REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
                                                                                       
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
                                                                              7th J
udicial Region
                                                                                     BRANCH 7
                                                                                      Cebu City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
                                           Plaintiff,

                 - versus -                                                                  CRIM CASES NOS CBU-45303
                                                                                                                                      and -45304

FRANCISCO JUAN LARRANAGA @ "PACO";                   FOR:   KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS
JOSMAN AZNAR, ROWEN ADLAWAN @ WESLEY;                           ILLEGAL DETENTION
ALBERTO CANO @ "PAHAK"; ARIEL
BALANSAG; DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA @
"DAVID FLORIDO" @ "TISOY TAGALOG"; 
JAMES ANTHONY UY @ "WANGWANG" UY
AND JAMS ANDREW UY @ "MM" UY,
                                           Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
                                                                                T R A N S C R I P T
                                                                                            of the
                                                                 stenographic notes taken during the
                                                                 hearing of the above-entitled case
                                                                 before HON. MARTIN A. OCAMPO, Presi-
                                                                 ding Judge of Branch 7, Regional Trial
                                                                 Court of Cebu City on August 18, 1998 at
                                                                 2:20 o'clock in the afternoon.

Present:
                                                                 HON. MARTIN A. OCAMPO
                                                                 Presiding Judge

ASSISTED BY:
                                                                  MS. FARAH T. ABANGAN
                                                                  Court Stenographer

                                                                   MS. LUCIA C. BAJARIAS
                                                                   Court Interpreter

APPEARANCE:
                                                                   PROSECUTOR PRIMO C. MIRO
                                                                   PROSECUTOR CESAR ESTRERA
                                                                   PROSECUTOR RAMON JOSE DUYONGCO
                                                                   PROSECUTOR TERESITA GALANIDA
                                                                   PROSECUTOR REYNALDO ACOSTA
                                                                   (Appearing for the State)

                                                                   ATTY. HONORATO HERMOSISIMA
                                                                   ATTY. BIENVENIDO SANIEL
                                                                   (Appearing as private prosecutors)

PAGE 2
                                                                   ATTY. RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT
                                                                   ATTY. RAFAEL ARMOVIT
                                                                   ATTY. RAMON TELERON
                                                                   (Appearing for accused Larranaga)

                                                                    ATTY. EDGAR GICA
                                                                    ATTY. FIDEL GONZALES
                                                                    (Appearing for accused Aznar)

                                                                     ATTY. ALFONSO DELA CERNA
                                                                     (Appearing for accused Adlawan, Cano
                                                                      and Balansag)

                                                                      ATTY. LORENZO PAYLADO
                                                                      (Appearing for accused Uy brothers)

                                                                      ATTY. VERONICO SAORDINO
                                                                      (Counsel for accused Rusia)

COURT:   (TO COURT INTERPRETER)
          Call the cases.

COURT INTERPRETER: (CALLING THE CASES)
            CRIMINAL CASES NOS. CBU-45303 AND 45304 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PLAINTIFF FRANCISCO JUAN LARRANAGA "PACO"; JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN @ "WESLEY"; ALBERTO CANO @ "PAHAK"; ARIEL BALANSAG; DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA @ "DAVID FLORIDO"@ "TISOY TAGALOG"; JAMES ANTHONY UY @ "WANGWANG"; AND JAMES ANDREW UY @ "MM" UY, ACCUSED FOR KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION.

PROS. MIRO:
          We respectfully appear for the state, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
          Appearing for the private prosecution, Your Honor, in collaboration with Atty. Saniel.

ATTY. RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT:
          For accused Larranaga, Your Honor, in collaboration with Attys. Ramon Teleron and Rafael Armovit.

ATTY. GICA:
          Appearing for accused Aznar, Your Honor, in collaboration with Atty. Fidel Gonzales.

PAGE 3
ATTY. DELA CERNA:
          For accused Adlawan, Cano and Balansag, Your Honor.

ATTY. PAYLADO:
          Appearing for accused Uy brothers, Your Honor.

COURT:
          It seems that our star witness is unable to come, so the prosecution will present another witness, preserving for the defense the right to further cross-examine the said witness. Now, before we begin today's hearing, I would like to clarify first a point of law. you have a copy of the Rules of Court with you, Fiscal?

ATTY. GICA:
          I have, Your Honor.

COURT:
          Please give it to Fiscal Galanida. Will you turn to Rule 116, Section 3 because the defense was proposing yesterday that this Court should now convict the accused witness Davidson Rusia. Will you read that? (Court ordering Fiscal Galanida).

PROS. GALANIDA:
          Yes, You Honor. Section 3---

COURT:
          Read it in front of them because they do not know. You read it in front of them.

PROS. GALANIDA:
          Well, for the gentlemen of the defense- Section 3 of Rule 116 reads as follows: Plea of guilty to capital offense, reception of evidence- When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the Court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his

PAGE 4
PROS. GALANIDA: (continuation)
           behalf." (Prosecutor Galanida reading Rule 166, Sec. 3)

COURT:
          So, it is clear from that Rule even if the accused pleads guilty or makes a judicial confession, the prosecution still has to prove his guilt and the exact degree of his culpability. Iyan ang sinasabi nang batas. (That's what the law says.) Pero kahapon you were insisting na e-convict ko na itong si Rusia.  (But yesterday you were insisting that I should convict already Rusia.) E, kung sumunod ako sa inyo, e , paano mabubukol ako, di ba? (Therefore, if I agreed with you, therefore I would had been hit, wouldn't I?) Mahirap yon. (That's hard.) Hindi ba ninyo binabasa ang batas before you recommend to the Court? (Don't you read the law before you recommend to the court?) You are misleading the Court, telling the Court to convict him already because he executed a judicial confession dapat na e-convict. (that he should be convicted already.) Hindi ba sinasabi nang batas kahit na nag-judicial confession, (Doesn't the law say that even he executed a judicial confession ) the prosecution still has to prove his guilt? O, hindi natin puedeng e-convict (So, we cannot convict) and the exact degree of his culpability. O, paano natin eko-convict? (So how will I convict him?) Hindi ba malaking pagkakamali yon? (Isn't that a big mistake?) Basahin muna ninyo ang batas (Read first the law) before you recommend to the Court.

/to the Court Interpreter:
          Distribute this and let them sign the original.

ATTY. RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT:
          May we say something, You Honor.

COURT:
          Yes, Panero (my fellow lawyer) Armovit.

ATTY. RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT:
          From what I recall it was Atty. Teleron who reads a case law, Your Honor. And I think his doubt was this, Rusia pleaded not guilty when arraigned and then it turns out later on that he made his Affidavit of Confession as to his guilt. So, I think the doubt of Atty. Teleron was this, how should we straighten this out? Is this not now a case of a change plea, etc., etc.

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). 

PAGE 5
COURT:
          No, he is insisting that I convict him already because according to him he pleaded guilty already. So, the next step is to convict him. Baka akala nang tao bakit ba ayaw e-convict ni Judge si Rusia, e , umamin na nang kasalanan, e, dapat hatulan nang ano, nang conviction. Aba, di ba labag sa batas yon? (The people may wonder why the Judge doesn't want to convict Rusia, since he admitted already his guilt, so he should already be sentenced, a conviction. But then, that's against the law?)  We cannot do that. Because according to the law kahit na merong (even though there is a) judicial admission or he is admitting, the prosecution still has to prove his guilt and the exact degree of his culpability. Iyan ang sinasabi nang batas. (That's what the law says.) O, paano ang gagawin natin? (So, what shall we do?) Kailangan nating sumunod sa batas. (We have to follow the law.)

ATTY. RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT:
          Like any other lawyer he was making a proposal to His Honor,
and His Honor heard---

COURT:
          Before you make a proposal pag-aralan ninyo munang maigi ang batas baka naman labag sa batas ang pino-propose ninyo sa husgado, di ba? (study well first the law, it might be against the law what you are proposing in Court, isn't it?) Okey, let us hear from the Fiscals.

PROS. GALANIDA:
          Your Honor please, may I say something?

COURT:
          Yes.

PROS. GALANIDA:
          Yesterday, Your Honor, Atty. Teleron as this Honorable Court has stressed insisted in the outright conviction of Rusia citing the case of Mangubat vs. Sandiganbayan, August 29, 1986. I have here a copy of the Decision. We would like also to make it of record that in this case of Mangubat vs. Sandiganbayn, one Delia Pregiado who was one of those accused or respondent was discharged as a state witness over the protestation and the opposition of the other accused or respondent. And one of the opposition grounds was that Delia Pregiado was convicted for 126 counts of a crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public and Commercial Documents. Nevertheless, Your Honor,

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). 

PAGE 6
PROS. GALANIDA: (CONTINUATION)
she was discharged as a state witness and that is why the other accused in that case went up to the Supreme Court and also pointed out that because of that conviction of 126 counts of Estafa thru Falsification of Public and Commercial Documents which has been tagged as one of the crimes involving moral torpitude, it rendered the testimony of state witness Delia Pregiado as untrustworthy. However, Your Honor, may I also be allowed to read and quote a portion of the Decision for the record and the Supreme Court has said, and I quote: "Before her discharge (or even without being discharge) as a state witness pursuant to Sec. 9 Rule 119, Delia Pregiado was not incompetent to testify in the criminal cases and which she is one of the accused. Theoretically, she had the option to testify either for the prosecution or the defense or refuse to take the stand altogether invoking the latter case, the provisions of Sec. 1 (e) and (f) of Rule 115 and this would be true regardless of whether or not she had been convicted of a crime involving moral torpitude. As regards the untrustworthiness of state witness Delia Pregiado as a witness, Your Honor, the Supreme Court had said and I quote: "In fine, the correctness of a trial court's determination of the existence or non-existence of the grounds prescribed by the Rules for discharge of one or some of several defendants or the propriety of the order issued on the basis thereof affects only the criminal liability of the persons proposed for the discharge or actually discharged, but not in any sense their competency as witness or the admissibility of their testimony. And, also, Your Honor, may I take also this opportunity to say that last August 13, 1997 Atty. Gica also mentioned to this Honorable Court these (2) cases of People vs Baesa July 11, 1958 and the case of In re Juan Isada November 16, 1934 and he cited these two (2) cases in open court and mentioned that in these two (2) cases the Supreme Court has ruled that theft is one of the crime involving moral torpitude. I have here also, Your Honor, the photo-copies of these two (2) decided cases but no matter how you read and re-read these two (2) cases there is no mentioned that theft

PAGE 7
PROS. GALANIDA: (CONTINUATION)
          is one of the crimes involving moral torpitude. In fact, in the case of In re Juan C. Isada, the Supreme Court mentioned only Concubinage as a crime involving moral torpitude. We are citing this, Your Honor, for the record because the prosecution panel believes that citing rulings from decided cases al
legedly which do not exist is an act of misleading this Honorable Court. Thank you, Your Honor.

ATTY. GICA:
          Your Honor please, I think I have to say something, Your Honor.

COURT:
          Go ahead.

ATTY. GICA:
          Your Honor, it is an invitation coming from the Fiscal Your Honor, first of all before touching on Rule 116, Sec. 3, I would like to make some comments on the manifestations of the Honorable City Prosecutor Galanida, Your Honor. Your Honor please, regarding the crimes involving moral torpitude, we have the case of Pendon vs. Diasnes---

COURT:
          No, let us not deal into these cases decided by the Supreme Court at this time because we have to proceed with the trial. That involves careful study and verification. So let us proceed with the trial now and the prosecution may present another witness since witness Rusia is unable physically to come to court today.

