Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF<br />
People <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Philippines</strong> vs. Fortuna, et. al.<br />
S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64<br />
benefits he was receiving from <strong>the</strong> victim’s family to confirm whatever <strong>the</strong> police or <strong>the</strong><br />
prosecution suggest to him in order to win a conviction.<br />
The motive to favor <strong>the</strong> prosecution so he could continue enjoying <strong>the</strong> benefits<br />
provided him by <strong>the</strong> victim’s family has, in fact, colored Freddie Alejo’s objectivity as a<br />
witness.<br />
Because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> benefits accorded him by <strong>the</strong> victim’s family, <strong>the</strong>re is a great<br />
likelihood that Freddie Alejo would willingly and blindly agree to whatever <strong>the</strong> police<br />
and <strong>the</strong> prosecution would want him to say, including pointing to persons whom he did<br />
not actually see at <strong>the</strong> crime seen, as <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> Lorenzo delos Santos has evidently<br />
proved.<br />
G. These discrepancies and incredibility in <strong>the</strong> testimony <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lone eyewitness<br />
presented in open court, including his bias brought about by <strong>the</strong> benefits he<br />
received from <strong>the</strong> victim’s family warrant a reversal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> trial court’s<br />
findings as to <strong>the</strong> credibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> witness.<br />
Absent any explanation for <strong>the</strong> discrepancies between Alejo’s narration in his<br />
sworn statement and his testimony in open court, absent any corroborating evidence that<br />
<strong>the</strong> accused are <strong>the</strong> same persons seen by <strong>the</strong> witness at <strong>the</strong> crime scene, absent any<br />
showing that <strong>the</strong> witness knows <strong>the</strong> suspects too well as to be mistaken in ascertaining<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir identity in court, <strong>the</strong> trial court’s findings as to <strong>the</strong> Freddie Alejo’s credibility and its<br />
subsequent reliance on his testimony in convicting <strong>the</strong> accused should be reversed.<br />
This Court has explained in People vs. Dy and Garcia why <strong>the</strong> trial court’s<br />
findings must be respected.<br />
“The trial court’s findings are accorded finality,<br />
unless <strong>the</strong>re appears in <strong>the</strong> record some fact or<br />
circumstance <strong>of</strong> weight which <strong>the</strong> lower court may have<br />
overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if<br />
properly considered, would alter <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> case.<br />
Unless certain facts <strong>of</strong> substance and value were<br />
overlooked which, if considered, might affect <strong>the</strong> result <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> case, its assessment must be respected for it had <strong>the</strong><br />
opportunity to observe <strong>the</strong> conduct and demeanor <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
witnesses while testifying and detect if <strong>the</strong>y are lying.”<br />
(G.R. Nos. 115236-37. January 29, 2002, citing People vs.<br />
Alvarez, G.R. Nos. 135552-53, June 21, 2001 and People<br />
vs. Belga, G.R. NO. 129769, January 19, 2001).<br />
Page 55 <strong>of</strong> 127<br />
55