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 CBU-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, Presiding 
                                                                 Judge of Branch 7, Regional Trial Court of Cebu
                                                                 City, on September 3, 1998 at 2:05 o'clock in 
                                                                 the afternoon.
                                                                 

Present:
                                                                 HON. MARTIN A. OCAMPO
                                                                 Presiding Judge

ASSISTED BY:
                                                                  Ms. Farah T. Abangan
                                                                  Court Stenographer

                                                                   Mrs. Lucila C. Bajarias
                                                                   Court Interpreter

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

                                                                   ATTY. HONORATO HERMOSISIMA
                                                                   (Appearing as private Prosecutor)

PAGE 2
PAO LAWYERS:                                      ATTY. CORNELIUS GONZALEZ
                                                                   ATTY. FERNANDO GUBALANE
                                                                   ATTY. PATRICIO MORALES
                                                                   ATTY. ANACLETO DEBALUCOS
                                                                   ATTY. VENUSTIANO YPIL
                                                                   ATTY. JOHN DE JESUS
                                                                   (Appearing as de oficio counsels for all 
                                                                     the accused)

                                                                    ATTY. FERDINAND SAORNIDO
                                                                    (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.

COURT:
          Well, is there any manifestation to this?

ATTY. C. GONZALEZ:
          Yes, Your Honor. We  would like to place on record that the Public Attorneys Office is here in compliance with the Order of the Honorable Court dated September 2, 1998 directing the Regional Public Attorney to send in lawyers coming from said office to assist the Court in the speedy disposition of these cases. Likewise, Your Honor please, before we proceed, I would like to invite the attention

 PAGE 3
ATTY. GONZALES:   (CONTINUATION)
of the Honorable Court to the situation the Public Attorneys Office now appears to be in because previously the Public Attorneys Office represented accused Davidson Rusia. As a matter of fact, the representation by the office of said accused came came about at the instance of Rusia himself. Again, record would show that on August 12 and 13, the Public Attorneys Office appeared here and eventually withdrew for a very good reasons and which withdrawal was granted by the Court. Now, in the Order of the Court dated yesterday, September 2, the office finds itself in an awkward position because for once Rusia was our client and now we are tasked to defend the rest of the accused against whom Rusia testified in Court.

COURT:
          Well, those of you who represented Rusia or those previously participating these cases way withdraw. Are all of' you? Or those who have no previous---

ATTY. C. GONZALEZ:
          No. Your Honor. Rusia when he executed his Affidavit of Admission or whatsoever he was assisted by a Public Attorney, Atty. Patricio S. Morales. Jr., Your Honor, in order to show that the Affidavit was executed voluntarily and  with all his understanding of the contents thereof. I, also appeared for Rusia on the August 13 hearing as well as Atty. Fernando Gubalane on the August 12 hearing. We are bringing this attention or rather we are bringing this to the attention of the Court, Your Honor, because we don't want our positions to be misunderstood again as it happened last time. And we don't want anybody to say later on or rather accuse us of unethical conduct, Your Honor. 

COURT:
          Alright, those who have previous participation may go but the Public Attorneys who have no previous participation should remain. Three (3) of you are withdrawing? You may withdraw.

PAGE 4
ATTY. GONZALEZ:
          Well , may I use the word, Your Honor, that we be exempted from being appointed as counsels for the rest of the accused because of our prior active participation with respect to the assistance the Office rendered to accused Davidson Rusia. And I am referring to Atty. Morales, Atty. Gubalane and myself, Your Honor, who had earlier as I said participated actively in the trial.

COURT:
          The Court grants your Motion for Exemption.

ATTY. C. GONZALES:
          Thank you very much, Your Honor. The rest of the lawyers will stay.

COURT:
          Yes. Will you go now or what?

ATTY. C. GONZALES:
          Permission to leave, Your Honor?