ATTY. GICA:
          There was an invitation, Your Honor, that I made a wrong citation. I made a correct citation only that the prosecution panel, Your Honor, did not make an exhaustive research on the matter.

PROS. GALANIDA:
          It is on record. 

PAGE 8
COURT:
          Alright, we will consider it but we cannot go into this lengthy discussions now.

ATTY. GICA:
          That's right, Your Honor. I was just wondering why Fiscal Galanida was mentioning about it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
          Because you are misleading this Court.

ATTY. GICA:
          Of course not I cannot mislead this Court. I have so much respect for the Presiding Judge.

PROS. GALANIDA:
          If you are not misleading you are reading something ---

ATTY. GICA:
          That's why I am reading ---

COURT:
          Every lawyer is presumed innocent. We have to presume innocent.

ATTY. RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT:
          Even for lawyers, Your Honor?

COURT:
          Yes. We have to presume that in good faith.

ATTY. GICA:
          We will reserve our right, Your Honor---

COURT:
          That is why I asked her to read the Rule to you because well, that is the best evidence. Now, let us hear from Fiscal Miro.

PAGE 9
ATTY. GICA:
          Can we talk on Rule 116, Your Honor----

COURT:
          Your Honor please, for the record, yesterday afternoon during the cross-examination of our witness we presented Davidson Rusia, he was not feeling well. So, the cross-examination was postponed and today we expected that he should come for the continuation of his cross-examination. However, the head of the CIG made a request to the government physician to have Rusia examine. Your Honor, and here is the Medical Certification to show that Davidson Rusia is really sick and he is not available for cross-examination. It requires 3 to 5 days rest. Your Honor please.

COURT:
          Of course the defense reserves the right to cross-examine him. They are not waving anything.

PROS. MIRO:
          Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
          Please show it to the gentlemen for the defense.

PROS. MIRO:
          So as not to delay the proceedings, Your Honor, we are constrained to present another vital witness.

COURT:
          Yes, the Court expects that because we have to proceed with the trial. We cannot suspend the trial because Rusia cannot appear. Later when he is ready he will be cross-examined by the gentlemen for the defense.

PAGE 10
ATTY. ARMOVIT:
          May I say-----

COURT:
          Yes.

ATTY. RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT:
          But before we are going to that, Your Honor, yesterday I was about to mark as our exhibit the other conviction of witness-accused Rusia, Your Honor, but because the hearing was suddenly aborted the marking was not done. Before I forget, may I now at this time, Your Honor, that this document on the offering of a forged check stolen from a mentally, crazy lady be marked as Exh. "4", "4-A" to "4E", Larranaga, Your Honor.

COURT:
          Mark it.
/to prosecution:
          So, you have another witness ready?

PROS. MIRO:
          Yes, Your Honor. We will be presenting this time, Mrs. Thelma Chiong and the direct-examination will be conducted by Asst. Prosecutor Teresita Galanida.

ATTY. GICA:
          Your Honor please, I remember very well during the inception of the proceedings before this Honorable Court that this Honorable Court instructed the prosecution to present eyewitnesses.

COURT:
          Eyewitnesses to the crime.

ATTY. GICA:
          Mrs. Thelma Chiong is not an eyewitness, Your Honor.

PAGE 11
COURT:
          Alright according to the prosecution their evidence is circumstantial. The only eyewitness is Rusia. O, papano ngayon? (So, what now?) They are all circumstantial evidence. Wala namang nakakita exactly, meron ba? (No one else exactly saw, is there any?) The actual taking and the commission of the crime? 

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          We have one (1) eyewitness to be presented, Your Honor, to testify on the actual taking of Jacqueline Chiong and that is witness Dacillo.

COURT:
      Is she available today?

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          No, Your Honor, because we were thinking that Rusia will be coming---

ATTY. GICA:
          With due respect to the Honorable Court, with due respect to Mrs. Chiong, we understand your feelings on that but we should also follow procedure and of course the restrictions made by this Honorable Court in the inception of the proceedings in all these criminal cases that are now pending before this Honorable Court. Mrs. Chiong, Your Honor, with due respect is not an eyewitness.

COURT:
          Wala nang eyewitness. e. (There is no more eyewitness.)

ATTY. GICA:
         
And besides, Your Honor, what is being heard now is the Motion to Discharge. This is not yet---

COURT:
          No, you are mistaken, we are not hearing the Motion to Discharge. The Motion to Discharge is deferred---

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). 

PAGE 12
ATTY. GICA:
         
Yes, precisely.

COURT:
          We will considering anytime during the trial and before judgment. We are not bound to resolve the question of discharge of the accused because the Court said if the Court finds the circumstances so warrant, it may discharge the accused or he may not discharge him at all. He may convict him as I said together with his co-accused. Why are we insisting again that I rule now on the discharge?

ATTY. GICA:
          No, no, we are not insisting on that. The proceedings, Your Honor, is to that effect and whatever evidence that we will present and able to establish during our proceedings would be automatically adopted. Your Honor, in the evidence in chief, if and when.

COURT:
          Well, you are mistaken in taking that this is the hearing of the discharge. No. This is the regular trial and then there is substantial compliance with the requirement of this court that the prosecution will present first its most vital eyewitness. Well, the prosecution's evidence is circumstantial except for Rusia. He is the only eyewitness. And he is unable to come today but they are presented it already. So, now we will hear another prosecution witness because we are mandated by the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 to expedite this trial and also by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 104-96. We have to finish within 60 days and that Administrative Order says that heinous crimes cases like these cases shall undergo mandatory, continuous trial until terminated and must be terminated within 60 days. So, how are we going to comply with those legal requirements if we do not ask the other prosecution witnesses to testify considering that Rusia cannot come. Paano e-sususpend ba natin ang trial? (So what, shall we suspend the trial?)  

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). 

PAGE 13
ATTY. GICA: 

          No. we are just proposing ourselves on the order of this Honorable Court and the directive of this Honorable Court that in the inception of the proceedings. 

COURT: 
          Well. I am telling you - - - - 

ATTY. GICA: 
         
Let us limit ourselves to eyewitnesses. 

COURT: 
          Yes. 

ATTY. GICA: 
         
Mrs. Chiong is not - - - - 

COURT: 
          But Rusia is the only eyewitness. Wala naman ibanq eyewitness kung hindi si Rusia. e. (There is no
other eyewitness except Rusia.)

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May I say something. Your Honor? 

COURT: 
          Yes. 
PROS. GALANIDA:  
          I think Asst. Prosecutor Duyongco had already explained it to Atty. Gica the reason why that witness who saw Jacqueline Chiong being grabbed by Josman Aznar could not be presented now because we did not expect Rusia not to be able to come this afternoon. 

COURT: 
          Alright. what do you want me to do? Cancel this hearing again? 

ATTY. GICA: 
          There are other witnesses. Your Honor.

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). 

PAGE 14
COURT: 

          There is no other witness.
 

ATTY. GICA: 
         
We submit, Your Honor. 

PROS. GALANIDA:  
         
Besides. Your Honor - - - - 

COURT: 
          We cannot cancel
the hearing. 

ATTY. GICA: 
         
So, it is now clear, Your Honor, and patent before this Honorable Court , that Rusia is the only eyewitness? 

COURT: 
         
You ang sabi sa Motion nila.
(That's what their Motion stated.)

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          Not necessarily, Your Honor, because - - - 

COURT:  
          Although there are some aspects - - - 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          Not necessarily that
Rusia is the only eyewitness because Rusia is the eyewitness to the whole incident. 

COURT: 
          To the whole incident - - - - 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          But there is an eyewitness to the actual taking of Jacqueline by
Josman Aznar. Because our examination - - - 

COURT: 
          Let us not waste time. We have to continue with the trial anyway and we will have to hear

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). 

PAGE 15
COURT:      (CONTINUATION)  
Mrs. Chiong anyway she is the mother. Alright swear the witness.    (Court addressing to the Court Interpreter) 

ATTY. GICA: 
          May we ask for the exclusion of other non-eyewitnesses for the prosecution, Your Honor? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
         
Eyewitnesses on hand we have none. Your Honor. 

ATTY. ARMOVIT: 
          Your Honor? 

COURT: 
          Yes.
 

ATTY. RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT:  
         
Considering that it is only Mrs. Chiong and known not to be an eyewitness to the case who is going to testify. I beg leave to withdraw of this afternoon's hearing and my son will take over. 

COURT: 
          So, your client will be represented by your son? 

ATTY. RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT: 
          Yes,
Your Honor, my son. 

ATTY. RAFAEL ARMOVIT: 
          Atty. Rafael Armovit, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
         
Alright, your Motion for leave is granted. Atty. Rafael Armovit will take over. 

COURT INTERPRETER:   (SWEARING-IN THE WITNESS) 
          Do you swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth and noting but the truth in this hearing? 

PAGE 16
WITNESS: 
      A    Yes, I do.  

COURT INTERPRETER:  (To the witness)  
         
Will you please state your name, address and other personal circumstances? 

      A    Thelma Jimenea Chiong, 45 years old, married, housewife and a resident of Cebu City. 

COURT: 
         
State the purpose of her testimony for the record. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Yes, Your Honor. This witness, Thelma Chiong
is presented in order to testify that she is the mother of the two (2) victims, Marijoy Chiong and Jacqueline Chiong. She will also testify that even before July 16, 1997 she already knew accused Rowen Adlawan, Juan Francisco Larranaga, alias Paco Larranaga and Josman Aznar. She will also testify under what circumstances she came to know them. This witness will also identify, Your Honor, some pictures of both Jacqueline and Marijoy while they were still alive.  She will also identify the pictures of the dead body of Marijoy Chiong when this was found at the foot of the very deep ravine at Tan-awan, Carcar, as well as the pictures of the dead body of Marijoy Chiong when she was brought to the funeral parlor at Carcar. Cebu. She will also testify, Your Honor, regarding the physical, moral and mental suffering she, her family had, her relatives have undergone because of the heinous offenses committed on Mari joy and Jacqueline Chiong. She will also testif y on some preliminary matters and other relevant matters, to the purposes already cited. 

ATTY. GICA: 
         
Your Honor please, may we interpose objection regarding the suffering - in other words, the personal sufferings of the relatives  and other relatives of the deceased on the ground that this witness is incompetent to testify on the condition or state of mind

PAGE 17
ATTY. GICA:    (CONTINUATION)
of other persons unless there is established. Your Honor, that she has undergone special study on mental telephathy. Thank you, Your Honor. 

COURT; (to the Fiscal) 
          What do you say? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          That is uncalled for, Your Honor, because he does not even know yet how Mrs. Chiong is going to testify, how the relatives also feel. That is premature - - - 

ATTY. GICA: 
          As a matter of fact - - - 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          She is going to testify later, Your Honor, that after the disappearance - because you are asking and I am answering you
- may I continue, Your Honor? 

COURT: 
          Yes. 

PROS. GALANIDA:  
When Jacqueline and Marijoy did not already come home in the evening of July 16, 1997, Mrs. Chiong is going to tell this Honorable Court that her relatives had stepped in their house. 

COURT: 
          I understand that it is only for purposes of civil liberty. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Yes, precisely she is also presented to established civil liberty. Your Honor.

PAGE 18
ATTY. GICA: 
          That's why, Your Honor, the competency of Mrs. Chiong is being questioned now insofar as the sufferings of the other relatives are concerned because that calls for a state of mind on the condition of the mind of a person. 

