Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
Republic of the Philippines - Campaign
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
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 />
TOTAL TIME ELAPSED from <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
arrival at City Hall to start <strong>of</strong> taking Joel<br />
de Jesus’ statement.<br />
1 hour to 1<br />
hour and 10<br />
minutes<br />
35 to 42<br />
minutes<br />
The document evidencing <strong>the</strong> alleged extra-judicial confession <strong>of</strong> Joel de Jesus<br />
states that <strong>the</strong> statement was taken from 1:10 p.m. Taking <strong>the</strong> time frame according to <strong>the</strong><br />
two witnesses, it would have been impossible to start <strong>the</strong> taking <strong>of</strong> Joel’s statement at<br />
1:10 p.m.<br />
If we use Castillo’s testimony, <strong>the</strong> probable start <strong>of</strong> taking Joel’s statement would<br />
have been 2:00 or 2:10 p.m. while if we use Garcia’s testimony, it should have started at<br />
1:35 or 1:42 p.m. This is nowhere near <strong>the</strong> 1:10 p.m. written on <strong>the</strong> heading <strong>of</strong> Joel de<br />
Jesus’ statement in question.<br />
We have also pointed out earlier that <strong>the</strong> taking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> statement was allegedly<br />
finished at 5:55 p.m. as appearing in <strong>the</strong> document itself and as confirmed by <strong>the</strong> police<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers. Yet, Joel de Jesus signed <strong>the</strong> document at exactly 5:00 p.m. How can this<br />
happen that a document was signed 55 minutes prior to its completion?<br />
Such inconsistencies indicate falsity in <strong>the</strong> assertions being forwarded by <strong>the</strong><br />
prosecution that <strong>the</strong> purported taking <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> extra-judicial confessions <strong>of</strong> Joel de Jesus<br />
and Lorenzo delos Santos allegedly at <strong>the</strong> IBP Office in Quezon City Hall ever really<br />
happened.<br />
3. Certain facts presented by <strong>the</strong> prosecution itself establish that Joel de<br />
Jesus was interrogated by <strong>the</strong> police investigators right after his arrest,<br />
without <strong>the</strong> assistance <strong>of</strong> counsel, and indicate that <strong>the</strong> alleged<br />
interrogation <strong>of</strong> Joel de Jesus at <strong>the</strong> IBP Office did not actually take<br />
place.<br />
Moreover, certain facts advanced by <strong>the</strong> prosecution itself support <strong>the</strong> testimonies<br />
<strong>of</strong> Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos that <strong>the</strong>ir Constitutional rights to remain silent<br />
and to have competent and independent counsels were violated.<br />
Police Sr. Inspector Jose B. Macanas, witness for <strong>the</strong> prosecution, testified as to<br />
<strong>the</strong> particulars <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> arrest <strong>of</strong> Joel de Jesus, Cesar Fortuna and Lorenzo delos Santos.<br />
Page 83 <strong>of</strong> 127<br />
83