COURT:
          The rest of the Public Attorneys will stay because the Court are designating them as counsels de oficio for the accused whose lawyers have all withdrawn and the accused have not yet appointed new lawyers to defend them and the Court believes that it is legal to appoint Public Attorneys as de oficio counsels in the course of the trial not in the arraignment. This is already in the course of the trial and there is a case decided by the Supreme Court, will you take note of this Fiscal--- People vs. Macagaling, 237 SCRA 299, when the Court appointed a lawyer from the Public Attorneys Office to act as de oficio counsel for the accused during the trial when the counsel of his choice was absent or failed to appear. So, there is a precedent that Public Attorneys may be appointed as de oficio counsel when the accused has no regular counsel in the course of the trial. Now, there is a question thereof whether these accused would be deprived of

PAGE 5
COURT:    (CONTINUATION)
their right to counsel if we go  ahead with trial today. Will you please study that? Make a study of that gentlemen for the prosecution. Take into account this case of People versus Macagaling and also the following circumstances.  Will you please take note of it? This is a Special Heinous Crimes Court mandated to conduct mandatory, continuous trial and finish within sixty (60) days. The have records of dilatory tactics. The crime was committed last July 16, 1997 and the trial started only last August 12, 1998, precisely because of the dilatory tactics being employed by the defense counsels. The Order of August 31, of this Court holds that this Court can no longer delay further continuation of the trial of these cases and informed the accused that the Court will have to temporarily appoint counsel de oficio. So, that is a four-day notice, from August 31 September 3, that is four (4) days. They were given a reasonable opportunity to hire counsels of their choice. Ayaw naman nila, di ba? (They do not want anyway to, isn't it so?) Aznar, Larranaga, the Uy's. They can easily pay for defense counsels, di ba? (Isn't it so?) Why did they not hire to defend them? Their counsels withdrew last August 24, nag-walk out. (They walked out.) Why did they not appoint new counsels? They have submitted written consents last August 27 to this Court, e, ngayon (Now, it's already) September 3 na wala pa silang na-appoint na (they still haven't appointed their) regular counsels.

PACO LARRANAGA:
          Your Honor - - -

COURT:
          Wait a minute I'm going to say it - you may talk later on, Paco. Let me finish first.

PACO LARRANAGA:
          Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
          These cases are already in the trial stage and not arraignment. The Court wants to receive only the direct testimony of the pro-

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

PAGE 6
COURT: (CONTINUATION)
secution witnesses and allow the new counsels to be appointed by the accused to conduct cross-examination when they are appointed by the accused. So, they have now until the time when the prosecution is about to rest its case to designate, to appoint new counsels to conduct cross-examination on the prosecution witnesses as well as cross-examination of the accused- witness Davidson Rusia. De oficio counsels need not be the choice of the accused, that is the ruling of' the Supreme Court. They doesn't have to agree, kaya nga, e, papano ayaw mag-appoint, ayaw mag-agreement (that's why, so how if they don't want to appoint, they don't want to have an agreement) for defense counsels, e, papano? (so how now?) Will the trial of these case be delayed definitely because the accused refused to designate or appoint new lawyers? It will resume only when they decide to appoint new lawyers? Papano yan? (How is that?) We are leaving it to the accused when the trial will resume? E, hindi puede yan. (No, that cannot be.) Puede ba yon? (Can that be?) Kung gusto nila mag-appoint ngayon, tuloy ang trilal. (If they want to appoint now, the trial will continue.) Kung ayaw nila , hindi matutuloy. (If they don't want, the trial will not continue.) E , kailan matutuIoy ? (So, when will it continue?) Pag nag-appoint sila. (Only when they were able to appoint already.) Ganoon ba? (Is that it?) Meron bang ganoon? (Is that a way?) It is the Court that fixes the date of the resumption of the trial. Not the accused, di ba? (Isn't it so?) Hindi puede yon. (That cannot be.) Kung kailan nila gusto mag-designate nang lawyers na bago saka na matutuloy ang trlal. (Is it only when they want to designate their new layers that the trial will begin.) So, saan ka nakarining nang ganyan, di ba? (So, where did you hear something like that, isn't it so?) Matutuloy Iang tayo kapaq naka-appoint na ang accused nang bago na abogado, e, kung ayaw nila, wala. (We will only continue when the accused were able to appoint their new lawyers already, and if they don't want to appoint, then it will not continue.)  Stop lahat, di ba? (Everything stops, isn't it so?) But they can go to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court for a restraining order any time. If this Court receives a restraining order, I will stop immediately. But without a restraining order, e. papano? (then, how?) We are mandated by the -- ito mababasa ninyo (here you can read) (Court referring to Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 104-96 posted infront of Judge Rostrum) Order nang (of the) Supreme Court to conduct mandatory, continuous trial and finish the same within sixty (60 ) days. O, papano? (So, how?) We will grant their Motion for thirty (30) days suspension of the trial? Magagalit sa atin ang taong bayan. (The towns people will get mad at us.) Parurusahan tayo nang (We will be punished by the) Supreme Court. Bakit dini-delay nang thirty (30 days) ang trial? (Why are we delaying the trial by thirty (30) days?) Bakit hindi ba kayo makaintindl nang (Why can't you understand) English? We must conduct mandatory continuous trial. Dapat hindi e-su spend nang (We should not suspend by) thirty (30) days, one (1) month

