Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

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