COURT: 
          But she - - - 

ATTY. GICA: 
          But insofar as Mrs. Chiong's sufferings, Your Honor - - -  

COURT: 
          Well, she could observe the sufferings of her relatives. That is personal knowledge to her. 

ATTY. GICA: 
          I don't think that the other relatives are complainants in these cases, Your Honor

COURT: 
          When we assess the damages that will be the time to consider your objection. 

ATTY. GICA: 
         
Well, at least, Your Honor, our objection should be considered by this Honorable Court. 

COURT: 
         
It is made of record. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          Your Honor please, the objection is still premature because no questions have been made yet by this - - - - 

ATTY. GICA: 
         
It's the purpose that we are objecting, Your Honor.

PAGE 19
PROS. GALANIDA: 
          The purpose cannot be objected - - - 

PROS. DUY0NGCO: 
          The purpose cannot be objected yet unless and until the questions are being asked. 

COURT: 
          We are allowing this objection to be placed on the record. There is nothing wrong on that. 
 

/to prosecution: 
         
So, you may commence your direct. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
         
May i t please this Honorable Court. 

COURT: 
         
Proceed. 

                                                 DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS
                                                          BY PROSECUTOR T. GALANIDA

      Q    Madam Witness, you mentioned in your personal circumstances that you are married. May we know who is your husband?

      A    My husband is Dionisio Chiong, Jr.

      Q    When and where were you married?

      A    February 14, 1973, Cebu City.

      Q    Can you tell this Honorable Court if your marriage is blessed with children?

      A    Yes, mam.

      Q    How many?

      A    Five (5).

      Q    Will you please state for the record their names in their respective order of births?

PAGE 20
COURT:  
          Names and ages. 

WITNESS: 
      A    Bruce, 25 years old; Jackie, who is now 23
years old; Marijoy, who is now 21 years old; Dennis, who is 20 years old and Debbie Jane, 11 years old. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q   
These five (5) children whom you are mentioning now, are they all living at present? 

      A    No, mam. 

      Q    How many are living?  

      A    Three (3), mam. 

      Q    Can you name for the record who are these three (3) children of yours who are living at present? 

      A    My eldest son, Bruce; my one son, Dennis and my youngest daughter Debbie Jane. 

      Q    What about Marijoy Chiong, your third child, where is she? 

      A    We found her dead at the deep ravine at Tan-awan, Carcar. 

      Q    When was her dead body found at the foot of the deep ravine in Carcar? 

      A    July 17, 1997, mam. 

      Q    How old was she when she was found dead? 

      A    She was twenty (20) years old. 

      Q    What about your other child Jacqueline, where is she now? 

      A    She is still missing until now. 

      Q    You mentioned that she is still missing until now. Since when has she been missing? 

PAGE 21
WITNESS:  
      A    Since July 16, 1997, mam. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    Can you tell this Honorable Court how old was she at that time she was missing? 

      A    She was twenty-two (22) years old, mam. 

      Q    Do you have a birth certificate of Marijoy? 

      A    Yes, mam. 

      Q    Will You please show it to the Honorable Court? 

COURT INTERPRETER: 
         
(Witness showing the birth certificate of Marijoy J. Chiong to Prosecutor Galanida). 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    Are you willing to have this original mark before this Honorable Court? 

WITNESS: 
      A    No. I would like my xerox copy only, mam. 

      Q    If You have the xerox copy, will you kindly show it to this Honorable Court? 

      A    Here. (Witness showing the machine copy of the birth certificate of Marijoy J. Chiong to Prosecutor Galanida)

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we request the distinguish defense, Your Honor, to make a comparison between these machine copy and the original copy of this birth certificate and to manifest for the record their observation thereof. I don't know who of them who will manifest. 

ATTY.  GONZALES:  
          We manifest for the record, Your Honor, that the photostatic copy of this birth certificate is a faithful reproduction from the original birth certificate. 

PAGE 22
PROS. GALANIDA: 
         
May we request, Your Honor, that this birth certificate of Marijoy Chiong be marked as Exh. "A" for the prosecution. 

COURT:  
          Mark it. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q
    What about the birth certificate of Jacqueline Chiong? Do you have with you the birth certificate of Jacqueline Chiong?

WITNESS: 
      A    Yes, mam. 
   (Witness producing the original copy of the birth certificate of Jacqueline Chiong). 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
         
Your Honor please, may I make a correction to my markings because previously there were already two (2) exhibits marked. So, this birth certificate of Marijoy Chiong, may we request that it be marked instead, as Exh. "C", Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we also request, Your Honor, the defense to compare this original copy of the birth certificate of Marijoy Chiong in our machine copy.
I wonder if Atty. Gonzales will favor our request.

  ATTY. GONZALES: 
         
The same manifestation, Your Honor, that the photostatic copy is a faithful reproduction from the true copy. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we request, Your Honor,  that this machine
copy of the birth certificate of Jacqueline

PAGE 23
PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Chiong be marked as Exh. "D" for the prosecution. 

COURT: 
          Mark it. PROS, GALANIDA: 
      Q    You said your daughter Marijoy was found dead at that foot of that deep ravine in Carcar, Cebu. Do you have her death certificate? 

      A    Yes, sir. 

      Q    Will you kindly show her death certificate?

      A    Here. (Witness  showing the, original copy of the death certificate of Marijoy Chiong). 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we, request, Your Honor, that the certificate of death of Marijoy Chiong be marked as Exh. "E" for the prosecution. 

COURT: Mark it. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Q    Mrs. Chiong, while Marijoy and Jacqueline were still alive, may we know if you have a picture of all the members of your family, meaning your children including Marijoy and Jacqueline?  Do you have a picture to show?  

      WITNESS: A    yes mam. This was the picture that we had last Christmas of 1996. (Witness showing the picture to Fiscal Galanida). 

      Q    Are you willing to have this original picture be submitted as exhibit? 

      A    No, mam, for sentimental reason and it is very costly to make another picture

PAGE 24
PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    So, do you have a photo-copy?  

WITNESS: 

      A    Yes, mam. (Witness showing a photo-copy of the family picture). 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
         
May we request the defense, Your Honor, to compare this enlarged photo-copy of this original picture and manifest for the record their observation thereof in view of the manifestation of Mrs. Chiong that she would rather keep the original picture for sentimental reason. 

ATTY. DELA CERNA: 
         
For, the record, Your Honor without admitting that this is a true reproduction of the small picture, would seem that there is a resemblance or similarity. However, there is no date when this picture was taken. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Nevertheless, Mrs. Chiong, I hope you clearly heard her saying this was taken during their last Christmas together with her two (2) children, Marijoy and: Jacqueline Chiong. This was taken last December of 1996. 

ATTY. GONZALES: 
          We object, Your Honor, they
were not together. Mrs. Chiong was not there.

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          I said all the children together. I did not said Mrs. Chiong was with them. 

ATTY. GONZALES: 
          That's what you stated. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          That
is what you heard but that was not I said.  

PAGE 25
ATTY. GONZALES: 

          That is what you meant. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
         
No, I did not say that she was together with the picture. May I request, Your Honor, that this enlarged photo-copy be marked as Exh. "F" for the prosecution. 

COURT: 
         
Mark it. It is a family picture. What's the objection? Is there other pictures taken? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          This is a picture of the five (5) children, Your Honor. 

COURT:  
          Are you doubting that that is the picture of
the Chiong family or the Chiong children or what? I don 't understand. You only create a bad image of yourself by objecting a small thing like this family picture, mag-object pa kayo. (you still will object.)

ATTY. GONZALES:  
          That is not family picture, Your Honor.
 

COURT: Advice ko lang sa inyo yon. (That is only my advise.) That is only my advice to you as lawyers, gentlemen, small things like that family picture mag-object pa kayo. (you still will object.) You doubt that is the family picture of the Chiong? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Picture of the children, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
         
Yes, the children. Will Mrs. Chiong present picture of the other children aside from her?

/to Prosecutor:
          Go ahead.

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). 

PAGE 26
PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we request this witness, Your Honor, to identify her children on this picture starting from  this boy on the right portion? 

WITNESS: 
      A    This picture is in order of my children. This is my eldest son, Bruce; this is Jacqueline; Marijoy; my son, Dennis and my youngest daughter, Debbie. 

      Q    Mrs. Chiong, do You know accused Rowen Adlawan?  

      A    Yes, I know him, mam. 

      Q    Since when have you - - - 

COURT:  
          Do You want to ask her first about her two (2) daughters?
 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Later, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          What was their educational attainment? 

PROS. GALANIDA:  
          Yes, Your Honor, but I intend to ask that question later after the identification - - 

COURT: 
         
Where were they working? 

PROS. GALANIDA:  
          Yes. 

COURT: 
          How is their family? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Yes, we will
do that later, Your Honor, after the identification of the accused.

PAGE 27
COURT: 
          Proceed. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 

      Q    Do you know accused Rowen Adlawan? 

      A    Yes, mam. 

      Q    Since when have you known accused Rowen Adlawan? 

      A    In 1993. mam. 

      Q    Under what circumstance did you come to know him in 1993? 

      A    It was in a school activity in USP that I saw him. 

      Q    Can you tell this Honorable Court why you were there at USP at that time wherein you said in that school activity you saw and knew Rowen Adlawan - - - 

COURT: 
          Make her state the full name of the school. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Yes, Your Honor. 

      Q    What do you mean by "USP"? 

      A    University of Southern Philippines. 

      Q    What were you doing there at that time when you saw Rowen Adlawan at the University of Southern Philippines ?  

      A    There was an activity or Intramurals in the school. 

      Q    Why were you there? 

      A    I was there because there was a school activity and my daughter pointed a friend who was beside Rowen Adlawan and she mentioned that they called Rowen Adlawan "Tatay" in school. 

PAGE 28
PROS. GALANIDA: 
     
Q    Who was that daughter of yours who pointed to you in school at USP this Rowen Adlawan calling him "Tatay" beside a friend? 

WITNESS: 
      A    My daughter Marijoy. 

      Q    Why? Was Marijoy Chiong studying at USP? 

      A    She studied there from graders to high school. 

      Q    You mean. she graduated at USP? 

      A    Yes, sir. 

      Q    If this Rowen Adlawan whom you knew since 1993 is present in court. Will you please point at him? 

      A    That man with a sunglasses. (Witness pointing to a person sitting on the prisoners deck who when asked answered that his name is Rowen Adlawan). 

      Q    What about accused Juan Francisco alias "Paco" Larranaga, do you know him before July 16, 1997? 

      A    Yes, mam. 

      Q    Can you tell this Honorable Court when for the first time did You know him personally? 

      A    When they brought my daughter home. 

      Q    When you mentioned, "they" whom are you referring to as "they" brought my daughter home? 

      A    With the company of Rowen Adlawan, Josman Aznar and Paco Larranaga and one (1) friend that my daughter did not say who he was. 

      Q    Who is this daughter whom You are referring to as being brought home by Rowen Adlawan, Josman Aznar, Paco Larranaga and another friend whom your daughter did not know? 

      A    My daughter Marijoy. 

      Q    When was it that your daughter Marijoy Chiong was brought home by Rowen Adlawan in the 

PAGE 29
PROS. GALANIDA: 
company of Josman Aznar, Paco Larranaga and other friend? 

WITNESS: 
      A    In 1994. 

      Q    Can You remember the month or the day if you can when she was brought home? 

      A    I could not remember when but I knew it was in 1994 because it was the fourth year when my daughter was already graduating. 

      Q    Now, you said that you could remember certainly that it was 1994 because your daughter was in the fourth Year already graduating. Whom are you referring to as my daughter who was graduating at that time? 

