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 should not have concerned him because his duty was to his clients and not to the prosecution or to the police investigators.” “Moreover, when he interviewed appellants, he did not even bother to find out the gist of their proposed statements in order to be able to inform them properly of the nature and consequences of their extra-judicial confessions. Clearly and sadly, appellants were not accorded competent and independent counsel whom they could rely on to look after their interests.” (People vs. Suela, 373 SCRA 163, 185) How then, can Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos have been assured of an able and competent assistance from these counsels who have been proven to protect not the interest of the suspects brought before them for legal assistance but that of the prosecution or police investigators? 3. The suspects were held incommunicado, tortured and forced to admit to a crime they did not commit. Both Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos were forced to confess to the crime and to implicate their co-accused through the use of torture, force, violence, coercion and intimidation which vitiated their free will in signing the confessions presented by the prosecution in court. They were also detained in secret places and were held incommunicado by preventing them from making any contact with any other person during their confinement while their confessions were being extracted from them. All these prove that the confessions offered by the prosecution also fail the test of voluntariness this Court speaks of in People vs. Muleta. (op.cit.) “If the extra-judicial confession satisfies these constitutional standards, it is subsequently tested for voluntariness, i.e., if it was given freely – without coercion, intimidation, inducement, or false promises; and credibility, i.e., if it was consistent with the normal experience of mankind.” “A confession that meets all the foregoing requisites constitutes evidence of a high order because no person of normal mind will knowingly and deliberately confess to be the perpetrator of a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience. Otherwise, it is disregarded in accordance with the cold objectivity of the exclusionary rule.” (ibid. p. 161-162) Page 76 of 127 76
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 The use of torture and violence to the persons of Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos rendered their confessions involuntary which calls for the operation of the exclusionary rule to these documents. In fact, it was not only Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos who were tortured and held incommunicado, but all the other accused in this case were similarly treated by their captors. All the accused in this case, together with their wives, filed their complaint before the Commission on Human Rights. Their case also caught the attention of Amnesty International which has come up with a special report about their plight. The accused presented evidence of compulsion, violence, and actual physical injuries inflicted upon their persons. They instituted administrative action against the police officers who subjected them to torture. They were examined by a reputable physician whose findings were submitted before the trial court, the Commission on Human Rights and the Department of Justice. All these rule out any iota of doubt that all the accused in this case were indeed tortured and forced into admitting their alleged participation in the crime. Thus, voluntariness of the confessions of Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos cannot be presumed. As this Court has ruled: The standing rule is that “where the defendants did not present evidence of compulsion, or duress nor violence on their person; where they failed to complain to the officer who administered their oaths; where they did not institute any criminal or administrative action against their alleged intimidators for maltreatment; where there appeared to be no marks of violence on their bodies; and where they did not have themselves examined by a reputable physician to buttress their claim,” all these will be considered as indicating voluntariness. Indeed, extra-judicial confessions are presumed to be voluntary, and, in the absence of conclusive evidence showing that the declarant’s consent in executing the same has been vitiated, the confession will be sustained. (People vs. Gerrico Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656, May 9, 2002). Page 77 of 127 77
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:
Page 25 and 26: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 75: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 127:
show all

Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?