CA reverses ruling in case vs Kuh Ledesma's ex-hubby

MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals has junked an earlier decision which affirmed the indictment of former presidential grandson Luisito Gonzales for the killing of his stepbrother, businessman Federico Delgado. In a reversal, the court's Special Former Seventh Division granted the motion for reconsideration filed by Gonzales' lawyers who contended, among others, that the lone witness could not have seen the assailants as visibility was poor that time. Gonzales - the ex-husband of singer Kuh Ledesma and grandson of President Quirino - has been was tagged in the March 10, 2007 murder of 51-year old Delgado, son of shipping magnate Francisco Delgado. In a 23-page amended decision penned by Associate Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando, the CA granted the motion for reconsideration filed by the lawyers of Gonzales seeking the reversal of March 18 decision. The original decision was penned by now retired Associate Justice Enrico Lanzanas. "This Court has carefully evaluated the evidence of the parties once more, and its reassessment of the evidence compels it to reconsider its previous affirmation of public respondent acting secretary of justices finding of probable cause," the new CA ruling said. The CA also nullified the arrest warrants issued by the Manila court against Gonzales and his driver Antonio Buenaflor. In its decision, the appellate court said scrutiny of the evidence led it to the conclusion that there was really insufficient evidence to support the DOJ's findings of probable cause. It noted that then acting Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera's finding of probable cause was based solely on the account of the lone eyewitness, Annalisa Pesico, Delgado's alleged girlfriend. Devanadera's resolution held that Pesico was able to establish positive identification of Gonzales and Buenaflor as the assailants. In his first sworn statement, Pesico claimed that she was with Delgado when the latter was stabbed to death inside his residence at Mayflower Building in Malate, Manila on March 10, 2007. Pesico added that the she was beaten up by two men and told her that they were just following the orders of Franco, brother of Delgado. But in a second sworn statement executed four days after, Pesico identified the assailants as Gonzales and Buenaflor. She said that she recognized them after the two removed their masks because of the heat in the room. Pesico added that while her face was covered with some clothes and towel, she managed to see them because there was illumination from the television. In its decision, the CA said that it would have been impossible for Pesico to see the faces of the assailants considering the suddenness of the attack and the masks on their faces. It also noted that the details in her second sworn statement were entirely lacking in her first sworn statement. "While her first sworn statement undoubtedly counts as a fresh account of the incident, there are valid reasons to suspect that the second sworn statement could have been tainted, if not supplied or suggested, considering the intervening time between the execution of the first and second statements," the CA said. The CA also noted that Pesico claimed to have seen the faces of both assailants but could only manage to give one cartographic sketch which did not even resemble the facial features of anyone of the petitioners. The appellate court also observed that in such cases, the normal reaction would be to seek help from the security guard which Pesico failed to do. It also noted that the police did not investigate the security guard on duty and Delgados brother whose name was mentioned by the assailants. The CA, however, gave credence to the affidavits of the 29 medical staff of the Neuro Psychiatric Unit of the Medical Center presented by Gonzales and Buenaflor to prove that it was impossible for him to be at the crime scene considering that he was confined in the said hospital at the time of the killing. Thus, taking into account these 29 sworn statements, it was certainly impossible for the petitioners to have been at the crime scene. "Alibi is not always undeserving of credit, for there are times when the accused has no other possible defense for what could really be the truth as to his whereabouts at the crucial time, and such defense may in fact tilt the scales of justice in his favor," the CA ruled. - GMANews.TV