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 whom the witness referred to in his sworn statement given to police investigators just five hours after the incident? There were only four suspects seen by all the eyewitnesses who were investigated by the police. These four suspects must necessarily be those who were seen by all the witnesses around the victim’s car: one at the driver’s side (front left); another near the passenger’s side (front right), another at the rear right side of the car and the fourth at the car’s rear left side. For Joel de Jesus to be at the crime scene, he must be among these four suspects around the car. Freddie Alejo, in open court, pointed to Rameses de Jesus, Cesar Fortuna, Lenido Lumanog and Augusto Santos as those whom he allegedly saw around the victim’s car. This alone, already points to the fact that Joel de Jesus was not among those who were seen at the crime scene on the very day the crime was perpetrated. Add to this the fact that the two men allegedly walking to and fro in front of the guardhouse where Alejo was stationed were just added belatedly in Alejo’s testimony and were never touched upon in his earlier salaysay. Comparing his testimony in open court and his earlier sworn statement, the reliability of the sworn statement is greater considering that it was given just five hours before the incident happened. In the words of the trial court itself, The shooting incident at bench took place around 8:40 in the morning. By 9:00 a.m., policemen were already swarming in the crime scene interviewing likely witnesses including SG Alejo. In the process SG Alejo must have been repeatedly telling (alone of with others) various persons – police and civilian alike – his observations on what happened that morning. The typewriter recording at 1:55 noon of SG Alejo’s salaysay is but the culmination of a long process of oral interviews and conversation so that the results thereof can be put in systematic order. Additionally, at that period in time, SG Alejo’s recollection is still very recent and fresh and he appears to be solely in touch with police investigators who came to know of the ambush that same morning. His court testimony, therefore, given at a much later date (August 1996) after the arrest of Lorenzo delos Santos wherein SG Alejo narrated that there were two (2) men loitering about near his post and that one after the other those two men barked at or ordered him is weakened by what he had earlier told police investigators disclosing that only one (1) person shouted orders to him. In view of this, the court finds the alibi of Lorenzo to have been correspondingly Page 60 of 127 60
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 strengthened as to put in doubt the prosecution’s case against this particular accused. (Joint Decision, p. 30) Thus the trial court correctly held that Freddie Alejo’s testimony given at a later date is weakened by what he had earlier told police investigators. This ruling by the trial court and its acquittal of Lorenzo delos Santos lead to the conclusion that the testimony of the witness pertaining to the two men whom the witness referred to as walking to and fro near his guardhouse for more than an hour prior to the shooting incident is really not worthy of credence. In fact, the trial court correctly ruled that “His court testimony, therefore, given at a much later date (August 1996) after the arrest of Lorenzo delos Santos wherein SG Alejo narrated that there were two (2) men loitering about near his post and that one after the other those two men barked at or ordered him is weakened by what he had earlier told police investigators disclosing that only one (1) person shouted orders to him.” The court, however, failed to go further as it should have gone on to say that this one person who shouted orders at him was among the four suspects who shot at the victim as this is necessitated by the various accounts given to the police officers that there were only four men seen at the crime scene. The trial court likewise ruled that Merlito Herbas also confirmed Joel de Jesus’ presence at the crime scene and relied on Herbas’ sworn statement where he pointed to Joel de Jesus as one of those he saw at the crime scene. However, SG Merlito Herbas has openly declared in court that Major Rodolfo made him identify Joel de Jesus. He recanted this identification saying that he was just forced to say that Joel was among the suspects. (TSN, Testimony of Merlito Herbas, March 27, 1998, p. 23, May 27, 1998, pp. 4-6). Moreover, security guard Merlito Herbas categorically declared in open court that all accused in this case were not the suspects he saw at the crime scene when the victim was ambushed. (TSN, Testimony of Merlito Herbas, March 29, 1998, pp 18-18, 25). From all the foregoing, the confirmation made by the two witnesses as to Joel de Jesus’ presence in the crime scene cannot be said to have been done independently, free Page 61 of 127 61
Page 1 and 2:
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME
Page 3 and 4:
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 59: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
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?