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 />
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