Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
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