TWO brothers whose testimony led to the conviction of retired Army general Jovito Palparan Jr. in 2018 have asked a Malolos, Bulacan court to reconsider its decision acquitting Palparan from kidnapping and serious illegal detention charges.
The Manalo brothers — Raymond and Reynaldo — represented by lawyers from the National Union of People’s Lawyers, said Branch 19 of the Malolos City Regional Trial Court should revisit its October 6 decision.
The brothers said the court should “painstakingly reconsider the prosecution’s evidence” which, they added, “disregarded, misread, taken out of context, or held to be inferior” as against the “self-serving” claims of Palparan who had been convicted, on the basis of the same evidence from the same eyewitnesses and for the same crime involving “his other still missing victims.”
The Manalo brothers were referring to the conviction of Palparan and several military personnel in the 2006 kidnapping of University of the Philippines students Sherlyn Cadapan and Karen Empeno.
The prosecution relied largely on the testimonies of the Manalo brothers in the conviction of Palparan in the Cadapan and Empeno case.
Palparan is detained in the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City after he was convicted in the Cadapan and Empeno case. The two UP students are missing to this day.
“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,” part of the Manalo brother’s 35-page motion dated October 23 said.
In acquitting Palparan and his co-accused — Marcelo Dela Cruz, Maximo Dela Cruz and Michael Dela Cruz, the Malolos RTC said the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to prove the existence of conspiracy and criminal intent among the accused.
The court also said doubt exists not on the fact that the crime took place but on the identity of the accused.
The court noted the inconsistencies between what Raymond stated in his affidavit and his court testimony, the description of where he and Palparan met and other points that affected the veracity of his claim.
The prosecution, however, explained that sworn affidavits or statements are usually incomplete, with affiants usually not being able to recall every incident or happening down to the minute detail.
It added the Supreme Court has ruled in previous jurisprudences that such alleged inconsistencies are not fatal to a case.
“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,” the motion said.
The prosecution also took exception to the part of the court’s ruling where it doubted Raymond’s claim identifying Palparan when he saw him during an alleged meeting in a basketball court as he was not able to describe the physical features of the Army general.
The court also said the supposed meeting took place at midnight.
But the prosecution said Raymond told the court the moon was bright during the night he saw Palparan.
“It also bears reiterating that Raymond was able to see and talk to Palparan twice that evening in Sapang, San Miguel, Bulacan before being brought to and after being returned from his parent’s house. Clearly, Raymond was firm and categorical in his recollection that accused Palparan introduced himself by his real name to him,” the motion said, adding that Raymond was also consistent in identifying Palparan during their encounter in an Army camp in Camp Tecson in Bulacan.
