|
Friday, August 11, 2006
Talk back: Marcial Ocampo's side
By Vicente E. Fernandez II
Your Aug. 9, 2006 issue carried the interview of the prosecutor in the case of SPO1 Marcial Ocampo, who is accused of shooting to death Elpedio “Jojo” de la Victoria.
He cited the “discrepancies in the testimonies of the policeman and other defense witnesses.”
Though the local media never came out with a report favorable to the said policeman, we are constrained to write in the hope that good conscience, which inheres in every man, might somehow influence it publication to balance the views of the defense with that of the prosecution.
As a rule, we do not submit ourselves to media interviews to avoid interference with the functions of the trial courts. This is an exception to that rule because of the media activities of the private prosecutor.
Differences in time
Please note that the differences in time mentioned by witnesses refer to extremely minor matters.
Our Supreme Court has already ruled that approximations of time are inaccurate (People vs. Meredo, L-34127, Jan. 10, 1984) and one-word answer to a leading question cannot be given weight (People vs. Clores [En Banc], L-38398, Sept. 30, 1980 and People vs. Caparas, L-47411, Jan. 18, 1982).
On the other hand, “meticulous accuracy can only mean fabrication” (People vs. Garcia, En Banc, L-30449, Oct. 31, 1979).
When Ocampo arrived in his rented room until he took a haircut between 3 to 3:45 in the afternoon of April 12, 2006 is not the core of the defense of alibi.
Microscopic and armchair evaluation of the time when the haircut was done on Ocampo is completely inconsequential because we can even lose our hat in the hot track.
Where was Ocampo?
The most important thing is, where was Ocampo at 3 in the afternoon?
Five policemen, whose affidavits where taken at the instance of their superior when media reported that Ocampo was the suspect in the assassination of de la Victoria and which they all confirmed before the court, said that Ocampo was seen at 3 in the afternoon at the Cebu Provincial Police Office in Lahug, Cebu City.
That should be the serious cause for worry of the prosecution.
The Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, the lead agency in the investigation, suppressed the said affidavits, which were only brought to the fore when the court subpoenaed the same and made part of the records of the case.
Changed testimony
The prosecutor should have explained why prosecution witness Joselito Gerali first testified that he heard successive gunshots while inside his store and when told that he could not have seen who fired the shots from inside the store changed his testimony and said he was already at the gate near his store when the shots were fired.
This is an essential detail of a narration of facts that cannot be changed nonchalantly.
The same witness further testified that the fatal shots were fired at close range. This is contrary to the finding of another prosecution witness, the physician who conducted the autopsy on the body of de la Victoria, that the shots were fired from afar because of the absence of powder burns.
Incidentally and very unfortunately, Gerali was the only witness who testified to the actual shooting.
It need not be further stressed that physical evidence, like the autopsy report “is of the highest order and speaks more eloquently than all witnesses put together” (People vs. Bordaje, L-29271, Aug. 29, 1980).
Time of shooting
Another important fact showing that the prosecution tried to change the basic fact that the shooting took place at 3 in the afternoon, as reflected in the police blotter of Talisay City, is the testimonies of prosecution witnesses that the shooting took place at 3:25 in the same afternoon.
This is purposely adjusted to negate the testimonies of the five policemen that they saw Ocampo at 3 in that same afternoon.
Otherwise stated, the prosecution was lying through its teeth.
There are many other material inconsistencies that would take too long to enumerate and better argued before the court.
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (August 11, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
