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 />
1. The suspects were not afforded competent and independent counsel <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ir own choice.<br />
Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos were not provided with competent and<br />
independent counsel <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own choice when <strong>the</strong>y allegedly executed <strong>the</strong>ir extra-judicial<br />
confessions. Instead, <strong>the</strong> police <strong>of</strong>ficers engaged <strong>the</strong> services <strong>of</strong> counsels who have been<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir favorite choice in many cases where suspects allegedly confess <strong>the</strong>ir commission <strong>of</strong>,<br />
or <strong>the</strong>ir participation in <strong>the</strong> commission <strong>of</strong>, crimes. In most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se cases where <strong>the</strong>se<br />
counsels were engaged by <strong>the</strong> police <strong>of</strong>ficers to assist <strong>the</strong> suspects in executing <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
extra-judicial confessions, such suspects would later recant <strong>the</strong>ir alleged confessions<br />
because <strong>the</strong>se were extracted from <strong>the</strong>m through torture, force, violence, intimidation and<br />
coercion.<br />
Nei<strong>the</strong>r Joel de Jesus nor Lorenzo delos Santos were allowed to talk with any <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ir relatives. And instead <strong>of</strong> allowing <strong>the</strong>m to talk with a lawyer <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own choice,<br />
<strong>the</strong> police <strong>of</strong>ficers brought <strong>the</strong>m to lawyers who were chosen not by <strong>the</strong> suspects but by<br />
<strong>the</strong> police <strong>of</strong>ficers.<br />
The following documents, alleged extra-judicial confessions <strong>of</strong> Joel de Jesus and<br />
Lorenzo delos Santos, were all taken without <strong>the</strong> proper assistance <strong>of</strong> competent and<br />
independent counsel:<br />
1. The seven-page alleged extra-judicial confession dated July 20 1996,<br />
purportedly taken at <strong>the</strong> IBP Office with <strong>the</strong> assistance <strong>of</strong> Atty. Confesor B.<br />
Sansano (Exhibit E to E-6);<br />
2. The additional salaysay <strong>of</strong> Joel de Jesus allegedly given before SPO2<br />
Edilberto Nicanor at <strong>the</strong> CID, PNP, Camp Karingal, on June 21, 1996, at 9:30<br />
a.m. (Exhibit N);<br />
3. Additional salaysay <strong>of</strong> Joel de Jesus before SPO1 Edilberto G. Nicanor at <strong>the</strong><br />
IBP Office, on June 21, 1996 at 5:00 p.m. in front <strong>of</strong> Atty. Florimond C.<br />
Rous; and<br />
4. Salaysay <strong>of</strong> Lorenzo delos Santos given to SPO2 Pio L. Tarala at <strong>the</strong> IBP<br />
Office at 3:10 p.m. on June 21, 1996 in front <strong>of</strong> Atty. Florimond C. Rous.<br />
We now take <strong>the</strong> documents one by one:<br />
Page 66 <strong>of</strong> 127<br />
66