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

PAGE 7
COURT: (CONTINUATION)
just because the accused says that they need time to look for new lawyers. E, bakit ba? (So, why then?) Meron naman silang ibabayad? (They can very well afford to pay?) Why they cannot hire a counsel tomorrow or at least up to Monday, di ba? (Why not?) Yong tatlo walang ibayad, (Those three that cannot afford to pay,) okey, we will designate PAO lawyers. E, iyong me pambayad bakit naman (So, those that can afford to pay, why then) thirty (30) days just to appoint new lawyers? Yon ang hindi ko maintindihan. (That's what I cannot understand?) Why? Alright, let us hear from Paco.

PACO LARRANAGA:
          Yes, Your Honor. I would like to make it on record, Your Honor, that we would like to have our own counsels of our own choice, Your Honor.

COURT:
          Yes, let it be placed on the record.

/to Josman Aznar:
          You are making the same, Josman? You are making the same manifestation?

JOSMAN AZNAR:
          Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
          Alright, they manifested that they prefer to have counsels of their choice.

/to the prosecution:
          So, you will submit Memorandum to the Court on that point, on the right to counsel of their choice whether the Court - - - -

WANGWANG UY:
          Your Honor - -

COURT:
          Yes, you have a Manifestation?

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

PAGE 8
WANGWANG UY:
          Yes, Your Honor, the same with Paco.

COURT:
          Alright, everybody makes the same manifestation, all the accused. 

/to the Prosecution:
          So, will you make a Memorandum to be submitted by Monday? Kasi baka ma-nulllfy itong proceedings (Because these proceedings might be nullified) if they are deprive of the right to counsel. But we will continue with the trial today. Baka ma-nullify itong witness na mag-testify ngayon, (Maybe this witness that will testify today might be nullified.) not the preceeding witnesses because their lawyers were present at that time. 

ATTY. SAORNIDO:
          With all most due respect to the Order of this Court, my client requiring him to appear, we would like to ask the Honorable Court its consideration because reports had spread about the security reason of my client. But, however, my client is in the detention cell, he is on call, we will just ask five (5) minutes if - - 

COURT:
          No - we will ask him to be present when the accused new lawyers request the Court for him to be present on which dates for cross-examination.

ATTY. SAORNIDO:
          Wednesday, Your Honor?

COURT:
          No, not necessarily Wednesday. When they have already appointed counsels of their choice, then we will call Davidson Rusia for additional cross-examination. The Court is allowing them that additional cross-examination. 

ATTY. SAORNIDO:
         I submit, Your Honor.

