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 The testimony of the only eyewitness presented in court is touted by the prosecution as free from any improper motive to falsely testify against the accused in this case and relies on this Court’s ruling in People vs. Platilla, People vs. Agunias, and People vs. Malazarte that “Absent any evidence showing any reason or motive for a prosecution witness to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists and his testimony is thus worthy of full faith and credit.” (G.R. NO. 126123, March 9, 1999; 279 SCRA 52, 65; and 261 SCRA 482, respectively) The lack of evidence of any improper motive on the part of the witness to falsely testify against the accused does not in itself render the whole testimony of such witness reliable. The contents of such testimony must be fully scrutinized as improper motive is not the only ground or the only factor to be considered in assessing the testimony of the witness. The existence of motive to falsely testify against the accused is not the accused is not the only ground or factor that could discredit a witness. Equally deplorable is the motive to favor the prosecution through favors received by the witness. Freddie Alejo was given housing accommodations by the victim’s family. This was established when Merlito Herbas testified that Freddie Alejo was staying in the same compound where the victim’s family provided them with housing accommodations. (TSN, Testimony of Merlito Herbas, February 20, 1998, p.67-69, 95-96) In the instant case, the trial court discredited the testimony of the other security guard, Merlito Herbas, for as the trial court has said, he is a disgruntled witness after he did not receive the full amount of monthly salary and the coverage of the witness protection program promised by the victim’s family. However, the trial court failed to consider that Freddie Alejo, having been given housing accommodations and probably, similar benefits given to Herbas, Thus, while indeed, Freddie Alejo might not have been moved by any motive to falsely testify against all the accused-appellants, yet he might have been moved by the Page 54 of 127 54
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 benefits he was receiving from the victim’s family to confirm whatever the police or the prosecution suggest to him in order to win a conviction. The motive to favor the prosecution so he could continue enjoying the benefits provided him by the victim’s family has, in fact, colored Freddie Alejo’s objectivity as a witness. Because of the benefits accorded him by the victim’s family, there is a great likelihood that Freddie Alejo would willingly and blindly agree to whatever the police and the prosecution would want him to say, including pointing to persons whom he did not actually see at the crime seen, as the case of Lorenzo delos Santos has evidently proved. G. These discrepancies and incredibility in the testimony of the lone eyewitness presented in open court, including his bias brought about by the benefits he received from the victim’s family warrant a reversal of the trial court’s findings as to the credibility of the witness. Absent any explanation for the discrepancies between Alejo’s narration in his sworn statement and his testimony in open court, absent any corroborating evidence that the accused are the same persons seen by the witness at the crime scene, absent any showing that the witness knows the suspects too well as to be mistaken in ascertaining their identity in court, the trial court’s findings as to the Freddie Alejo’s credibility and its subsequent reliance on his testimony in convicting the accused should be reversed. This Court has explained in People vs. Dy and Garcia why the trial court’s findings must be respected. “The trial court’s findings are accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court may have overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the results of the case. Unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they are lying.” (G.R. Nos. 115236-37. January 29, 2002, citing People vs. Alvarez, G.R. Nos. 135552-53, June 21, 2001 and People vs. Belga, G.R. NO. 129769, January 19, 2001). Page 55 of 127 55
Page 1 and 2:
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME
Page 3 and 4: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 53: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 105 and 106:
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
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?