      A    Marijoy. 

      Q    Graduating from what? 

      A    High school. 

      Q    Where were you at that time when Marijoy was brought home by Rowen Adlawan, Josman Aznar, Paco Larranaga and another friend? 

      A    I was sitting near the window. 

      Q    Why were you sitting near the window? 

      A    I usually sat near the window waiting my children to come home. 

      Q    About, what time was it, if you can recall? 

      A    Between 5:30 to 6:00. 

      Q    How many times did it happen that Marijoy  Chiong was brought home by Paco Larranaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan and another friend?  

      A    It was two (2) to three (3). 

      Q    If this Juan Francisco Larranaga alias "Paco" is present in court, will you please point to him?

PAGE 30
WITNESS: 
      A    That big guy with a yellow t-shirt. (Witness pointing to a person sitting on the prisoners' deck, who when
asked answered that his name is Francisco Juan Larranaga). 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
     
Q    What about accused Josman Aznar, if he is present in Court, will you please point to him? 

      A    The last guy wearing necklace. (Witness again pointing to a person sitting on the prisoners' deck who when asked answered that his name is Josman Aznar). 

      Q    You mentioned earlier that Marijoy Chiong, your daughter graduated from the University of Southern Philippines, Cebu City, may we, know what school activities if any did she participate while she was still in high school at the University of Southern Philippines? 

ATTY. GICA:  
         
Immaterial, irrelevant and impertinent, Your Honor.  

PROS: GALANIDA: 
         
Very material. May, I say something why it is material, Your Honor? We are going to show, Your Honor, that there was this one (1) girl, a beautiful young girl who had a very promising future but whose life was cut short because heinous offenses was committed on her. In other words, this question is asked in order to form part of our evidence to establish civil liability. 

COURT: 
          You are also trying to prove motivation? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Yes, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          Sexual offense - you want to show that the victim was a beautiful young girl?

PAGE 31
PROS. GALANIDA: 

          Yes, definitely, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          That shows motivation. 

ATTY. GICA: 
          Motivation -  motive, Your Honor, is very important if there is such an issue being brought by the prosecution at the very time that the purpose of presenting this witness was offered by the prosecution. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
         
We said other matters. 

ATTY. GICA: 
          That was never the intention of the prosecution in the first inception that they introduced Mrs. Chiong in the witness stand. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Atty. Gica did not hear, Your Honor, that Mrs. Chiong was presented in order to testify on other related matters to the purposes already cited.  Maybe you did not hear. 

ATTY. GICA: 
          The matters of the crime charged in the Informations. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
         
To the purposes I cited. I cited several purposes, Your Honor. 

ATTY. GICA: 
         
As a matter of fact there is no specific allegation of damages in the Informations which we can comment - - - 

COURT: 
         
No question of damages but motivation as I said because if she was an ugly duckling maybe

PAGE 32
COURT:   (CONTINUATION) 
nobody would want to rape her. It is material that she was a beautiful young girl. Alright, objection overruled. Proceed. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          I have a standing question, Your Honor. 

COURT STENOGRAPHER: 
          You mentioned earlier that Marijoy Chiong, your daughter graduated from the University of Southern Philippines, Cebu City, may we know what school activities if any did she  participate while she was still a high school student at the University of the Philippines? 

WITNESS: 
      A    She participated many activities in school but the most highlight
of his activities was being chosen as Miss USP SIGLAKAS in school. (Witness showing a picture when Marijoy was chosen as Miss USP SIGLAKAS). 

COURT/to the witness: 
      Q    What does it mean? Is that an organization? 

      A    No, Your Honor. it was a physical activity. 

      Q    Physical fitness? 

      A    Yes. Your Honor. 

      Q    Physical education - P.E. that SIGLAKAS? 

      A    They called it Miss USP but they added the word "SIGLAKAS" so it was MISS USP SIGLAKAS, Your Honor.  

/to counsel: 
          Alright. Proceed. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we ask Mrs. Chiong whether she would want these pictures to be marked?

PAGE 33
WITNESS: 
      A    No, mam. I would rather give the xerox copy.  (Witness showing the xerox copy of the picture to Prosecutor Galanida). 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we request the defense, Your Honor, to take a look and compare the enlarged photo-copy of the picture of Marijoy Chiong when she was crowned as MISS USP SIGLAKAS with the original. 

ATTY. DELA CERNA: 
          Regarding these pictures, Your Honor, we admit their similarity of the smaller and the bigger picture. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we request Your Honor, that this photograph of Marijoy Chiong be marked as Exh. "G" for the prosecution. 

COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          And this other picture where Marijoy Chiong
is wearing a crown with the sash MISS USP SIGLAKAS be marked as our Exh. "H" for the prosecution, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS., GALANIDA:  
      Q    By the way, can you recall when Marijoy Chiong graduated from high school in USP? 

WITNESS: 
      A    March 20, 1994, mam

      Q    After her graduation from the high school, may we know whether she proceeded to college education?

PAGE 34
WITNESS:  
         
Yes, mam

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    Where did she study?  

      A    At the University of San Carlos

      Q    At that time that she was found dead at the foot of the very deep ravine in Carcar. Cebu, what was her educational attainment? 

      A    She was a third year college Commerce student taking up Business Administration (BA). 

      Q    While in college, what activity if any did she also participate? 

ATTY. TELERON:  
          Immaterial, irrelevant and impertinent, Your Honor. 

COURT:  
          Same ruling, overruled. 

WITNESS: 
      A    She participated MISS USC contest in the school and she was proclaimed MISS USC in 1994, in her first year.  (Witness showing a picture of Marijoy as MISS USC 1994). 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Will you be willing to have this - - -  what do you mean by USC? 

      A    University of San Carlos. 

      Q    Would you want this original picture be marked? 

      A    No, mam, only the xerox copy. 

COURT INTERPRETER: 
         
(Witness producing a machine copy of the picture and showed the same to the Prosecutor.)  

PAGE 35
PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we request again the defense to compare the original with the xerox, Your Honor. I wonder if Atty. Teleron will oblige to compare. 

COURT: 
          Considering that this is a kidnap-rape case the physical appearance of the victim establishes in part the motivation of the crime because she was attractive, an attractive young girl who was in fact proclaimed a beauty queen in both Universities. And do you know as human being that an ugly duckling are not ordinarily kidnapped and raped by prominent young men. Correct? 

ATTY. GICA: 
          Well. that remains to be proven, Your Honor, established by evidence not by conclusion - - - 

COURT: 
          No, it is just hypothetical. I am just stating a hypothetical citation, di ba tama? (am I not correct?) Who would want - if you are a young man hindi ka naman panqit magandang lalaki ka naman, (you are not ugly, you are also good looking) why will you kidnap an ugly duckling? Naturally you want to kidnap yong (the) beauty queen, maganda, di ba? (pretty, isn't she?)

ATTY. GICA: 
          Well, Your Honor. as I said that is what we are here for, that has to be established by evidence not by conclusion or by speculation. 

COURT: 
          I just want to give the reason why I overruled your objection not to admit these extra-curricular activities that she is a beau ty queen.
That is part of the reason probably why she was kidnapped and raped because she was too attractive to the wrong doer. 0, papano? (So, how now?) That is human nature. di ba? (isn't it?) Don't you agree? 

ATTY. GICA: 
          Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, Your Honor. That is actually - - -  

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). 

PAGE 36
COURT:  
          No. You ask anybody here- nobody wants to kidnap an ugly duckling.
 

ATTY. GICA: 
          It depends on the purpose. Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          But a beauty queen, yes. The kidnappers, rapist, prefer to take a beauty queen. 

/to prosecutor: 
          Proceed. 

PROS. GALANIDA:  
         
Atty. Teleron will manifest. Your Honor - -  

ATTY. TELERON: 
          We admit the similarity of the machine copy of the photographs with that of the original. We wish to add a comment that it doesn't show any MISS UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS in this picture. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Well, Your  Honor, the fact that Marijoy is wearing a crown shows that she was crowned. And at the back, Your Honor, also, I would like to show to Atty. Teleron -  here is a writing
MISS USC 400 Celebration September 8, 1994 Barrio Fiesta. 

ATTY. TELERON: 
          It's a penmanship, Your Honor, and this is self-serving. 

ATTY. GICA: 
         
We object, Your Honor, to the manifestation of the Fiscal that is a conclusion of fact and assumption of fact. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          I am not assuming. I am reading this from the picture. I am not imagining this. Your Honor.  

PAGE 37
ATTY. GICA: 
         
That is not yet established by evidence, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          Anyway. what are You assuming? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
         
I am not assuming anything. I am only reading because they are questioning whether she was really MISS USC. So. I was manifesting that in the picture clearly Marijoy is wearing a crown and there are consorts and there are also other ladies. 

COURT: 
          Has not the witness identified that? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Already identified, she said. 

COURT: 
          That is identified by the witness. 

ATTY. GICA: 
          Identified, Your Honor, the picture. But it was the Fiscal, Your Honor. who said the fact
that she is crowned, that she is wearing this kind of dress, she is already a MISS USC. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          No. 

COURT: 
          Anyway, that is superfluous because herself already said that she was crowned - - - 

ATTY. GICA: 
          That's why we have to correct the records, Your Honor. We should not pollute the record, Your Honor.
 

COURT: 
          She was made as Miss University of San Carlos. The mother herself testified to that effect.  

PAGE 38
COURT:   (CONTINUATION)  
So. the observation of the Fiscal is superfluous. 

ATTY. GICA: 
          Yes, that's right. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
         
I'm not - - excuse me. Your Honor - - - 

ATTY. GICA: 
          Let us not pollute with manifestation, Your Honor. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          I never polluted anything, Your Honor. I was only reacting to a question - - - - 

COURT:  
          You are using the wrong term na naman - (again - ) pollution

ATTY. GICA: 
          I stand to be corrected, Your Honor. There was actually no bad intention, Your Honor. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Maybe you did not hear. 

COURT: 
          You must have address that as applicable to a lady. 

ATTY. GICA: 
          I am sorry, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          You must apologize to the Fiscal being the gentleman that you are. You withdraw that word "pollution". The Fiscal does not say anything that is polluted.  

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). 

PAGE 39
ATTY. GICA: 
         
I said, Your Honor, that we should not pollute the records. I said, we should not pollute the records. There was no specific position against the Fiscal, Your Honor, that she polluted the records. 

PROS GALANIDA: 
          You are the one
polluting. Are you saying you are referring to yourself as being polluting the records? 

COURT: 
          She is the only one reading into the records. E, sino pa? (So, who else?)
Sino pa ang nag-popolute (Who else polluted the records) tha t you are referring to except her?  

ATTY. GICA: 
          In other words, Your
Honor, we should not actually put into the
records manifestations which assumes facts. 

COURT: 
         
I just want you to observe - -  especially for our Lady Fiscal. She is the only lady in the prosecution. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          M
ay I also be given something f or the records, Your Honor? That I did not pollute anything. I was only re-acting to the comment of Atty. Teleron that he could not find any MISS USC here despite the fact that Mrs. Chiong had already testified that she was MISS USC.  

COURT: 
          Pollution is not a p
roper word to use
. Alright, that is the ruling of the Court. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Thank you, Your Honor. May I request that this picture of Marijoy Chiong with a crown on her head and two (2) escorts on her side be marked as Exh. "I" for the prosecution.  

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). 

PAGE 40
COURT: 
          Mark it. 
PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q
    Aside from being crown as MISS USC on September 9. 1994 during the 400 Celebration of the University of San Carlos, may we know what other activities if any did she participate? 