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

PAGE 9
         But they will be the one to choose the dates baka sabihin nila hindi sila preparado. (but they will choose the dates because might say they are not prepared.) E, papano yon? (So, how is that?) Magkaroon naman nang trouble. (There will again be trouble.) Pag-aralan ninyo na, e- check kung kailan tayo preparado at saka nalang tawagin, di ba? (You study that already, you check when we are already prepared before we call him, isn't that so?) Para wala na kayong reklamo, e, ano pa? (So you will not have complaints, so, what else?) Yes, Fiscal Galanida?

PROS. GALANIDA:
          Your Honor please, considering that all the accused have manifested their intention to be represented by counsels of their respective choice, we would like to know from them when they can be able to hire these new counsels?

COURT:
          Well, according to their Motions, Larranaga Motion, for three (3) weeks. Is that correct?

PACO LARRANAGA:
          Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:

          And that Uy Motion is also (3) weeks. But the Aznar Motion is one (1) month. Is that correct, one (1) month?

JOSMAN AZNAR:
          Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
          Bakit naman (Why is it) one (1) month? Bakit hindi mo gawing (Why don't you make it) three (3) weeks para pare-pareho na kayo? (so you will all be the same) O, ikaw na lang ang maiiwan? (You will be the only one left behind?)

JOSMAN AZNAR:
          Yes, Your Honor. 

COURT:
          Okey, three (3) weeks din? (also?)

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

PAGE 10
JOSMAN AZNAR:
          Yes, Your Honor.

PROS. GALANIDA:          
          We are bringing this matter, Your Honor, because the prosecution is apprehensive, what if they were not be able to hire new counsels again within the three (3) weeks period or the one (1) month period asked by accused Aznar - - -

COURT:
          What can we do if they are not able to hire new counsels by that time then we order the counsels de oficio to really conduct cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and then after that the Court will hold the accused to have waived further cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. O, papano, ayaw nila maq-appoint nang (So, how, they don't want to appoint their)  defense counsels? What can we do? But the Court is allowing them that right to appoint defense counsels of their choice within three (3) weeks, sabi nila, (they said,) alright then appoint within three (3) weeks and in the meantime, I will not suspend the trial because that would go against the Supreme Court Administrative Order to conduct mandatory, continuous trial. In the meantime, we will receive the evidence for the prosecution pero (but) direct testimonies lang. (only.) Walang (There will be no) cross-examination. We will defer the cross-examination and reserve it for the accused when their lawyers of their choice are already present in Court. We will not require the Public Attorneys to cross-examine your witnesses but they may object to your questions, e, kung (that's if is) misleading they can object on direct. So, that is the ruling of the Court. It will now proceed with the continuation of the trial of these cases and hereby appoint Public Attorneys - please your name?

ATTY. V. YPIL:
          Attys. Venustiano Ypil, Anacleto Debalucos and John de Jesus, Your Honor.

COURT:
         As counsels do oficio for all the accused who are now without defense lawyers.

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

PAGE 11
PROS. MIRO:
          Your Honor - -

COURT:
          Yes, Fiscal Miro.

PROS. MIRO: 
          In view of that statement of this Honorable Court and in the light of that ruling of People vs. Macagaling and still in compliance with the Order of this Honorable Court, we beg leave to present additional witness. 

COURT: 
          Yes. Wait - but you have to submit that Memorandum by Monday. If your Memorandum says that we would be violating the right of the accused to defense counsels, then I will stop. I will not continue and wait for them to appoint new lawyers. So, if your Memorandum supports my stand, we will proceed. 

PROS. MIRO: 
          So, it is the understanding now that we can not proceed with the presentation of our evidence? 

COURT: 
          Yes, today you may present one (1) or two (2) witnesses. 

PROS. MIRO: 
          We will be presenting one (1) eyewitness, Your Honor. 

PACO LARRANAGA: 
          Your Honor, I just would like to make it on record that we would like our own counsels to start till the end even the start of the cross-examination and even the direct, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          Yes, you made that part of the record that you want your own counsels to be present. But the 

PAGE 12
COURT:    (CONTINUATION)  
          Court is overruling you and holding that it may receive the direct testimony of these witnesses but reserving for you, the accused the right to cross-examine them through your counsels of your choice which you say in your Motion you will appoint in three weeks time. Alright, proceed, Fiscal. 

