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 Presumably, Alejo was not disgruntled and was happy with the Abadilla family’s arrangements for him. Would that not also color his perception and attitude? Were the Court’s “eyes wide shut” to this and other inconsistencies, contradictions and discrepancies as regards Alejo? Such unequal treatment is also violative of the equal protection clause. Thus, Freddie Alejo, who was given certain benefits by the family of the victim could have simply agreed to confirm what the police and prosecution would ask him to confirm even if the same would be contrary to what he has seen so that he could continue receiving the benefits given him. This could have explained why this witness added two more persons among the suspects when he was so categorical in saying that there were just four men he saw as the malefactors. All these point to one thing: Joel de Jesus was never at the crime scene at all. And in the same way that (Lorenzo delos Santos), whom Alejo allegedly saw walking to and fro in the vicinity for more than an hour, together with Lorenzo delos Santos, before the shooting incident happened, was correctly acquitted by the trial court, Joel de Jesus must, of necessity and being similarly situated as Lorenzo delos Santos, in that they were just both added to the number of actual suspects seen at the crime scene, should have been acquitted as well. And all this point to another thing: that the confessions extracted from Joel de Jesus, aside from being inadmissible in evidence because they were uncounselled and coerced confessions, were not true accounts of what transpired at the crime scene but were forced upon him by the police investigators who tortured him into admitting his participation in the crime and into pointing to other persons as his cohorts. IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE TORTURED AND COERCED EXTRA- JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS OF ACCUSED JOEL DE JESUS AND LORENZO DELOS SANTOS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED. Page 64 of 127 64
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 A. The confessions of Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos bear all the marks of inadmissibility that the Constitution speaks of in the Bill of Rights. In People vs. Muleta, the Court reiterated its ruling in People vs. Santos (283 SCRA 443), that “A confession is not admissible unless the prosecution satisfactorily shows that it was obtained within the limits imposed by the 1987 Constitution.” (309 SCRA 148, 161). Sec. 12 of the 1987 Constitution provides in part: “(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.” (2) No torture, force, violence, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (3) Any confession or admission in violation of this or section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.” Far from showing satisfactorily that the confessions offered in evidence were obtained within the limits imposed by the 1987 Constitution, the prosecution failed miserably to prove that the Constitutional safeguards were met when the alleged confessions of Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos were taken. The prosecution failed to show that the Constitutional guarantees of affording suspects with competent and independent counsels of their own choice, the safeguards against self-incrimination, and the proscription against use of force, torture, violence and coercion were met when their alleged extra-judicial confessions were taken. What is shown in the records of this case is that all these safeguards enshrined in the Constitution, expounded by the statutes and repeatedly elucidated by this Honorable Court were flagrantly violated in the instant case. Page 65 of 127 65
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:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 63: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
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?