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 />
In a number <strong>of</strong> cases, this Court has not hesitated to grant <strong>the</strong> so-called “radical<br />
relief” and to spare <strong>the</strong> accused from undergoing <strong>the</strong> rigors and expense <strong>of</strong> a full-blown<br />
trial where it is clear that he has been deprived <strong>of</strong> due process <strong>of</strong> law or o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
constitutionally guaranteed rights. 16<br />
With more reason should radical relief be granted in <strong>the</strong> case at bar where <strong>the</strong>re<br />
have been multiple violations <strong>of</strong> constitutional rights <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accused from <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
warrantless (stated o<strong>the</strong>rwise, unwarranted) arrests up to in <strong>the</strong> judgment <strong>of</strong> conviction<br />
itself, as will be shown in <strong>the</strong> discussion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> next Assignment <strong>of</strong> Error VII.<br />
Part <strong>of</strong> that radical relief must be <strong>the</strong> application <strong>of</strong> several exclusionary rules in<br />
order to exclude inadmissible evidence pursuant to <strong>the</strong> Constitution’s Art. III, Secs. 3(2)<br />
and 12(3), in order to remove <strong>the</strong> “fruit <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> poisonous tree” 17 – but in <strong>the</strong> case at bar, it<br />
is not just one “fruit” and not just one “tree” because <strong>of</strong> multiple violations <strong>of</strong><br />
constitutional rights. And so, we have come to a point where <strong>the</strong> realm <strong>of</strong> human rights<br />
overlaps with <strong>the</strong> realm <strong>of</strong> evidence, both its admissibility and its appreciation.<br />
In accused Lenido Lumanog’s “Supplement to <strong>the</strong> Motion for Reconsideration”<br />
dated 25 November 1999, he specifically prayed, among o<strong>the</strong>rs, that <strong>the</strong> case against all<br />
<strong>the</strong> accused “be dismissed as radical relief for gross violations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir constitutional<br />
rights.” But this was denied by <strong>the</strong> trial court in its appealed Order <strong>of</strong> January 25, 2000<br />
(Annex B), which stated (in p. 6) among its reasons for such denial: “The argument on<br />
alleged weak commitment, low regard and poor appreciation <strong>of</strong> human rights <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
accused by this court is better addressed to <strong>the</strong> Commission on Human Rights or to <strong>the</strong><br />
Supreme Court, lest this court be accused <strong>of</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r perceived violation <strong>of</strong> such rights in<br />
considering such argument as purely baseless.”<br />
15 People vs. Viduya (189 SCRA 403).<br />
16 Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan (159 SCRA 70), citing Salonga vs. Cruz Pano (134 SCRA 438), Mean vs.<br />
Argel (115 SCRA 256), Yap vs. Lutero (105 Phil. 3007) and People vs. Zulueta (89 Phil. 880).<br />
17 See <strong>the</strong> instructive discussion <strong>of</strong> this concept in <strong>the</strong> death penalty case <strong>of</strong> People vs. Alicando (251 SCRA<br />
293).<br />
Page 92 <strong>of</strong> 127<br />
92