Malolos court asked to reconsider Jovito Palparan's acquittal

The camp of Reynaldo and Raymond Manalo has asked a Malolos court to reconsider its acquittal of retired Army major general Jovito Palparan and others from charges of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with serious physical injuries.

In a 35-page motion, the prosecution argued before the Malolos Regional Trial Court Branch 19 that its evidence was sufficient to prove the existence of conspiracy among Palparan, Michael Dela Cruz, Marcelo Dela Cruz, and Maximo Dela Cruz and their criminal liabilities.

“Here, it is respectfully submitted that the Honorable Court overlooked, misunderstood, and misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case in finding that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,” it said.

The case stemmed from the abduction of brothers Reynaldo and Raymond Manalo from their home in Ildefonso, Bulacan in February 2016.

The RTC acquitted Palparan and the others in early October, saying that doubt indubitably exists not on the fact that the crime happened but on the identity of the accused. The court also said that inconsistencies between Raymond’s affidavit and his testimony affected the veracity of his narrative.

However, the prosecution argued that the Supreme Court previously ruled that alleged inconsistencies between a witness’ testimony and his sworn statement are not fatal defects.

“The testimony that the accused Dela Cruz brothers pointed at Raymond to the soldiers cannot be considered incredible just because it was given during Raymond's cross-examination and was not present in his Affidavit,” the prosecution said.

“As held in jurisprudence, sworn statements are usually incomplete, with affiants usually not being able to remember every incident down to the minute detail,” it later added.

It said it also took exception to the ruling that reasonable doubt was cast on Palparan’s guilt due to the supposed inconsistencies between Raymond’s testimony and his identification.

The RTC previously said that it doubted whether Raymond “had a good opportunity to view the perpetrator” during their alleged meeting in a basketball court in Sapang as it was midnight.

However, the prosecution stressed that Raymond testified that the moon was bright. It said the SC previously ruled that moonlight is sufficient illumination for a person to identify another.

“It also bears reiterating that Raymond was able to see and talk to accused Palparan twice that evening in Sapang, San Miguel, Bulacan: before being brought to and after being returned from his parent’s house,” it said.

“Clearly, Raymond was firm and categorical in his recollection that accused Palparan introduced himself by his real name to him. He even contradicted the defense counsel’s misleading assertion that the person he was talking to was merely impersonating accused Palparan to get his cooperation,” it added.

The prosecution further said that the inconsistencies in Raymond’s sketch of the place where they met do not necessarily diminish his degree of attentiveness.

Citing a previous ruling of the Supreme Court, the prosecution said that minor inconsistencies and discrepancies tend to strengthen the credibility of witnesses because they discount the possibility of these being rehearsed.

“A few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses referring to minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair the credibility of the witnesses,” it said.

The prosecution said that it was also not necessary for Raymond to give a description of Palparan as he already knew his identity at the time they met. It said prior description is only required when a witness or complainant does not know the identity of the alleged perpetrator.

“Accordingly, Raymond’s testimony cannot be discredited on the account of the affidavit since sworn statements are usually considered as ‘abbreviated and inaccurate.’ Moreover, Raymond’s testimony given in open court prevails over the sworn statements because affidavits taken ex parte are generally deemed to be inferior to the testimony given in court,” it said.

“In this case, Raymond has been consistent in positively and categorically identifying accused Palparan during their encounter in Camp Tecson,” it added.

When sought for comment, Atty. Art Cabides, the legal counsel of Palparan, said a judgment of acquittal becomes final and unappealable upon promulgation.

Cabides said the motion for reconsideration may lead to a possible filing of a petition to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court over the decision.

“At this point in time, I will just await for the MR to be furnished [to] me [so] that I can formally submit my comment,” he told GMA News Online. — RSJ, GMA Integrated News