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 of pre-trial torture recounted by other prisoners on death row in the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa. If torture takes place and confessions are coerced, how can the right to a fair trial be upheld and the risk of judicial error reduced? The risk of executing an innocent person who may have already suffered torture is real. More recently, on the occasion of International Human Rights Day (December 10) 2002, the Philippine Daily Inquirer published an award-winning unprecedented five- day (Dec. 10-14) special report on the “Abadilla 5: Story straight out of martial law pages,” including on “Torture forced three to ‘confess’” (PDI, 12/11/02, pp. 1, 18). [Incidentally, this PDI special report is the subject of the Abadilla family’s Motion to Cite in Contempt dated December 19, 2002.] The PDI special report won the Excellence in Specialized Reporting Award from the Society of Publishers in Asia 2003 Editorial Excellence Awards and second prize in the Jaime V. Ongpin Awards for Excellence in Journalism for investigative reports in 2002. One does not win prestigious journalistic excellence awards for telling lies. If the truth about the torture of the “Abadilla 5” is not forthcoming from the criminal justice system, especially its long pending preliminary investigation at the DOJ, then the truth must out from other sources to set them free. The criminal justice system is not the only way to ferret out the truth. It may be found through, among others, divine revelation, modern technologies, psychological methodologies, human rights monitoring, and investigative journalism. The trial court’s Joint Decision dismissed all the physical, photographic, medical and expert evidences of gross violations of constitutional and human rights by way of this facile and specious reasoning: “While Joel [de Jesus] claimed that his confessions were taken with the use of violence, the fact is Joel admitted that he was brought to the IBP Quezon City Chapter inside the Q.C. Hall of Justice for said confessions (except the second one were a police line-up was formed) and to the city Fiscal’s offices also located Page 90 of 127 90
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 in the Hall of Justice, on the 4 th floor.” (Joint Decision, p. 26, last paragraph, italics mine). So what if Joel was brought to the IBP Quezon City Chapter office (which was done under close police escort and with a police-prepared statement)? Was that enough to meet the required degree (if we may use this term again) of “competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice” 11 and “adequate legal assistance” 12 ? According to jurisprudence, the right to counsel attaches upon police identification or line-up of suspects (U.S. vs. Wade, 388 U.S. 218; and People vs. Usman Hassan, 157 SCRA 261). And that the following are not deemed independent counsel: PAO lawyers, 13 police lawyers, 14 and prosecutors. 15 The right to counsel refers not to pro-forma and perfunctory counsel but to “effective and vigilant counsel” (People vs. Lucero, 244 SCRA 425; and People vs. Bacamante, 248 SCRA 47). And this covers not only the moment of signing a police-prepared statement but more importantly the prior period of custodial investigation and tactical interrogation – “from the time the confessant answers the first question asked by the investigating officer until the signing of the extra-judicial confession.” For violation of this right to effective and vigilant counsel in one case, the confession obtained despite assistance of counsel was excluded by the Supreme Court and the accused was ACQUITTED (People vs. Bacamante, 248 SCRA 47). Violations of similar constitutional rights were likewise a ground for acquittal or dismissal in other cases. In one case, the long delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation was found to be violative of the constitutional rights of the accused to procedural due process and to speedy disposition of cases, the latter under the Constitution’s Art. III, Sec. 16. Accordingly, the case was DISMISSED by the Supreme Court, as a matter of radical relief: 11 Const., Art. III, Sec. 12(1). 12 Const., Art. III, Sec. 11. 13 People vs. Olvis (154 SCRA 513). 14 People vs. Labuac (G.R. No. 80764, September 28, 1992). Page 91 of 127 91
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:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 89: 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?