 and Number 17, of your statement emanated and came from one and the same person? Atty. Corpus Court Witness Already answered. If the question of the examiner… Witness may answer. A: Yes, sir, one and the same person. Atty. Bagatsing Q: Now, during your direct-examination, you stated in open court, that other than the 4 suspects mentioned in your earlier testimony there were two other suspects whom you noticed walking to and fro in the guardpost where you were positioned, do you recall having stated that? Atty. Corpus Court Objection. Very misleading because the examiner mentioned that there were other 2 walking to and fro, so it means to say, the 4 were walking to and fro. He mentioned only two. Atty. Bagatsing: Q: You stated that there were two persons walking to and fro. Page 51 of 127 51
Page 1 and 2: Republic of the Philippines SUPREME
Page 3 and 4: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 49: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 101 and 102:
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
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?