We totally agree with Marius Canonoy that the Supreme Court did a grave injustice to his friend (‘’Court decision goes against common sense,’’ Opinion, 2/9/15). We Googled that decision which was first mentioned in an Inquirer report (‘’SC upholds murder conviction of 5 UP fratmen,’’ Metro, 3/14/12). It was in the case of People vs. Feliciano (G.R. No. 196735, 5/5/14) written for the Court by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen (concurred in by Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo and Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno), to which a ‘’strong dissent’’ was filed by Associate Justice Roberto Abad who was joined by Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta.
Of particular interest to us was Canonoy’s dissertation that there was only one witness against his friend. The decision revealed that there were several complainants/witnesses against his friend’s ‘’brods,’’ but only one complainant/witness placed him in the scene of the crime. The dissenting opinion took pains to give detailed narratives of what really transpired. It went so far as to belabor the point that the complainant/witness who ‘’identified’’ his friend had in fact told the responding policemen and the attending physician just minutes after the assault that he could not recognize any of the assailants because they were wearing masks. Then after several days (yes, days!)–and after consulting with lawyers!–he flip-flopped and told a different story: He recognized them because their masks somehow fell off!
The majority decision did not take any issue with what the policemen and the physician testified on and for good reason: They were disinterested witnesses who had absolutely no reason to lie. They merely repeated what they heard the complainant/witness said at that time, nothing more, nothing less. But guess what? The Court belittled the relevance of their testimonies for being ôhearsayö in the face of the ‘’first-hand information’’ the complainant/witness himself testified on!
Even from a layman’s point of view, if given the choice between a man’s word given immediately after the question is asked and his statement to the contrary after a clear opportunity to lie, we will take the first any day, any time! Seriously, is that not what common sense dictates? Did not the newly contrived narrative strike the Court as doubtful at the very least? Indeed, as Canonoy lamented: ‘’With absolutely no other evidence except that [flop from a flip] (how very apt), how in the world did that prove (his friend’s) guilt [beyond reasonable doubt]’’?
From being a UP college student just in his 20s then, Canonoy’s friend is now in his 40s and bound to suffer more until he gets to be in his 60s–if he survives that rathole! We are simply stunned beyond belief!
JEREMIAS H. TOBIAS,
jeremhech@gmail.com