WITNESS: 
      A    She still participated school activities of MISS USC in 1995 and
she was proclaimed as Miss Sportsw ear and she won the Second Runner­Up. (Witness showing the picture of Marijoy proclaimed as Second Runner-Up MISS USC). 

PROS. GALANIDA:  
          May we request Atty. Teleron to make a comparison, Your Honor, because in this picture the word USC Is already found because in the first picture he mentioned there is no word USC. This time there is clearly the word "USC" and also to manifest for the record his observation in his comparison. 

ATTY. TELERON: 
          Yes, Your Honor. We admit the similarity of the machine copy of the photograph that of the original. But we
cannot say that this is the picture of Marijoy because they have different faces. 

PROS. GALANIDA: What do you mean different faces? Alright, Your Honor please, considering that Atty. Teleron mentioned that this enlarged photo-copy and this original copy are two (2) different faces - - -  

ATTY. TELERON: 
          I mean. different faces with the previous photographs shown. 

PAGE 41
PROS. GALANIDA: 
         
But there was no manifestation to that effect, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          You are only asked to
compare the small picture with the big picture, not with the other picture. Wala namang ibanq picture, e. (There is no other picture,) Just compare the small with the big one. 

ATTY. TELERON: 
          We submit, Your Honor. 

COURT:  
         
And see if the bigger one is a true reproduction of the smaller one. That's a very simple - 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          So. may we have now
the comparison of Atty. Teleron, Your Honor? 

ATTY. TELERON:  
          Finished. 

COURT: 
          So. You agree that it is a faithful reproduction?

ATTY. TELERON: 
          of 
the original copy - - -

COURT: 
          And the small one? 

ATTY. TELERON: 
          Yes, Your Honor. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we request, Your Honor, that this photograph of Marijoy be marked as Exh. "J" for the prosecution

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). 

PAGE 42
COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    Mrs. Chiong, will You please describe to this Honorable Court what kind of daughter was  Marijoy Chiong?  

ATTY. GICA: 
          Asking for an opinion. Your Honor. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          As a mother, of course, Your Honor. She is the mother of Marijoy Chiong. 

COURT: 
          That is not an opinion, it is a matter of personal knowledge. She is describing her own daughter with whom she was living with. How can you say that it is a matter of opinion? 

ATTY. GICA: 
          Your Honor please the prosecution can ask questions on how when, where and why -  but not on opinion, Your Honor. This is a general question being propounded to a mother by the prosecutors as if or what do you think of Marijoy? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          I did not say what do you think of - - - 

ATTY. GICA: 
          What she is trying to extract that, Your Honor? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          I did not say what do you think - you did not hear - describe - - - - - - 

ATTY. GICA: 
          Why not ask some questions as describing acts of Mrs. Chiong in relation or
vis-ā-vis the  

PAGE 43
ATTY. GICA:   (CONTINUATION)  
actuations of Marijoy
during the lifetime of Marijoy?  

COURT: 
         
Your objection is not based on the right ground. Your objection should be that the question is too general, not a matter of opinion because it is not opinion as you observed that is her personal knowledge. Nakikita niya ang anak niya ano ang ginagawa pag nagigising. (She sees what her daughter does from the time she wakes up.) What does she say? That is not opinion. Paano siguro (Maybe because) the question is too general. So, we have to ask the Fiscal be more specific. 

ATTY. GICA: 
          We submit, Your Honor. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          But Your Honor please, may we also enter into the record that the defense cannot control also the manner and the style we are asking the question unless there are proper basis for the objection. 

COURT: 
         
But that is too general, you describe her. What particular aspect of that behavior. Please be specific. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Alright. I submit, Your Honor. 
      Q   
As a daughter, Mrs. Chiong will you please tell this Honorable Court what kind of a 
daughter - - - 

ATTY. GICA: The same - - - 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          I have not even
through with my question, Your Honor. I think the gentlemen of the  

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). 

PAGE 44
PROS. GALANIDA:   (CONTINUATION)  
defense should also
show proper decorum because I have not yet through and they are objecting. 

COURT:  
          Let her
finish first. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    As to the character of your daughter, Mrs. Chiong,  what can you say about it? 

ATTY. GICA: 
          The same objection, Your Honor, and we can even had one, Your Honor, that is already
character evidence.  

PROS. GALANIDA: 
         
I am not establishing the - - - I am  asking this witness to describe, Your Honor. Now, they do not want the word "describe" because it is too general and now I am going to be specific, the character, her attitude towards the mother, that is what I am trying to ask Mrs. Chiong- - - 

COURT:  
          You ask her that - what was  her attitude  towards you?  

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q   
Can you tell this Honorable Court the attitude of Marijoy Chiong as a daughter to you? 

COURT/to the witness: 
      Q    How did she treat you?
  

WITNESS: 
      A    She was a loving daughter, sweet, obedient daughter. We do not have maids in the house and they were the ones who cleaned the plates; they do the cleaning of the house; the laundry and do the cooking in the house.  I was depen-  

PAGE 45
WITNESS: (CONTINUATION)  
dent on them to help me in the house because I have no maids. I could be proud to say that they are good. She even cleans our bathroom very good and only a mother could do how to clean a bathroom but my daughter Marijoy knows how to clean the bathroom. And even when she was MISS USC or MISS USP in that schools, she had to fetch water and she is not ashamed .to fetch water. She is very helpful in the house. 

COURT:  
      Q    She helpful to you and the family? 

      A    Yes. Your Honor. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q   
What about your relationship with your daughter? What can you say about your relationship? 

ATTY. GICA: 
          Immaterial, irrelevant and impertinent this time, Your Honor. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          We will show the connection later on, Your Honor. This is very material to the prosecution, Your Honor. To you there is no connection but for the prosecution - - - 

COURT: 
         
Alright,  conditionally admitted. 

ATTY. GICA: 
          With that, Your Honor, we submit. 

WITNESS: 
      A    I am very close to my daughters. They confided to me everything that they are think they are afraid of or the things they want to tell me. I know their secrets even their love life.  

PAGE 46
PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    What did Marijoy tell you about her love life? 

WITNESS: 
     
A    She has a boyfriend Bonbon Mutia which they have been steady for one year and a half (1-1/2).  

COURT/to the witness: 
      Q    So, she had a boyfriend? 

      A    Yes, Your Honor. 

      Q    What is that Bonbon? 

      A    Bonbon Mutia,  Your  Honor

      Q    He was also studying in the same school?  

      A    Yes, Your Honor,  he was also studying in the same school. 

      Q    In San Carlos? 

      A    Yes, Your Honor. 

      Q    He was her classmate? 

      A    No,  Your Honor,  Bonbon is taking Engineering. 

/to prosecutor: 
          Proceed. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    What else if any did Marijoy tell you about her love life? 

      A    One (1) time I could not forget she told me that Paco Larranaga told her that if she will not broke off with Bonbon something will happen to her. 

COURT/to the witness: 
Q    Why, Paco Larranaga was also courting your daughter Marijoy? 

PAGE 47
WITNESS: 
      A    Yes, he is an admirer of my daughter, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
      Q    Why do you say that he was an admirer? Did you see him often? 

      A    No, Your Honor, but my daughter told me he always follow her in school. 

      Q    Does he come and visit her in your house?  

      A    No. 

      Q    He did not visit her in your house? 

      A    No. The only time that I saw him came to our house was when we were living in Capitol. 

      Q    How many times did he come to your house? 

      A    I think twice, Your Honor. 

      Q    And did he stay there in your parlor or in your living room while h e visited your daughter? 

      A    No,  Your  Honor. 

      Q    What did he do? 

      A    He just brought her home, Your Honor. 

      Q    In  the same  company  of the same people  you mentioned before? 

      A    Yes, Your Honor. 

/to prosecutor: 
          Proceed. 

ATTY. RAFAEL ARMOVIT: 
          Your Honor- - -  

COURT: There is an objection.

PAGE 48
ATTY. RAFAEL ARMOVIT:  
          Yes, Your Honor. May we move, Your Honor, that the statement of the witness that Paco Larranaga had threatened her that something will happen to her be stricken off the records because it is clearly hearsay. 

COURT: 
          What do You say? 

PROS. GALANIDA:  
          We invoke, Your Honor,  the ruling of the case of People vs.  Cosi that the statement is admissible not necessarily as to the truth thereof but as to the fact that it was told to her, all the tenor of the statement. 

ATTY. RAFAEL ARMOVIT: 
          As to the tenor. Yes, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          Alright, we will not strike it off the record. You cannot strike it off the record.  

ATTY. GICA: 
          Subject to that condition, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          Yes. 

ATTY. RAFAEL ARMOVIT: 
         
Yes, not as to the truth. 

COURT: 
          Because all hearsay evidence is admissible to prove that the witness really heard what she heard, di ba? (Isn't it so?)

ATTY.  RAFAEL ARMOVIT: 
          Only as the tenor. Your Honor.  

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). 

PAGE 49
COURT:  
          But it is not admissible as evidence that what she heard is or was true. 

ATTY. GICA:  
         
Especially in this case, Your Honor, because Marijoy cannot be cross-examined anymore.
 

COURT: 
          Correct. 

WITNESS:  
     
A    Your Honor- - - 

COURT:  
         
We have a standing legal point and the Fiscal is conducting her examination, please answer the question of the Fiscal. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May I continue. Your Honor? 

COURT: 
          Proceed. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    When was it if you can recall when Marijoy told you that Paco told her that if she would not break- up
her boyfriend  Bobon Mutia something would happen to her? 

WITNESS:  
      A
    It was a month before her death, before she was missing. 

      Q    You mean in the year 1997? 

      A    Yes, mam, in the year 1997. 

COURT/to the witness: 

      Q    Will you describe the circumstances when she told you that? How? In what situation did she tell you that, did she come to tell you that? 

PAGE 50
WITNESS: 
      A    When the children were joking about there was a big guy courting her - - - 

COURT/to the witness:
      Q    There was a big guy? 

      A    Courting her, Your Honor,  when all my children were teasing her. 

      Q    Teasing Marijoy? 

      A    Yes, Your Honor. 

      Q    That there was a big guy courting her?  

      A    Yes. Your Honor. 

      Q    And what did Marijoy say? 

      A    She told me secretly in front of my children by saying: "He threatened me, Ma, if I will not break-up Bonbon Mutia something will happen to me". 

ATTY. RAFAEL ARMOVIT: 
          Same objection, Your Honor, same manifestation. 

COURT: 
          Same ruling, proceed. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    What about your other daughter Jacqueline Chiong, what was her highest educational at
tainment at the time of
her disappearance? 

WITNESS: 
      A    She was a graduate of Hotel
arid Restaurant Management in San Jose Recoletos.   

     Q    How old was she at that time she was missing? 

      A    Twenty-two (22)years old. 

      Q    Was she working then at that time?

PAGE 51
WITNESS: 
      A    Yes, mam. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    Where was she working? 

      A    She was working at Global Village  International. 

      Q Where is the office of the Global Village International where Jackie was then working? 

      A    At the  third floor of Ayala in front of Glicos.  

      Q    Do have any document to show that Jacqueline was working in that establishment? 

      A    Yes, mam. (Witness producing a Certification to Prosecutor Galanida). 

      Q    Will you also have this mark or do you have a photo-copy? 

      A    I have a photo-copy. 

COURT: 
          What was the Certification? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May I read, Your Honor, the Certification? 

COURT: 
          Yes. 

