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 Atty Corpus Atty. Bagatsing You said “other than the 4.” Q: In front of the guardhouse. Atty. Corpus Atty. Bagatsing Not referring to the other 4? Q: Not referring to the other 4. A: Yes sir. Q: Did you include that statement in your sworn statement referred to as Exhibit “L”? Fiscal Sotero Atty. Bagatsing The best evidence is the document. Q: I am showing the document. Will you go over Exhibit “L” an tell us if there is any reference of that statement with respect to your allegation in your direct testimony that there were 2 persons walking to and fro in the guardhouse where you were posted at 7:00 o’clock on June 13, 1996? Atty. Corpus Court Atty. Bagatsing Even the time is very misleading. The witness said… Anyway, the best evidence is the document. Q: That is why I am giving him the document. If it is there, he can look for it. Is it there or is it not there? The question is very simple, Your Honor. If he can pinpoint any statement to that effect in his statement? Atty. Corpus But the question is not only objectional (sic) because of best evidence but also because it is misleading because the time frame used by the cross-examiner is different from what the witness said. Atty. Bagatsing Page 52 of 127 52
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 Court Your Honor, I don’t claim to have a very good memory but sometimes I remember correctly, your Honor, that the witness testified that he noticed two persons walking to and fro on or about 8:00 o’clock in the morning. Anyway, the best evidence is the document. I will sustain the objection. (TSN August 22, 1996, pp. 137 – 147) Thus, the material discrepancy in the number of suspects as related to by witness Freddie Alejo in his sworn statement saying there were only four suspects and his testimony in open court declaring that there were six persons who perpetrated the crime was never fully explained by the prosecution. In fact, the prosecutors blocked all attempt of the defense counsel to clarify the discrepancy. The number of suspects is a very important aspect of this case. Upon it hinges the number of persons who should be held responsible and who should suffer the corresponding penalty. Thus the prosecution should have amply and sufficiently explained the addition of two more suspects in the crime by this witness. But they did not. This eroded heavily the witness’ credibility and has cast aspersion as to the truth of the other points he testified to in open court. If this witness can add two more persons whom he never mentioned in his earlier declaration before the police investigators, there is a great likelihood that he has laced his testimony with other details that are contrary to what he has actually observed. Any contradiction appearing in the sworn statement and the testimony of a witness in open court should be sufficiently explained by the prosecution to erase any doubt as to the veracity of the account forwarded by their witness. Failure to do so implies that the contradictions are a result of a laced testimony not worthy of credence in a criminal prosecution where lives and liberty of individuals are at stake. F. Freddie Alejo’s testimony might have been tainted because of the benefit given to him by the family of the victim. Page 53 of 127 53
Page 1 and 2: Republic of the Philippines SUPREME
Page 3 and 4: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 51: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 103 and 104:
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?