01.12.2012 Views

Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

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 />

A glaring fact also points that <strong>the</strong> accused was simply asked to sign <strong>the</strong> additional<br />

statement. It was allegedly started at 5:00 p.m. but Joel de Jesus was also made to sign<br />

<strong>the</strong> document at 5:00 p.m. This means that <strong>the</strong> statement was already prepared when<br />

accused was brought to <strong>the</strong> IBP Office to have <strong>the</strong> document signed.<br />

d. The extra-judicial confession allegedly executed by Lorenzo delos Santos<br />

is likewise inadmissible in evidence.<br />

The extra-judicial confession <strong>of</strong> Lorenzo delos Santos was taken from him<br />

without <strong>the</strong> assistance <strong>of</strong> a competent counsel. The prosecution presented Atty.<br />

Florimond Rous to bolster <strong>the</strong>ir claim that <strong>the</strong> statement was voluntarily given and that<br />

counsel was present when it was taken.<br />

However, <strong>the</strong> testimony <strong>of</strong> Atty. Rous indicates that he not render a meaningful<br />

assistance to <strong>the</strong> accused. On cross examination, he testified:<br />

Q: Did you not bo<strong>the</strong>r to ask Mr. Delos Santos when was he<br />

apprehended?<br />

A: No sir.<br />

Q. Did you not bo<strong>the</strong>r to ask <strong>the</strong> police investigators<br />

accompanying him when did <strong>the</strong>y apprehend Mr. Delos<br />

Santos?<br />

A: No, sir.<br />

Q: It did not concern you?<br />

A: I don’t know, sir. (TSN, October 15, 1996, p. 70)<br />

This is very revealing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> attitude that counsel has over <strong>the</strong> whole thing. He<br />

does not even know whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> circumstances <strong>of</strong> arrest or <strong>the</strong> personal circumstances <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> accused are important. (TSN, October 15, 1996, p. 61)<br />

Atty. Rous also testified that it was <strong>the</strong> police <strong>of</strong>ficer who propounded <strong>the</strong> basis<br />

questions to <strong>the</strong> accused.<br />

Q: What, if any, did <strong>the</strong> police do before taking down <strong>the</strong><br />

main statement?<br />

A: Well, <strong>the</strong> basic questions regarding constitutional right<br />

to silence, and to counsel, and if he was asked if he had<br />

his own counsel and if he did not have his own counsel<br />

he will be provided with one and he was asked if he<br />

wanted me to be his counsel and he answered “yes” and<br />

so those were <strong>the</strong> preliminary questions propounded to<br />

<strong>the</strong> accused.<br />

Page 72 <strong>of</strong> 127<br />

72

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!