PROS. GALANIDA:   
          "To Whom it may Concern: This is to certify that Jacqueline Hazel Chiong has been employed with Global Village International Learning Center as a Global Sider Coffee Service Crew Member since 14 April 1997. However, Miss Chiong has not reported to work since the 17th of July 1997. This is issued for whatever that purpose it may serve". May I request, Your Honor, that the defense compare this photo-copy and the original and to manifest for the record their observation.

PAGE 52
COURT/to prosecutor: 
          What about Marijoy, you did not ask her what work was she doing in Ayala Center? Was she employed? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          No, she was a student of USC, Your Honor, third year - - - 

COURT:  
          She was not employed in Ayala Center when she was kidnapped? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          No, Your Honor. She was a third year Commerce student of USC. 

COURT:  
          Proceed. 

ATTY. GONZALES: 
          We manifest, Your Honor, that is a faithful reproduction from the original. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we request, Your Honor, that this Certification of Employment be marked as Exh. "K" for the prosecution. 

COURT: 
          Mark it. 

ATTY. GICA: 
          Your Honor please, we will reserve our objection on the admissibility of that piece of document at the proper moment. 

COURT: 
          When they submit their formal offer.

PAGE 53
ATTY. GICA: 
          Yes, Your Honor. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    Mrs. Chiong, will you tell this Honorable Court how Jacqueline Chiong treat you as a daughter? 

      A    She  was a jolly,  loving and helpful  daughter also. She also helped in the house like Marijoy. Even in her  meager salary at Global she usually gave me P1,000.00 from her salary to buy groceries. 

      Q    What about your relationship with Jacqueline, what can you say about your relationship with her? 

ATTY. GICA:  
          Immaterial, irrelevant and impertinent, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          Same ruling. Witness may answer. 

WITNESS: 
      A    I am very close to my children even Jackie and they also confided to me all their secrets and all the things they want to say to me. 

      Q    What if any did Jackie confide to you? 

      A     Jackie has no boyfriend at that time but one (1) time she confided to me also that Josman Aznar was always watching her at her work of place.  

      Q    What do you mean by "watching her at her working place"? What working place? 

ATTY. GICA: 
          Your Honor please, I would like to interpose an objection on the ground that that is hearsay, Your Honor. But as to the tenor subject to the said condition, Your Honor.

PAGE 54
COURT: 
          Same ruling. 

 ATTY. GICA: 
          Thank you, Your Honor.  

COURT:  
          Not admissible as evidence of the truth of what she was told. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          So, she maybe allowed to answer, Your Honor? 

COURT: 
          You ask her - what did Jacqueline mean or what was it that she really told you as "watching her"? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          I adopt the question of the court.  

WITNESS: 
      A    He kept on watching her at her place of work because the office of Jacqueline is made of glass and she could easily see Josman outside. 

COURT/to the witness: 
      Q    He could see through the wall? 

      A    Yes, Your Honor. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    What did Jacqueline tell you if any after she told you that Josman used to watch her through the glass panel of their office? 

      A    Jacqueline does not like what Josman did to her because Josman is really very fresh with women. 

COURT/to the witness: 
      Q    So, your daughter, Jacqueline did not like his watching her that way? 

PAGE 55
WITNESS: 
      A    Yes, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
      Q    How many times did she say Josman watched her through the glass? 

      A    I know for a fact that it is not only two (2) to three (3) times but more than, Your Honor. 

      Q    Did she say Aznar was courting her? 

      A    Yes, he is an admirer of her, Your Honor. 

/to prosecutor: 
      Proceed. 

ATTY. GICA: 
          Just to emphasize matter, Your Honor, may we make a continuing objection on matters of hearsay. 

COURT: 
          Yes. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          We also invoke the same ruling of People vs. Cosi, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          Alright. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we give Mrs. Chiong a chance to drink water, Your Honor? 

COURT: 
          Yes. 

                                (Mrs. Chiong drinking water)

PAGE 56 
PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    Mrs. Chiong, will   you please tell this Honorable Court when was the last  time that you saw your daughter Marijoy alive? 

W I TN E SS:
      A    I saw her July 16, 1997 before 7:00 o' clock in the morning before going to school together with my children. 

      Q    Can you recall what day was July 16, 1997 when according to you you saw your daughter before 7:00 o' clock that morning of that day?  

      A    I could never forget it was a Wednesday because it was the fiestday of Carmelite. 

COURT/to the witness: 
      Q    Your two (2) daughters were kidnapped together but Marijoy was not working in Ayala Center. Do you know why she was there? 

      A    They usually met together there in Ayala and go home together from Ayala to our place because we were living in Villa Leyson, Bacayan, Talamban. And from Ayala it is just one (1) ride to our home, Your Honor.   

      Q    So, Marijoy just went there- - - - 

      A    To met Jackie, Your Honor. 

      Q    To meet your other daughter? 

      A    Yes, Your Honor. 

/to prosecutor: 
      Proceed. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    Do you know what was her schedule of classes that day July 16, 1997 in the afternoon? 

      A    Her first class is 7:30 in the morning and her off in the evening is 6:30 

PAGE 57
PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    And she was off in the evening at 6:30? 

WITNESS: 
      A    Yes, mam. 

      Q    And after 6:30 in the evening, did I get you right when you said she would go to Ayala? 

      A    And met Jackie. 

      Q    And they would go home together in your place? 

      A    Yes, mam.  

      Q    What about Jackie, when was the last time that you saw her before her disappearance? 

      A    I cannot forget because we had a prayer meeting at home because it was a Wednesday and our prayer meeting usually in Wednesdays and she went with my son Bruce at 4:00 o' clock in the afternoon to fetch my daughter Debbie Jane. 

      Q    And before she left, what did she tell you, if any because she left at 4:00 o' clock? 

      A    Actually it was her day-off, it was the first day because usually her off-day is Sunday and it was transferred to Wednesday and she went back to Ayala to get her salary and to give me P1,000.00 for groceries. 

      Q    What happened in the evening of July 16, 1997, did Marijoy and Jacqueline go home together as you said they often went home together to your place at Talamban, Cebu City? Did they go home together, Marijoy and Jackie in the evening of July 16, 1997? 

      A    They did not go home. 

      Q    What time did you usually expect them to come home on Wednesdays? 

ATTY. GICA:  
          No basis, Your Honor, that she always expects them every night or every Wednesday or - - - 

PAGE 58
COURT: 
          You ask her- what time did they usually arrive home?  

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Precisely  that was- - - 

ATTY. GICA: 
          It's the word "expect", Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          Alright,  remove the word "expect", what time did they usually go home together from Ayala? 

PROS. GALANIDA:  T h e re was already a previous answer to that, Your Honor. But just to satisfy Atty. Gica, Your Honor, maybe he did not hear that question, I will ask the same question -  

      Q    What time: usually  did they go home,  Jacqueline and Marijoy every Wednesday? 

      A    To satisfy also Atty. Gica, Your Honor, I would like to say that I am a housewife and I'm alone at home and I expect my children to come home at the same time, 7:30 to 8:00. 

      Q    So that particular evening of July 16, 1997 between 7:30 to 8:00 o' clock P.M. as you said you expected them to be home, what happened? 

      A    They did not come home. 

      Q    Since they did not come home at this time when you expected them, what did you do? 

      A    I waited them to come home. 

            Aside from them to come home - - - - 

      A    It was raining that day and I thought that they were just delayed because of the rain and the ride coming home was very seldom. They cannot easily come home because the transportation was rare. 

PAGE 59
PROS.  GALANIDA: 
      Q    And so, how long did you wait for them? 

WITNESS: 
      A
    I waited for them until 1:30 in the morning. 

      Q    At about 11:00 o' clock that same evening of July 16, 1997, what did you do if any?  

      A    I told my two (2) sons to fetch Jackie and Joy maybe they could not take the ride because there was no transportation. 

      Q    Who are these two (2) sons? 

      A    Bruce and Dennis. mam. 

      Q    In effect. did they go to Ayala in order to fetch Jackie and Marijoy?  

      A    Yes, mam. 

      Q    What happened?

      A    We came home without Jackie and Joy. 

      Q    Earlier you said that you waited for your daughters to come home until 1:30, what day - 1:30 of what?  

      A    Of the next day July 17. 

      Q    So. at 1:30 early morning of July 17, 1997, what happened?  

      A    I did not sleep that night. In fact, we woke up early that morning. I woke up my children very early that morning to find my daughters; that they will inquire my daughters Jackie and Joy because we were just presuming that they were with their uncle's house in R. R. Landon, Cebu City. Because of the rain and the transportation was seldom, so I woke them very early. In fact, I woke them 5:00 o' clock in the morning that they could start going down to the City because as if our place is in the mountain. 

      Q    Whom are you referring to as you woke them up very early so that they could go to the City? 

PAGE 60 
WITNESS:
      A    My husband and my children who were going to school, Dennis and Debbie.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    You mentioned that you were presuming that Marijoy and Jackie could have slept in your brother's house at R. R. Landon. Can you tell this Honorable Court whether you called them up that evening to verify?

      A    At that time we have no telephone, all at Villa Leyson don't have telephone. In Bacayan, we don't have telephone, that's why we were not able to call them or they were not able to call us why they were not able to call us. 

      Q    That morning of July 17, 1997, you said earlier that you told your husband to go to the City early to verify from your brother's house whether Jackie and Marijoy slept there the previous night, what happened if any? 

      A    I waited them in the house the whole morning. Then at 1:00 o' clock in the afternoon the boyfriend of Joyjoy, Bonbon Mutia came to the house to ask me if Joyjoy came home- Marijoy, we called her Joyjoy at home, if she came home because he could not find her in school.

      Q    And what was your reply?

      A    I was very frantic and I was crying already because why did my daughter did not come home. Then my husband arrived at 2:00 o' clock in the afternoon confirming that they were not in my brother's house and in their friend's house. So, I was already hysterical in crying very hard. 

      Q    What happened next after your husband arrived and told you that Marijoy and Jackie could not be found in your brother's house neither in their friend's house?

      A    I dressed up and closed the house because I was usually the only one remained in the house. So, we closed the house and went to the City

PAGE 61 
WITNESS:   (CONTINUATION) 
to inquire their classmates and their friends of there whereabouts and we could not find them. So, we blottered them at Ramos Police Station, Mabolo Police Station and Talamban Police Station. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    What about the following day, July 18, 1997, what happened if any?

      A    At that first day that we know that Jackie and Marijoy were kidnapped some of the friends of my husband and some police friends of my husband came to the house to help the search for our daughters on the night on the 17th and they searched whole night and morning and the whole Talamban going to Ayala. 

      Q    In what particular place did your husband and some police officers search for Marijoy and Jackie?

      A    Because we just thought that they were just hijacked near Talamban. We thought that they were only in Talamban that they were missing. So, we went the whole Talamban even the rivers and the mountain side of Talamban we comb till morning and the next day and all the following days going to the City.

      Q    And what happened after search?

      A    We still could not find my daughters.

      Q    So, in the evening of July 18, 1997, what happened if any?

      A    Early morning of July 18, my sister and my brother came from Manila to be with us in search of my daughters and still on the 18th they were still searching for my daughters, the friends of my husband.

      Q    And what was the result of that search which was going until the 18th.

      A    They came home very sad and still no Jacqueline and Marijoy.  

PAGE 62
PROS. GALANIDA:  
   
   Q    What about on the 19th of July 1997, what happened? 

WITNESS: 
      A    It was a Saturday, my two two (2) brothers, my auntie and my son Dennis heard that there was a girl found dead at Tan-awan, Carcar at the foot of the deep ravine and they went to Carcar to see the body in Tupaz Funeral Parlor. 

