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 June 13, 1996 is supported by documentary evidence, the birth certificate of the child which shows the date of birth and the date of discharge from the hospital. The evidence presented corroborates Augusto Santos’ claim that he was with his brother-in-law between 7:00 in the morning until 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon on June 13, 1996 which was the precise time that the complained crime happened. The corroborating evidence, especially the birth certificate, cannot be easily concocted nor fabricated. Just because Augusto Santos lives in Fairview and Jonas Ayhon lives in Makati does not make it impossible for these two men to have come from Jonas house in Buendia to go to Fabella Hospital in Sta. Cruz, Manila at 7:00 in the morning. No factual or legal basis can justify the trial court’s saying, “How on earth Augusto will proceed first to Buendia, Makati before 7:00 in the morning to fetch Jonas when Augusto as well as Jonas could have more reasonably and easily gone straight separately to Fabella Hospital in Sta. Cruz, Manila (behind the Central Market) is largely amazing.” (sic) The fact that Augusto Santos had to come from Fairview and had to be in Buendia at 7:00 in the morning of June 13, 1996 means that Augusto had to leave Fairview earlier than 7:00 a.m. Augusto’s presence at the Fabella Hospital from the time they arrive there in the morning until 2:00 p.m. effectively rules out any possibility that Augusto Santos could have been at Katipunan when the crime complained of happened. The trial court also ruled that the necessity of Augusto’s presence in the hospital together with his brother-in-law to fetch her sister and her new-born baby should have been explained and reflected in evidence because in the words of the decision, “In our family life, it is usually the womenfolk who are expected to help fetch a woman who has just delivered in a hospital. Yet, here, it appears that not one woman from either the family of Jonas or his wife Dorothy came over to help fetch Dorothy from the hospital.” Just because there were no other women who went with Jonas and Augusto to fetch Dorothy and her child from the hospital does not render this fact untrue. While the Page 98 of 127 98
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the Philippines vs. Fortuna, et. al. S. C. G. R. No. 141660-64 conjectures of the trial court that “it is usually the womenfolk who are expected to help fetch a woman who has just delivered in a hospital,” could be accepted as a general observation yet, this would not be true in all circumstances. For folks of simple means, a man would be more helpful than a woman in carrying all the things that the mother and child used while confined in the hospital. And especially when there are no other people to help out, it no longer matters whether one is accompanied by a man or a woman for it is not the gender of the helper that matters but the assistance he/she can render. While the evidence is bereft of any explanation why it was Augusto who went with Jonas to fetch the mother and daughter, this fact, alone, does not render untrue the fact that Augusto was with Jonas on the exact hour and date that the complained crime happened. Instead, this bolsters the fact that it was Augusto alone, himself and not anybody else, who went with Jonas to fetch his wife and child from the hospital. This effectively ruled out the possibility that there could have been another person who went with Jonas and that Augusto was not needed in fetching Dorothy and the child from the hospital. Absent any strong proof to place Augusto Santos at the crime scene and to attribute to him the acts complained of, the alibi presented by accused Augusto Santos that he was at the Fabella Hospital together with his brother-in-law from about 7:00 in the morning until about 2:00 in the afternoon to fetch his sister Dorothy and her new-born baby who was discharged from the hospital on June 13, 1996, the same day that the complained crime of murder happened, should have been given credence. B. The trial court disregarded the alibi presented by Lenido Lumanog based on mere conjectures. (b) both claimed that they had to start the diggings midnight of June 12, 1996 so no one will know or hear about it, but at the same time they asserted that June 13, 1996 was a partying day in the very household and compound where they were supposed to be digging for gold secretly. In the province, the bisperas of a grand celebration is a day and evening of preparations for the next day – the party proper. The bisperas is characterized by the presence of many people – old and young alike – out to help in the preparations or to ogle around and Page 99 of 127 99
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:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48: APPELLANTS’ BRIEF People of the P
Page 97: 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?