PROS. MIRO: 
          Prosecutor Galanida will be directing our next witness in the person of Sheila Singson. 

ATTY. YPIL: 
          May I move for the exclusion of some other witnesses for the prosecution, Your Honor? 

PROS. GALANIDA:  
          We have no other witness, Your Honor, except Miss Sheila Singson. 

COURT: 
          Call the witness. 

                                                                  (Witness to the stand) 

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

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          This witness, Your Honor, is presented in order to testify that she is an employee of the Global; Village International Learning Center or Global Village, for brevity: that she knows both Jacque line Chiong and Marijoy Chiong: that at about 6:OO o'clock in the evening of July 16, 1997 she saw both Jacqueline and Marijoy at the Global Village Cyber Cafe. She is also going to testify as to all matters which transpired from the time about 6:00 o'clock in the evening of July 16, 1997 when she saw Jacqueline and Marijoy at the Global Village Cyber Cafe up to about 8:00 o'clock 

PAGE 13
PROS. GALANIDA:    (CONTINUATION) 
that same evening when she last saw them, meaning Jacqueline and Marijoy standing near the steps of the West Entry of Ayala with accused Paco Larranaga facing and talking to Marijoy. She will also testify that even before July 16, 1997 she already saw accused Paco Larranaga about five (5) times: She will also testify on some preliminary matters and on other matters in amplification of the purposes already cited. 

COURT: 
          Swear the witness. 

COURT INTERPRETER:    (SWEARING IN THE WITNESS)  
          Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this hearing? 

WITNESS: 
      A    YES, I do. 

COURT INTERPRETER: 
          Will you please state your name, address and other personal circumstances? 

      A    Sheila Abella Singson, 26 years old, single, Global Village Cyber Cafe Supervisor and a resident of 23-A Katipunan Street, Tisa, Cebu City. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May it please this Honorable Court. 

COURT: 
          Proceed.  

                                                     DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS 
                                                            BY PROSECUTOR T. GALANIDA 

      Q    Miss Singson, you mentioned in your personal circumstances that you are a Supervisor.

PAGE 14
PROS. GALANIDA:    (CONTINUATION) 
          Can you tell this Honorable Court where is this establishment located? 

WITNESS: 
      A    It is located in the 3rd level of Ayala Center that's in between Pizza Hut and Maanyag. 

      Q    What Is this Global Village Cyber Cafe in particular? 

      A    We will provide services for Internet use and Computer use. 

      Q    Do you know what is this Global Village International Learning Center? 

      A    It offers b o t h Computer Learning Center for both adult and children and a Global Cyber Cafe. 

      Q    Are You telling this Honorable Court that this Global Village Cyber Cafe is part of the Global Village International Learning Center? 

      A    Yes, mam. 

      Q    Since when have you been employed with this Global Village? 

      A    Since March 1997 continuously up to the present. 

      Q    Where is this Global Village again located? 

      A    It's in the third level of Ayala Center between Pizza Hut and Maanyag. 

      Q    In what City is this Global Village 3rd level a t Ayala t h a t you a re referring to? 

      A    Cebu City branch, mam. 

      Q    When was it that you were employed with this Global Village? 

      A    March - - - 

ATTY. YPIL: 
          Already answered, Your Honor.

PAGE 15
COURT: 
          Alright, qualify - - - 

WITNESS: 
      A    March 1997 to the present. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    When you mentioned up to the present, are you referring to a continuous service? 

      A    Yes, mam. 

      Q    What is your present position now at the Global Village Cyber Cafe? 

      A    Cyber Cafe Supervisor. 

      Q    How long have you been holding this position? 

      A    For about seven (7) months. 

      Q    Before you became the Supervisor of this Global Village Cyber Cafe, what was your position then? 

      A    I was an Inventory Clerk. 

      Q    On July 16, 1997, can you tell this Honorable Court what particular position are you holding? 