      Q    What happened after your two (2) brothers and Dennis and another name you mentioned went to Carcar at Tupaz Funeral Parlor after hearing from the radio that a dead body of a girl was found at the foot of Tan-awan, Carcar? 

      A    They came home and told me that it was my daughter Marijoy and my brother told me that even the orange t-shirt and the maong pant are the same and even the clip of her hair was the same. 

      Q    What was your reaction when they told you that? 

      A    I scolded my brother, because he is my younger brother.  

      Q    Why did you scold him? 

      A    I said: "I do not like that" I cannot accept that the woman was thrown at the cliff - that my daughter  was thrown at the cliff of that deep ravine."  

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          At this juncture., Your Honor, we would like to request for a little recess so that Mrs. Chiong will gain her composure. 

WITNESS: 
      A    No, we will continue. 

PROS. GALANIDA:  
          Alright, we will just manifest for the record, Your Honor, that despite the fact that she is crying she still insist in continuing with the 

PAGE 63
PROS. GALANIDA:     (CONTINUATION)  
proceedings. 
      Q    Alright, after you scolded your brother telling him why he could simply accept that the girl that was found at the foot of that cliff at Tan-awan, Carcar, was Marijoy, what happened next? 

WITNESS: 
      A    That I cannot accept my daughter which I shed tears and  blood  would  be thrown only to the cliff. 

      Q    What happened then? 

      A    All my brothers were silent  because I was so frantic and hysterical when I told them that I could not accept that my daughter will just be thrown in the ravine. And the next day without my knowledge my husband went to Carcar in the afternoon and he came home in the evening, he showed me some pictures which the police gave him.  

      Q    What were those pictures which your husband gave you which  according  to you was given by the police? 

      A    Here.    (Witness producing a picture of a dead woman in different positions). 

      Q    Will you have these mark,  these original pictures?  

      A    No, mam. I have xerox copies.    (Witness again producing xerox copies of the pictures, enlarged copies). 

PROS. GALANIDA:  
         
May we request, Your Honor, the defense to compare  these originals with the machine copies and to manifest for the record their observation. 

ATTY,  TELERON: 
          I would like to manifest, Your Honor, that the machine coy of a photo-graph which is similar

PAGE 64
ATTY.  TELERON:     (CONTINUATION) 
representation of the originals with a body described as one wearing denim pants and orange t-shirt with a covered face.  (Counsel examining the photo-graphs) 

          We withdraw our manifestation, Your Honor, considering that the angle of which this original photograph is taken is different from the position of the lying body in the enlarged - - - 

COURT: 
          Meron siyang sinasabi na mistake daw. (He is saying something about a mistake.)

PROS. GALANIDA:  
          With
that, Your Honor, we just mark the
original. So, we request that this dead body of a woman with torn pants and with orange blouse and with a cover wrapped around her forehead and with left hand under her weight be marked as our Exh. "L"

COURT: 
          Mark it.  

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          We have other pictures to be compared because we have five (5) sets of pictures, Your Honor, three (3) pictures taken of the dead body at the foot of the ravine at Carcar when she was found and two (2) pictures at Tupaz Funeral Parlor. 

ATTY. GONZALES: 
          We would like to manifest, Your Honor, that this particular picture which I am now holding, we manifest that the enlarged copy is similar to that of a small copy with a manifestation that the body  of a lady shown here in the picture seems to have no figure. 

COURT: 
          I think the decomposition - - - the body has begun to decompose. 

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). 

PAGE 65
PROS.  GALANIDA
          Yes,
anyway the doctor will testify to that effect, Your Honor, that when he examined - - - 

COURT: 
          About how many days? 

PROS. GALANIDA:  
          About seven (7) days, anyway the doctor will be presented. 

COURT: 
          About seven (7) days? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Yes, Your Honor. According to him he when he examined the body was already blotted. 

COURT: 
          Yes, naturally it will decompose. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          I don't know seven or what but he will testify. Anyway, Your Honor, we request that the enlarged photo-copy of the dead body of Marijoy Chiong in this position where she is lying on her left side with her bra seen because the orange blouse is raised with her torn pants clearly seen from the picture with the white tape covering her head and with the handcuff bearing visible, Your Honor, from left hand found at the left side of her body be marked as our Exh. "M"

COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          And the handcuff, Your Honor, which can be clearly seen from the picture be encircled and marked as Exh. "M-1" for the prosecution. 

COURT: 
          Mark it.  

PAGE 66
PROS. GALANIDA: 
         
May we have the defense manifesting as requested their comparison of the enlarged photo and the original picture? 

ATTY. GONZALES: 
          We manifest for the record, Your Honor, that the enlarged picture is not similar to the smaller picture shown. However, we would like to manifest, Your Honor, that the enlarged pictures is very prominently - - - the stomach is very big. 

PROS.  GALANIDA: 
         
We have already made the manifestation, Your Honor, that at that time there was already a decomposition to be testified by the doctor.  

COURT: 
          They are making a comparison between the small picture and the enlarged picture, and it seems not to tally. 

ATTY.  GONZALES:  
         
It does not tally, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          So you can leave the small picture, that is the original.  

PROS. GALANIDA:  
          We will just mark the original picture if that is the case,
Your  Honor. 

ATTY. GICA: 
          Your Honor please, may we request that the manifestation of the Prosecutor, Your Honor, will remain on record as her manifestation, the appreciation or evaluation of this photo-copy should be subject to the Rules on Evidence, Your Honor, on matters like the basis for the taking of this so on and so forth.

PAGE 67
PROS. GALANIDA: 
         
Yes. we will be presenting the Chief of Police of Carcar, Your Honor, who caused these pictures to be taken. May we request, Your Honor, that the original be marked instead because they would not admit the similarity, that this picture be marked as our Exh. "N", the original. 

COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          The handcuff was already compared by you - - - 

ATTY.  GICA: 
          That's why we made already a manifestation that the observation of the Prosecutor should be her own observation but not to be taken as actual - 

PROS.  GALANIDA: 
          But it is found in the picture. Alright, I will show the picture where the handcuff - - 

ATTY. GICA: 
          That is only your perception, Fiscal. That is clear on record. Your Honor. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          That is not only my perception, Your Honor, because the picture - - - 

COURT: 
          Let us not argue about this picture because what is important is that the woman was killed and she was found dead in the bottom of that ravine. 

ATTY. GICA: 
          Yes, Your Honor, but the manifestation - - -  

PAGE 68
COURT: 
          Whether or not whatever the position is or the parts of her body that is not important. Do we have to argue about that? 

ATTY. GICA:   
         
No. Our importance, Your Honor, in making that manifestation is that we just do not want that the observation of the Prosecutor,  Your Honor, will be taken as facts. 

COURT: 
          I  just want to avoid small arguments on trivial matters because it is an established facts that the victim died. Iyon ang importante roon. (That's what is important there.) Yong mga (These) position of the hands or fingers hindi importante yon (that is not important) because the decomposition has taken place already. Why do we have to argue smaller things? 

ATTY.  GICA: 
          That's why, Your Honor, the defense insist that manifestation should not be made,  Your Honor,  at this point in time. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Your  Honor please. I was only describing what I see in the picture. Why will they prevent me from saying that there was a handcuff? 

COURT: 
          My point is, let us not argue about these small things. Let us cut short this argument  about these small matters concerning the position of hands in her body of the victim- what is important is that she was found there that she was dead. O, papano, (So, how now,) that is the point not the small details. Let us not deal into these things,  it merely create bad feelings. 

PROS. DUYONGCO:   
          Besides, Your Honor, we are only requesting for the marking. The time to object is when we formally offer these exhibits. 

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). 

PAGE 69
COURT: 
         
Let us get over these small details. The Court wants to get over these because they are not important as far as the Court is concerned. What is important is the victim was killed or she died and she was found in that spot. That is all not the small details concerning her on the picture. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we request, Your Honor, the defense to compare the enlarged- - - 

ATTY. GONZALES: 
          Your Honor, may we just make  a  statement, Your
Honor. our observation? This is already marked as Exh. "M-1". So, we would like to make an observation - the handcuff, Your Honor. which is encircled and  marked as Exh. "M-1", the handcuff is not on the body of the lady found in the picture but rather it is placed in a branch of a tree. That is only our observation, Your Honor. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Well, Your Honor please. this clearly shows that there this is a hand underneath the body and here is a branch of the tree near it. Nevertheless, Your Honor, we will be presenting those persons who actually saw and retrieved the body. So, the
manifestation is premature and it will be answered later. 

ATTY. GICA: 
          That's why we request the prosecution, Your Honor, to avoid little manifestation of these things in the picture, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          Let us avoid these descriptions because the best evidence are the pictures. Tama na naman yan. (That's correct again.) Let us not re-describe. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          But why I will be prevented from marking the handcuff, Your Honor, when we see it in the

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). 

PAGE 70
PROS. GALANIDA: 
picture? We want it to be marked. 

ATTY. GICA:  
          The best evidence should be the picture - - - 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          You cannot
control also the prosecution - - - 

COURT: 
          Let us not re-describe only to avoid discussion because these are trivial matters, unimportant. Maliit na bagay lang yon, bakit magtatalo pa? (These are small things, why argue yet?) (Importante yong namatay di ba? (What's important she's dead, isn't she?) Alam naman
natin ang nangyayari nang tao, pag namatay tayo talanang magmumukha tayong ganyan) (We know what happens to persons that die, when we die, we will also look like that) or even worse o papano, di ba? (So, how, what now?) Let us not deal these smaller things. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we request, Your Honor  that  this body of Marijoy in that funeral parlor be marked as Exh. "O" and the handcuff still clearly seen on the left hand of Marijoy be also encircled, Your Honor, and marked as our Exh. "O-1"

COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS. GALANIDA:   (to the defense counsels) 
          According to you you r e fused to
see that it is a handcuff as you can see it. 

ATTY. GONZALES: 
          But it cannot be seen. 

COURT: 
          The picture will be the best evidence. Let us stop the discussion. 

ATTY. GICA:  
         
Fiscal, do not make any manifestation - -

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). 

PAGE 71
PROS.  GALANIDA: 
          That is what I see in the picture. you cannot prevent me from saying what I see in the picture. 

COURT:  
          Let us dispassionate about this matter- -  let us not try to enflame the imaginations. Can we avoid these pictures- - -

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Last picture, Your Honor- - 

ATTY. DELA CERNA: 
          We agreed,  Your Honor, that this picture is an enlargement smaller picture. 

COURT:  
          Now, with respect to moral damages,  I believe they  might be left to the discretion of the Court, although actual damages have to be proven or claimed by the witness. But moral damages maybe left in the discretion of the Court if Mrs. Chiong  is agreeable she will leave it to the Court to decide as moral damages and should be paid in case there is a finding of guilt, of course, if the finding is innocent, then no damage have to be paid at all.  

/to the witness: 
      Q    Would you agree to that, Mrs. Chiong  that you will leave it to the discretion of the Court, the question of moral and exemplary damages? 

WITNESS: 
      A   
Yes. Your Honor. 

COURT/to prosecutor: 
          So, you may not ask her only about actual damages.  

PAGE 72
PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Yes, Your Honor. May I request, Your Honor, 
that this
last picture be marked as Exh. "P" for the prosecution and this portion here be encircled and marked as Exh. "P-1"

COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q   
After Your husband had shown you those pictures already marked, what was your reaction? 

WITNESS: 
      A   
Deep in my heart - - - - 

COURT: 
          Are You going to the question of actual damages- - - 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Yes,  Your Honor. 

