01.12.2012 Views

Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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 />

This explanation in according <strong>the</strong> trial court’s findings with finality finds no<br />

application in this instant case because <strong>the</strong> Judge who penned <strong>the</strong> decision was not <strong>the</strong><br />

same Judge who was able to observe <strong>the</strong> demeanor <strong>of</strong> this particular eyewitness when <strong>the</strong><br />

testimony was presented in court. In such a case where <strong>the</strong> observations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> trial judge<br />

as to <strong>the</strong> demeanor <strong>of</strong> a witness was not considered in arriving at <strong>the</strong> conclusions about<br />

<strong>the</strong> credibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> witness, <strong>the</strong>re is no o<strong>the</strong>r way <strong>of</strong> testing <strong>the</strong> credibility <strong>of</strong> such<br />

witness save by scrutinizing <strong>the</strong> contents <strong>of</strong> his testimony.<br />

We have shown, through a careful scrutiny <strong>of</strong> Freddie Alejo’s testimony, that <strong>the</strong><br />

trial court’s findings on his credibility are arbitrary in that it relied heavily on <strong>the</strong><br />

testimony even if <strong>the</strong>re were contradictions and omissions that were never explained. We<br />

have also shown facts and circumstances <strong>of</strong> weight and influence that might have been<br />

overlooked (like <strong>the</strong> glaring discrepancy in <strong>the</strong> description <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> suspects with <strong>the</strong><br />

physical appearance <strong>of</strong> Lenido Lumanog), misunderstood (like <strong>the</strong> actual number <strong>of</strong><br />

suspects that witness saw at <strong>the</strong> crime scene, also discussed as a separate assignment <strong>of</strong><br />

error), or misapplied (like <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> positive identification having been misapplied<br />

to <strong>the</strong> identification made by <strong>the</strong> witness in open court, which we assail as not a clear and<br />

positive identification at all) by <strong>the</strong> trial judge.<br />

Add to this <strong>the</strong> bias that resulted from receiving housing accommodations and<br />

probably o<strong>the</strong>r benefits from <strong>the</strong> victim’s family which <strong>the</strong> trial court failed to consider in<br />

assessing <strong>the</strong> credibility <strong>of</strong> Freddie Alejo.<br />

All <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se, when considered, will surely affect <strong>the</strong> result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> case warranting<br />

<strong>the</strong> setting aside <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> trial court’s findings as to <strong>the</strong> credibility <strong>of</strong> witness Freddie Alejo.<br />

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING ALEJO'S<br />

EARLY SWORN STATEMENT TO MEAN THAT THERE<br />

WERE FIVE, NOT FOUR, SUSPECTS HE SAW PERPETRATE<br />

THE CRIME.<br />

Page 56 <strong>of</strong> 127<br />

56

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!