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 1. The suspects were not afforded competent and independent counsel of their own choice. Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos were not provided with competent and independent counsel of their own choice when they allegedly executed their extra-judicial confessions. Instead, the police officers engaged the services of counsels who have been their favorite choice in many cases where suspects allegedly confess their commission of, or their participation in the commission of, crimes. In most of these cases where these counsels were engaged by the police officers to assist the suspects in executing their extra-judicial confessions, such suspects would later recant their alleged confessions because these were extracted from them through torture, force, violence, intimidation and coercion. Neither Joel de Jesus nor Lorenzo delos Santos were allowed to talk with any of their relatives. And instead of allowing them to talk with a lawyer of their own choice, the police officers brought them to lawyers who were chosen not by the suspects but by the police officers. The following documents, alleged extra-judicial confessions of Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos, were all taken without the proper assistance of competent and independent counsel: 1. The seven-page alleged extra-judicial confession dated July 20 1996, purportedly taken at the IBP Office with the assistance of Atty. Confesor B. Sansano (Exhibit E to E-6); 2. The additional salaysay of Joel de Jesus allegedly given before SPO2 Edilberto Nicanor at the CID, PNP, Camp Karingal, on June 21, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. (Exhibit N); 3. Additional salaysay of Joel de Jesus before SPO1 Edilberto G. Nicanor at the IBP Office, on June 21, 1996 at 5:00 p.m. in front of Atty. Florimond C. Rous; and 4. Salaysay of Lorenzo delos Santos given to SPO2 Pio L. Tarala at the IBP Office at 3:10 p.m. on June 21, 1996 in front of Atty. Florimond C. Rous. We now take the documents one by one: Page 66 of 127 66
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 a. Joel de Jesus’ extra-judicial confession dated July 21, 1996 (Exhibit E to E-6) is inadmissible in evidence. The portion in the sworn statement where Joel de Jesus was supposed to have been apprised of his Constitutional rights reads as follows: T: Ikaw JOEL DE JESUS ay nasa ilalim ng pagsisiyasat kaugnay sa kasong patayan na iyong kinasasangkutan. Bago ko ipagpatuloy ang pagtatanong ay nais kong malaman mo ang iyong mga karapatan sa ilalim ng ating bagong saligang batas dito sa Pilipinas, na gaya ng mga sumusunod: 1. Ikaw ay may karapatang magsawalang kibo o huwag sumagot sa mga itatanong sa iyo, naiintindihan mo ba naman ito? Sagot: Opo. 2. Ikaw ay may karapatang kumuha ng sariling abogado na pili mo para makatulong mo sa pagsisiyasat na ito at kung wala kang makuha ay bibigyan ka ng isa ng ating Pamahalaan, ito ba naman ay nauuunawaan mo? Sagot: Opo. 3. Na anumang sasabihin mo sa pagsisiyasat na ito ay maaring (sic) gamitin laban o panig sa iyo sa alin mang Hukuman dito sa Pilipinas, ito ba naman ay naiintindihan mo? Sagot: Opo. 4. Matapos kong maipaliwanag sa iyo at malaman mo ang iyong mga karapatan sa ilalim ng ating saligang batas dito sa Pilipinas ay magbibigay ka pa rin iyong malaya at kusang loob na salaysay? (sic) Sagot: Opo. Even if it appears that the suspect was asked whether he understands his right to be assisted by a lawyer of his own choice. But he was never asked whether he has a lawyer whom he chooses to assist him during the custodial investigation. This was confirmed by SPO2 Jose A. Garcia in his testimony. (TSN, October 1, 1996, p. 89) It is one thing to be apprised of one’s rights and it is another to be asked whether one is exercising such right. It is clear that Joel de Jesus was never given the chance to exercise his right to choose the lawyer he wants to assist him during the custodial investigation. Making a suspect understand his right to be assisted by a lawyer of his own choice is altogether different from allowing the suspect to exercise such right. Page 67 of 127 67
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:
Page 15 and 16: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 65: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
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?