      A    I was still an Inventory Clerk at that time. 

      Q    Did you know Jacqueline Chiong, one of the victims in these cases? 

      A    Yes, mam. 

      Q    Why do you know her? 

      A    She was my co-employee. 

      Q    You mentioned that Jacqueline was your co-employee. Co-employee in what position in what establishment? 

      A    Global Village International Learning Center. 

      Q    When was it that Jacqueline Chiong was your co-employee at the Global Village International

PAGE 16
PROS. GALANIDA:    (CO N TI N U A T I O N) 
          Learning Center? 

WITNESS: 
      A    That was sometime April of 1997 until that time that she disappeared. 

      Q    Do you know the nickname of Jacqueline since you said she was your co-employee at Global Village? 

      A    Jackie. 

      Q    What was the position of Jackie at that time when she was your co-employee? 

      A    She was one of the Cyber Cafe Staff. 

      Q    What about the other victim, Marijoy Chiong, do you know her? 

      A    Yes, mam. 

      Q    How did you come to know her? 

      A    Because she often visited Global Village since Jackie was working there she often visits there and she was introduced to me by Jackie as her younger sister. 

      Q    When was it that Marijoy was introduced to you by Jackie at the Global Village? 

      A    That was two (2) weeks after Jackie was employed they disappeared. 

      Q    You mentioned that Marijoy often visited Jackie at the Global Village? How often did Marijoy visit Jackie there at the Global Village?

      A    It was almost everyday. Sometimes at noon and most of the time in the evening because they go home together. 

      Q    On July 16, 1997, can you recall if you had reported for work at the Global Village? 

      A    Yes, mam. 

      Q    Can you also recall what was your working schedule that day?

PAGE 17 
WITNESS: 
      A    From 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q   At about 6:00 o'clock in the evening of July 16, 1997, where were you? 

      A    I was working. 

      Q    Where? 

      A    In Global Village. 

      Q    What were you doing at that time about 6:00 o'clock in the evening of July 16, 1997? 

      A    I was in the Stock room then I came out to go to the Cyber Cafe to check the stocks. 

      Q    And so when you came out from the stock room to go to the Cyber Cafe in order to check the stocks. What happened? 

      A    I saw Jackie with her sister. 

      Q    Where was Jackie at that time when you saw her and Marijoy? 

      A    She was using one of the computers. 

      Q    Particularly where? 

      A    In Cyber Cafe. 

      Q    What about Marijoy, where was she at that time you saw them? 

      A    She was at the back of Jackie looking at the computer screen. 

      Q    When you saw both Jackie and Marijoy, what did you do then? 

      A    I approached Jackie. 

      Q    When you approached Jackie, what happened next? 

      A    I asked her why she was there. 

      Q    What made you ask Jackie that question?

PAGE 18
WITNESS: 
      A    Because that was supposed to be her day-off. 

PROS. GALANIDA:       
      Q    And what was the answer of Jackie to your question why she was there when according to you it was her day-off? 

      A    She answered that she was there to collect her salary. 

      Q    So, after Jackie told you that she was there at Global Village in order to collect her salary, what did you do then? 

      A    I told Jackie she has to excuse me because I have to continue with my work. 

      Q    In effect what time did you leave the Global Village or your office that evening? 

      A    About 7:00 P.M. 

      Q    When you left the Global Village at about 7:00 P.M., that same evening, where were Jacqueline and Marijoy? 

      A    They were still at the Global Cyber cafe. 

      Q    What were they doing when you left the office? 

      A    Jackie was still operating the computer and Marijoy was at her back. 

      Q    So , from your office, where did you proceed? 

      A    I went to the West Entry. 

      Q    West Entry? 

      A    Of the Ayala Center. 

      Q    What was your purpose in going to the West Entry of the Ayala Center? 

      A    Because I agreed with someone to meet him there. 

      Q    Who was that someone?

PAGE 19
WITNESS: 
      A    My friend. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q   
Would you care to tell this Honorable Court the name of that friend of yours? 

