[ad_1]
This is an AI-generated summary and may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.
“In this jurisdiction, denials and alibis do not prevail over a witness’ identification of an attacker,” the appeals court ruling read.
CEBU, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the decision of the Taguig City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 266, which convicted Nasifa Pundug, wife of the leader of the Islamic State (ISIS). Abu Dharguilty of possession of an explosive device.
On August 22, 2016, Pondug was arrested at a checkpoint in Lanao del Sur province for carrying a detonator (a small device combined with a fuse used to detonate an explosive device).
The wife of the terrorist leader was arrested while traveling in a Tamaraw FX with seven other suspected members of the Maute terrorist group. Authorities confiscated illegal contraband, including an 81mm mortar shell and a pipe bomb.
However, according to military reports, Pundug Escape She was arrested at the Marawi City Jail just months before the siege in May 2017. She was arrested again on July 16, 2018, at a safe house in Prokma Enrad, Barangay Apopong, General Santos City.
On May 18, 2020, the Taguig City RTC Branch 266 ruled that Pondug was guilty of the charge of illegal possession of explosives beyond reasonable doubt.
According to the decision of CA Issued on June 10During interrogation, Pundug pleaded not guilty, claiming that the detonator was planted on her.
She argued that the device had no serial number or proper markings during and after her arrest, that there were no photographs of the detonator, and that it had not been produced at the previous trial.
“All these circumstances, according to Nasifa, raised suspicion about the existence and identity of the detonator, which the prosecution should have fully established because it was Subject of crime The Court of Appeal wrote in its ruling that “the crimes she was charged with,
The CA disagrees.
The court found that the prosecution witnesses were able to adequately explain that the lack of identification marks and photographs of the detonators was due to their “explosive” nature.
“The failure to produce the detonator during the trial was apparently due to logistical impracticability or complications arising from its sensitivity and dangerous nature,” the court ruling read.
The court argued that in the present case, the prosecution witness only had to identify whether the grenade was identical to the accused’s contraband.
“In this jurisdiction, denials and alibis cannot prevail over a witness’s affirmative identification of an attacker,” the court concluded. “Unless proven by clear and convincing evidence, such a defense is negative, self-serving, and unworthy of any legal standing.”
In April 2019, the military confirmed that Abu Dar was killed during an encounter with troops of the 49th Infantry Battalion in Tubaran town, Lanao del Sur on March 14, 2019. – Rappler.com
[ad_2]
Source link
