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 />
AND CONSEQUENTLY, IN FAILING TO GRANT THEM<br />
"RADICAL RELIEF" FOR SUCH GROSS VIOLATIONS.<br />
The trial court’s erroneous admitting in evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> coerced and tortured<br />
extra-judicial confessions <strong>of</strong> accused Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos, as just<br />
discussed, is only <strong>the</strong> tip <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> iceberg <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> trial court’s weak commitment, low regard<br />
and poor appreciation <strong>of</strong> constitutional and human rights <strong>of</strong> arrested, detained and<br />
accused persons.<br />
This is exemplified by <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> trial court’s appealed 32-page Joint<br />
Decision <strong>of</strong> July 30, 1999 (Annex A) gives only four short paragraphs (in pp. 26-27) to a<br />
discussion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tortured saga <strong>of</strong> Joel de Jesus from whom no less than three extra-<br />
judicial confessions were extracted. Contrast this with <strong>the</strong> extensive discussion <strong>of</strong> this<br />
matter in four pages (pp. 912-16 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> RTC record) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Memorandum for accused<br />
SPO2 Cesar Fortuna dated July 14, 1999.<br />
And it was not only Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos among <strong>the</strong> seven<br />
original accused or six remaining accused who suffered “<strong>the</strong> works:” warrantless<br />
arrests, 4 violation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Miranda rule, 5 arbitrary detention, 6 secret detention, 7 torture, 8<br />
uncounselled statements, 9 coerced confessions, 10 as this and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r appellants’ briefs<br />
will show.<br />
Even more telling than <strong>the</strong>se briefs are <strong>the</strong> physical, photographic, medical and<br />
expert evidences to that effect (see esp. accused Fortuna’s Exhibits 5 to 9, 58, 61 to 66,<br />
79 and 82 under his Formal Offer <strong>of</strong> Evidence dated April 19, 1999). Only one with<br />
“eyes wide shut” will fail to see <strong>the</strong> “third degree” (if <strong>the</strong>re was a higher degree number,<br />
4<br />
Constitution (Const.), Art. III, Sec. 2; and Rules <strong>of</strong> Court, Rule 113, Sec. 5.<br />
5<br />
Const., Art. III, Sec. 12(1).<br />
6<br />
Universal Declaration <strong>of</strong> Human Rights (UDHR), Art. 9; International Covenant <strong>of</strong> Civil and Political<br />
Rights (ICCPR), Art. 9(1); and Revised Penal Code (RPC), Art. 124.<br />
7<br />
Const., Art. III, Sec. 12(2).<br />
8<br />
Const., Art. III, Sec. 12(2); UDHR, Art. 5; and ICCPR, Art. 7.<br />
9<br />
Const., Art. III, Sec. 12(1) & (3).<br />
10<br />
Const., Art. III, Sec. 12(2) & (3).<br />
Page 87 <strong>of</strong> 127<br />
87