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 Atty. Rous, on a lot of occasions during cross-examination, tried to dodge the questions by answering “I cannot recall.” And when he is confronted with conflicting statements based on documents he allegedly signed, he would give a lame excuse that he is already 48 years old and that his memory is already short. (TSN, Testimony of Atty. Florimond Rous, pp. 58, 115) Atty, Rous does not even recall the name of the investigator who brought the affiant (ibid., p. 67) even if the name of the investigator was already mentioned. (ibid., p. 68). He even candidly admitted, “As I said again I don’t recall vividly any more what transpired during that time and during that day.” (ibid., p. 66). Pressed for explanation, the good counsel just gave old age as a convenient excuse saying, “Well, I am 48 years old, sir, and it’s expected that my memory would already fall short.” (ibid., p. 58). All these indicate the lack of competence of the counsel provided by the police officers to Lorenzo delos Santos when the latter allegedly executed his sworn statement. Lorenzo delos Santos was able to prove that he was not at all at the crime scene, proving that the statement allegedly taken from him were just forced upon him by the police. He was just asked to sign the alleged confession without him having read the same and that the document was brought to Atty. Rous. (TSN, December 9, 1998, pp 18- 20). When the trial court acquitted Lorenzo delos Santos because he was able to prove that he was not at the crime scene, such acquittal rendered his extra-judicial confession pertaining to the crime ineffective. Giving credence to such extra-judicial confession and at the same time acquitting the particular accused who gave the extra-judicial confession on the ground of evidence presented that he was not at the crime scene would be rendering contradictory rulings. 2. In two separate cases, this Court has previously noted the incompetence of counsels whom the police investigators sought to assist the suspects in Page 74 of 127 74
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 this case when the latter allegedly executed their extra-judicial confessions. We are duty bound to raise to this Court’s attention, and it might also interest the Court to note, that in the cases of People vs. Deniega and People vs. Suela where the extra-judicial confessions of the accused were not admitted in evidence, all the accused complained of torture and violence by the police investigators who extracted said confessions from them. But more interestingly, in both cases, Atty. Confesor B. Sansano and Atty Florimond Rous were the counsels who assisted the confessants. In fact, the incompetence of both Atty. Sansano and Atty. Rous to serve as assisting counsels for the suspects brought to their office was already noted by this Court in these cases. In People vs. Deniega, the Court wrote: A thorough reading of the transcripts of the testimonies of the two lawyers, Atty. Sansano and Atty. Rous, indicates that they appeared less as agents of the accused during the alleged investigation than they were agents of the police authorities. In the case before us, it was the police authorities who brought the accused, handcuffed, to the IBP headquarters where the services of the lawyers were supposedly “engaged.” No details of the actual assistance rendered during the interrogation process were furnished or alleged during the entire testimony of the lawyers in open court. The bulk of the lawyers’ oral testimonies merely gave the trial court assurance that they supposedly explained to the appellants their constitutional rights, that the signatures present were their signatures and those of the accused, and that the accused agreed to having the lawyers assist them during the process of custodial investigation. (People vs. Deniega, 251 SCRA 627, 635) In People vs. Suela, the Court again had the opportunity to comment on Atty. Sansano’s lack of proper understanding of his role as counsel for a suspect during a custodial investigation. “Evidently, Atty. Sansano did not understand the exact nature of appellants’ rights to counsel and to remain silent during their custodial investigations. He viewed a refusal to answer as an obstruction in the investigation. This shows that he was incapable or unwilling to advise appellants that remaining silent was a right they could freely exercise without fear of any untoward consequence. As counsel, he could have stopped his clients from answering the propounded questions and advised them of their right to remain silent, if they preferred to do so. That the process of investigation could have been “obstructed” Page 75 of 127 75
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:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 73: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
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?