The well known case of Abadilla Five came before the Court of Appeals for decision after almost nine years. The appeal was on the judgment of Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 103, which found the five accused guilty on August 1999. Shortly after the judgment of Regional Trial Court (RTC) the Alex Boncayao Brigade (ABB) claimed the responsibility for the murder and submitted some material evidence through priest as proof of their claim which included the watch that was worn by Colonel Rolando Abadilla at the time of his assassination. Despite of this matter being raised and despite of the publicity received by this news, no investigation was conducted to verify the claim.
The judgment in the appeal court which upheld the judgment of the Regional Trial Court heavily relied on the submissions made by the Solicitor General in fact quoting extensively verbatim from this submission and the judgment does not appear to have considered the separate appeals filed on behalf of the five accused adequately.
The main basis for upholding the judgment is the reliance on the evidence of an alleged eyewitness Freddie Alejo on the basis that the sole evidence of an eyewitness is sufficient to base a conviction. However, various factor that throw doubts about the credibility of this witness and his testimony had not been examined by the appellate court. Among such defects of this testimony are the following factors: witness Freddie Alejo’s evidence was disputed by the original court regarding one of the former accused Lorenzo delos Santos despite of the identification by Freddie Alejo of this person as having been one of the accused for this murder. The original court believed in the alibi presented by Lorenzo delos Santos and therefore acquitted this accused. This acquittal casts doubts on Freddie Alejos identification of the other accused since the court accepted Lorenzo delos Santos alibi. As a criminal trial has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the doubt that arose as to the credibility of this witness which has led to the original court disbelieving his evidence regarding one of the accuse should have also been applied to the other accused.
Besides, Freddie Alejo’s evidence was further put into doubt by a contradiction in the version of events narrated by him to the police. At the police investigation witness Freddie Alejo stated that four persons participated in the assassination of Colonel Abadilla. However, in the evidence Alejo presented in court, he testified that six persons were involved in the assassination. He was unable to give any credible explanation as to why he mentioned only four persons involved in the assassination while in court he identified six persons.
Further, the evidence of Freddie Alejo was contradicted by a fellow security guard, whose account claims that these accused who are now before court were not the persons who carried out the assassination. This is a serious contradiction committed by a person in an extremely delicate circumstance as the sole eyewitness relied upon by the court. This other witnesss evidence was dismissed by the original court stating that he is a disgruntled witness with an axe to grind against his employer for not been able to pay his salary. However, such motivation does not go into the heart of question of identification.
Besides, this reliance on a sole eyewitness whose evidence has serious credibility problems there was also a dismissal by the appeal court of the alibi presented by several of the accused on the ground that though they have claimed to be in different places during this time it was not impossible for them to travel to the place of crime. However if the court believed their claim that they were in some other place at the relevant time, the court should have look into any corroborative evidence to show that they did in fact travel to the place of crime. The fact that a person being in some other place during the time of crime cannot be disbelieved merely because there is a hypothetical possibility that the person may have been able to visit the scene of the crime. The issue for the court to decide is whether it believes that at the time of the crime whether such person was in some other place than in the place of crime.
Besides this there were no evidence at all to connect the five accused by way of any motive to assassinate Colonel Abadilla. They were not part of any political group nor was any connection demonstrated in case to show that they were hired by any such political group. One political group claimed responsibility for the assassination and stated as their motivation for assassinating Colonel Abadilla, his violent acts with regards to the members of their organization. In all likelihood Colonel Abadilla’s assassination was politically motivated. There is nothing to connect the accused to a political scheme either as card bearing political activists or hirelings of such political group.
At the stage of the appeal the lawyers for the accused appellants were not present. In the case that involves a death sentence and its alternative of reclusion perpetua the presence of the lawyers would have assisted the court to present the case of the accused as clearly as possible. Had they been able to present their case cordially, the Court of Appeals may have examined the position taken by the Solicitor General more critically so that the appeal court would have at least explained why the objections raised regarding the original court judgment by the appellants were not tenable.
In any case the claim by a well known political group for the assassination of Colonel Abadilla should have led to fresh investigation and any doubts on the actual participation of the persons who are presently held as guilty of this crime could have been clarified by such investigations. Appellants have through their attorneys at laws made strenuous efforts to call for such reinvestigations. In the absence of such a reinvestigation, the question remains whether these accused are victims of a serious miscarriage of justice. And as justice needs to be done in a manner that is convincingly credible, all the above questions still cry out for consideration regarding the five persons held in jail on these charges.
To read the full text of the Court of Appeals decision, please visit:
http://campaigns.ahrchk.net/abadilla5/docs/A5-CAdecision.pdf