COURT:  
          There is no need to go into that because she will leave it to the discretion of the Court. You can ask her about
actual- - - 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Alright, Your Honor. Because we would have wanted to show, Your Honor, if Mrs. Chiong will be permitted to answer that question, she would have told this Honorable Court how she
was convinced that it was her daughter because she did not believe. But since this Honorable Court - - -

COURT: 
          Well, she already testified that that was her daughter. There is no need to ask her reaction
. The Court can take cognizance on that. It is a common experience of mankind. In Pepsi-Cola case which I decided. I also 

PAGE 73
COURT: (CONTINUATION)  
granted moral damages but I did not have to ask  the witnesses how they suffered,  their mental anguish. It is a matter of common experience of mankind.  And we don't have to ask this witness how she suffered because of what happened to her two (2) daughters. The court can take judicial notice. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    I will ask her, Your Honor, about the actual expenses. Now,  Mrs. Chiong, how much did you pay the Tupaz Funeral Parlor in Carcar where your daughter was embalmed?  

WITNESS: 
      A   
Actually I did not pay it because I don't have money to pay Tupaz. It w a s a friend of my sister who paid it and she paid P30,000.00 for Tupaz Funeral Parlor. 

COURT/ to  the witness: 
      Q    How much was the total actual expenses that you spent as a result of the death and kidnapping  of Your daughters? Just give us the total because  the defense may want to admit it. That is the total without admitting that your clients are liable for it, di ba? (Isn't it so?)

ATTY. DELA CERNA: 
          Yes, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          But if the total is reasonable which the family spent for the death or kidnapping of your two (2) daughters they want to admit it already to save time. Now, give us the total, Mrs. Chiong, including  the burial expenses? Only  the actual expenses that you spent not the moral damages or sufferings that you suffered- only the actual, what you really spent because of the death of your two (2)  daughters? 

WITNESS: 
      A    One hundred three thousand nine hundred pesos (PI03,900.00), Your Honor, because I did not  

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).

 PAGE 74
WITNESS:      (CONTINUATION)  

pay at Tupaz, it was only a friend- - - 

COURT: 
         
I think that is quite reasonable to spend for the death of her two (2) daughters who were kidnapped and did not die on a natural death- -  

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Only one (1), Your Honor. Only Marijoy- for
the burial of Mari joy because Jackie not yet found until now. 

COURT:  
          Alright, so far that is the actual damages that they spent. 

ATTY. GICA: 
          But there is mentioned, Your Honor, that they do not have money that's why somebody spent for it. That cannot be an actual damages to be credited to- - - - 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Mrs. Chiong was emphatic, Your Honor, that the P30.000.00 paid to Tupaz was not their money. That's why she said that when she mentioned
P103,900.00 that was excluding the P30,000.00 paid to Tupaz because it was paid by a friend. 

COURT:  
          So, what you spent actually was only P103,000 plus? 

WITNESS:  
     
A    Yes. Your
Honor. 
COURT:  
         
Are you willing to admit that, that they spent P103,900.00 for the death of their two (2) daughters? Only the amount of course you will not admit that your clients are liable for that. If they are found guilty, they are liable to pay that actual damage of P103,000.00 plus.

PAGE 75
COURT:    (CONTINUATION)  
But if they are acquitted, they don' t have to pay anything. You are not admitting they are liable, only the amount because it is reasonable that the family would spend that much for the death of her two (2) daughters, di ba? (Isn't it so?) Especially they were kidnapped and they had to spend searching for them. Are You admitting P103,000.00 plus? 

ATTY. GICA: 
          This is actual damages, Your Honor, so- - 

COURT: 
          Actual only. Moral damages are left to the discretion of the Court. So, you are admitting? 

ATTY. GICA: 
          We are not admitting- -  actual damages, Your Honor, can be supported- - - 

COURT: 
          No- - I do not understand this. Don't you consider that a reasonable amount for a family to spend for the death of her two (2) daughters especially they were kidnapped and had to be looked for seven
(7) days? They spent that much, I suppose, di ba? (Isn't it so?) 

ATTY. GICA: 
          If that is all they spent, Your Honor - - - 

COURT: 
          You are only admitting the amount but you are not admitting that your clients are liable for it, di ba? (Isn't it so?) To save time. Do we have to ask her, papano ba, bakit ka napkagasto ka nang ganoon? (how then, why did you spend that much?) Ano ang pinagagastos mo? (Where did you spent that much?) We do not want to go into those details. If they spent One Million maybe we will ask her. That small amount P103.000.00  tanungin pa natin? (we will still ask her?) So. admitted na, (already) gentlemen?

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).  

PAGE 76
ATTY. GICA: 
         
Yes. Your Honor. 

COURT:  
          Alright, admitted. Now, she is leaving the question of moral damages to the discretion of the Court. You have any other question? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Yes, Your Honor,  the last question. 

COURT: 
          Proceed. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
     
Q    Mrs. Chiong, in testifying before this Honorable Court, what are you asking from this Court aside from the moral damages which you said you just leave to the discretion of this Honorable Court?  

WITNESS: 
      A    I am Just asking for a fair and honest justice
for my children because many people offered us to kill them; the Sparrow Unit  approached us; the NPA met us: even the Underworld met us and offered us to kill them all but I refused because I would just like to sake justice for my two (2) daughters. I don't want to be like them who would kill persons because I don't want to commit sin against man and God. (Note: the sparrow unit is an underground communist hit squad while the NPA or National People's Army  is the fighting army of the communist movement in the Philippines.) 

COURT/to the witness: 
     
Q    So,  in short, you want justice? 

      A    I want justice, that's why I waited for all these months because I am seeking for justice and I have been fighting for justice for all these months. 

COURT: 
          Is that all? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          That is all, Your Honor.  

PAGE 77
COURT: 
         
It is now 4:00 o'clock, we can proceed with the cross-examination but first let us have a recess or if You wish we can adjourn now and conduct cross-examination tomorrow. 

ATTY. DELA CERNA: 
          May we be allowed to conduct our cross-examination tomorrow, Your Honor?  

COURT: 
         
Also to give the witness a rest. She had been testifying for hours. Give everybody a rest also for the passion to subside. As I said we want to be dispassionate about it. This is a court hearing. We want emotions to calm down. 

ATTY. TELERON: 
          Your Honor, please- - - 

COURT:  
          You want to say anything, Panero? (My fellow lawyer?) 

ATTY. TELER0N: 
         
We just would like to make it of record that there is only one (1) death as testified by Mrs. Chiong, only Marijoy. The other daughter Jacqueline is missing.  

COURT: 
         
What do you want to place in the order here? Is there anything you want to suggest? 

ATTY. TELERON: 
          None. Your Honor. 

          O R D E R

          At the continuation of the trial of these cases today, since the accused-witness Davidson Rusia was unable to come because he was indisposed

(NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).

 PAGE 78
ORDER:    (CONTINUATION)  
according
to the Medical  Certificate issued by the CIG. The prosecution presented as witness, Mrs. Thelma Chiong, the mother of the victims and Prosecutor Teresita Galanida conducted direct-examination of Mrs. Chiong, after which the parties agreed to a continuance. 

The continuation of the trial of these cases shall proceed as scheduled tomorrow, at  the same time and the said witness shall be subjected to cross-examination by the counsels for the defense. 

SO ORDERED. 

Given in open court, this 18th day of August 1998, at Cebu City, Philippines. 

                                                                                                   (SIGNED)  MARTIN A. OCAMPO
                                                                                                                           Judge

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript of stenographic notes taken during the hearing of the above-entitled cases, on the date specified above, is a true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, hearing and ability.

                                 (SGD) FARAH T. ABANGAN
                                 Court Stenographer 

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS FROM THE WEBMASTER:
     
On pages 27 & 28 of this TSN, Mrs. Chiong testifies that she knows Rowan Adlawan since 1993 when Adlawan was pointed to her by Marijoy in an intramural activity in her school, University of Southern Philippines (USP). "I was there because there was a school activity and my daughter pointed a friend who was beside Rowen Adlawan and she mentioned that they called Rowen Adlawan "Tatay" in school," she said. However, in a certification issued by the school authorities of USP, Adlawan did not study in that school until June of 1994 (See Part 13). In fact, Marijoy had graduated from high school earlier that year, on March of 1994. Adlawan entered USP on June of the same year. He only studied there from June of 1994 until August 1995. So, the question is, what was Adlawan doing in an intramurals at USP. And how can the students of USP call him "Tatay" when he wasn't even enrolled there yet? 

          On page 49, Mrs. Chiong testifies that Paco threatened Marijoy a month earlier. "She told me secretly in front of my children by saying: "He threatened me, Ma, if I will not break-up Bonbon Mutia something will happen to me", testifies Mrs. Chiong. The then National Bureau of Investigation of Region 7 (NBI 7) Director, Atty. Florencio Villarin in an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court contradicts Mrs. Chiong's testimony.  "I personally interviewed Mrs. Thelma Chiong in the presence of her husband to get the facts surrounding the disappearance of their daughters;......... And during the interview, Mrs. Chiong disclosed to us a certain Mutya from Tacloban City but residing in Labangon, Cebu City, as the only one courting Jacquiline or Marijoy but she never mentioned to us the name of Francisco Larraņaga as one of those courting any of her daughters, and neither did she mention the names of the other accused in this case;"

          The multi-awarded NBI 7 director was subpoena to testify during the earlier trial to testify on the results of his initial investigation...... "but Asst. Prosecutor Galanida and Prosecutor Miro, who, was in control of the prosecution, objected to the move of Atty. Andales, one of the defense counsels, to present me as a witness," he states in his affidavit.
The judge sustained the objections of the prosecutors. 

          During the earlier newspaper reports of the case, Mrs. Chiong never mentioned in her interviews about Paco's threat a month before the disappearance of her daughters. Surely, if one threatens your daughter a month earlier and then she suddenly disappears, the first thing one will do is to tell the police is about the threats. 

          It was only on September 23, 1997, in an affidavit made by Mr. Dionisio Chiong that this threat was first time ever mentioned. It also implicated Aznar and Adlawan as possible suspects. Mrs. Chiong had the difficult task to mimic in court what Mr. Chiong said in this affidavit, which appears to have been antedated to July 23, 1997, that's even before they knew Marijoy was dead.  (See Part 13) The police only told the Chiongs about the identity of the dead woman found in the ravine on July 24, 1997, or a day after the alleged date of Mr. Chiong's affidavit.

          On page 63, Mrs. Chiong testifies that on July 19, or three days after the daughters went missing: "It w as a Saturday, my two two (2) brothers, my auntie and my son Dennis heard that there was a girl found dead at Tan-awan, Carcar at the foot of the deep ravine and they went to Carcar to see the body in Tupaz Funeral Parlor......They came home and told me that it was my daughter Marijoy and my brother told me that even the orange t-shirt and the maong pant are the sa me and even the clip of her hair was the same." However, earlier newspaper reports contradicts her testimony: The  friends and office mates of Joy, who went to Carcar, personally reported to the Homicide division. They said it was not the body of Joy nor of Jackie based on the body features and the clothing she wear.

       Furthermore, the judge who actually tried this case in his omnibus order was not convinced of Mrs. Chiong's testimony about the identity of the body. (See Part  11). 

NOTE:   THE ABOVE TEXT IS THE FAITHFUL REPRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL
        DOCUMENT REFORMATTED FOR  CLEARER APPRECIATION.              

                 HOME     INDEX    Next Trial Date