Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF
People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al.
S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64
from any suggestion and with certainty. This raises a doubt as to whether Joel de Jesus
was indeed at the crime scene. For if he was indeed in the crime scene and was among
those who perpetrated the crime, he should have been one of the four suspects situated
around the victim’s car. Yet, in the testimony of the lone eyewitness presented in open
court, Joel de Jesus was not among the four who were around the victim’s car. The doubt
is even greater since another eyewitness who was not presented by the prosecution but
was presented by defense testified that he did not see any of the accused at the crime
scene.
The prosecution’s over reliance to a single eyewitness when there were other
eyewitnesses who came forward during the investigation and who expressed their
willingness to testify raises suspicion as to the reliability of the eyewitness presented in
court.
It is the prosecution’s duty to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. It is their duty to present the other eyewitnesses to make sure that no mistake in
identification of the accused is committed to the prejudice of innocent individuals. Yet,
the prosecution never bothered to corroborate Alejo’s testimony and identification with
the other eyewitnesses.
Such attitude of the prosecution in not presenting the other eyewitnesses calls for
the operation of Rule 131 Sec 3(e) of the Revised Rules of Court which states that:
“The following presumptions are satisfactory if
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other
evidence:
(3) That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse
if produced.”
In fact, if Merlito Herbas’ testimony is any indication, there is a great likelihood
that the other eyewitnesses would also testify that the accused are not those they saw at
the crime scene.
Page 62 of 127
62