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 and was also forced to implicate the other accused in this case. Joel de Jesus was interrogated without the assistance of counsel on June 19, 1996, the results of which were the transcribed and typewritten sinumpaang salaysay (Exh. E to E-6) allegedly taken from Joel on June 20, 1996 at the IBP Office. This also bolsters the testimony of Joel de Jesus that the statement he was made to sign before Atty. Sansano was already prepared even before they went to the Quezon City Hall of Justice and that he was not interrogated in said office but in the safehouse where he was kept and tortured. B. The foregoing tell-tale indicators of the flagrant violations of the Constitutional safeguards against involuntary and uncounselled confessions calls for the application of the exclusionary rule to these documents containing the alleged extra-judicial confession of Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos. Again we turn to People vs. Deniega where this Court pronounced: Every so often, courts are confronted with the difficult task of taking a hard look into the sufficiency of extra-judicial confession extracted by law enforcement authorities as the sole basis for convicting accused individuals. In cases of crimes notable for their brutality and ruthlessness, the impulse to find the culprits at any cost occasionally tempts these agencies to take shortcuts and disregard constitutional and legal safeguards intended to bring about a reasonable assurance that only the guilty are punished. Our courts, in the process of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, play a central role in bringing about this assurance by determining whether or not the evidence gathered by law enforcement agencies scrupulously meets exacting standards fixed by the Constitution. If the standards are not met, the Constitution provides the corresponding remedy by providing a strict exclusionary rule, i.e, that “[a]ny confession or admission obtained in violation of (Article III, Section 12(1)0 … hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence. (People vs. Deniega, 251 SCRA 627, 641-642) Surely, the exacting standards fixed by the Constitution were not met in the instant case. There is no other remedy than to invoke the exclusionary rule with regards to the extra-judicial confessions erroneously admitted by the trial court. VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING SCANT ATTENTION TO THE GROSS VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED PERTAINING TO THEIR ARREST, DETENTION AND CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION, Page 86 of 127 86
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 AND CONSEQUENTLY, IN FAILING TO GRANT THEM "RADICAL RELIEF" FOR SUCH GROSS VIOLATIONS. The trial court’s erroneous admitting in evidence of the coerced and tortured extra-judicial confessions of accused Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos, as just discussed, is only the tip of the iceberg of the trial court’s weak commitment, low regard and poor appreciation of constitutional and human rights of arrested, detained and accused persons. This is exemplified by the fact that the trial court’s appealed 32-page Joint Decision of July 30, 1999 (Annex A) gives only four short paragraphs (in pp. 26-27) to a discussion of the tortured saga of Joel de Jesus from whom no less than three extra- judicial confessions were extracted. Contrast this with the extensive discussion of this matter in four pages (pp. 912-16 of the RTC record) of the Memorandum for accused SPO2 Cesar Fortuna dated July 14, 1999. And it was not only Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos among the seven original accused or six remaining accused who suffered “the works:” warrantless arrests, 4 violation of the Miranda rule, 5 arbitrary detention, 6 secret detention, 7 torture, 8 uncounselled statements, 9 coerced confessions, 10 as this and the other appellants’ briefs will show. Even more telling than these briefs are the physical, photographic, medical and expert evidences to that effect (see esp. accused Fortuna’s Exhibits 5 to 9, 58, 61 to 66, 79 and 82 under his Formal Offer of Evidence dated April 19, 1999). Only one with “eyes wide shut” will fail to see the “third degree” (if there was a higher degree number, 4 Constitution (Const.), Art. III, Sec. 2; and Rules of Court, Rule 113, Sec. 5. 5 Const., Art. III, Sec. 12(1). 6 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Art. 9; International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Art. 9(1); and Revised Penal Code (RPC), Art. 124. 7 Const., Art. III, Sec. 12(2). 8 Const., Art. III, Sec. 12(2); UDHR, Art. 5; and ICCPR, Art. 7. 9 Const., Art. III, Sec. 12(1) & (3). 10 Const., Art. III, Sec. 12(2) & (3). Page 87 of 127 87
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:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 85: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 127: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
show all

Republic of the Philippines - Campaign

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?