      A    Hildo Ylaya. 

      Q    In effect what time did you reach the West Entry of the Ayala Center, if you can recall? 

      A    At around 7:05, more or less. 

      Q    When you arrived there at about 7:05 in the evening, what did you do? 

      A    I sat in one of the benches there. 

      Q    While you were sitting in one of the benches at the West Entry of Ayala Center, what happened? 

      A    Few minutes after I saw Jacqueline with Marijoy coming out from the exit of the West Entry. 

      Q    You mentioned that few minutes after you sat in one of the benches you saw Marijoy and Jackie coming out of the exit door. Can you tell this Honorable Court if you can estimate how many minutes have you sat down before you saw Jackie and Marijoy coming out of the exit door?  

      A    More or less fifteen (15) minutes. 

COURT/to the witness: 
      Q    What time was that when you saw them? 

      A    Around 7:20 more or less, Your Honor. 

      Q    Of July 16? 

      A    Yes, Your Honor. 

PROS. GALANIDA:  
          May I proceed, Your Honor? 

PAGE 20
COURT: 
          Proceed. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    Where did Jackie and Marijoy go after they came out of tile exit door? 

WITNESS: 
      A    They proceeded to that portion near the steps of the West Entry. 

      Q    Now, that portion which you said you saw Jackie and Marijoy proceeding to which you said near the steps of the West Entry. How far was that place - - - I withdraw that question. You said that Jackie and Marijoy proceeded to that portion of the West Entry near the steps. What were they doing then? 

      A    They were just standing there. 

      Q    How far was that place where Jackie and Marijoy were standing near the steps of the West Entry of Ayala to where you were sitting? Let us suppose that where you are sitting now was the place where you were sitting in one of the benches in the West Entry of Ayala. Can you point to a place here inside the courtroom that would represent where Jackie and Marijoy where at that time when you saw them standing near the steps? 

      A    Front here that part there near the post. 
          (Witness indicating a distance of 10 to 15 meters). 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Ten (10) to twelve (12), our approximation, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          Ten to twelve, do you agree? 

ATTY. YPIL: 
          Ten to twelve, Your Honor.

PAGE 21
COURT: 
          As agreed upon by the prosecution and the defense ten to twelve. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    Miss Singson, do you know how to prepare a sketch? 

WITNESS: 
      A    A little. 

      Q    Will you please prepare a sketch showing the West Entry of the Ayala Center to indicate where you were sitting at that time you saw Marijoy and Jackie coming out from the exit door and also to indicate where they were standing in that place which you described near the steps of the West Entry of Ayala Center? 

COURT INTERPRETER:  
          (Witness preparing  a sketch showing the West Entry of Ayala Center to indicate where you she was sitting and showing also the place where Jacqueline and Marijoy were standing). 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    The position of Jackie, will you kindly indicate that in your sketch by using a circle and put or label it with letter J and also the position of Marijoy, please indicate it by using a circle and label inside letter M. 

COURT INTERPRETER: 
          (Witness placing a circle by putting letter J and another circle at the left side of letter J the place where Marijoy was). 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we request the witness, Your Honor, to print her name and put her signature on top as well as the date for today. 

COURT INTERPRETER: 
          (Witness is writing her name and affixing her signature on top of the her printed name). 

PAGE 22
PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    In your sketch you have made here two (2) rectangular objects, one with the word ENTRANCE and one with the word EXIT. Can you explain to this Honorable Court what is this rectangular figure here which you labeled as ENTRANCE? 

WITNESS:
     
A    This is the Entrance door of the West Entry and the Exit door. 
          (Witness showing the exit and the entrance door of the Ayala building).

ATTY. De JESUS: 
          May we request, Your Honor, that the word West Entry be indicated in the sketch. 

COURT: 
          Will you indicate the West Entry? 

COURT INTERPRETER: 
          (Witness placing the word West Entry of Ayala Center). 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    In your you sketch you also indicated here a small rectangular figures with a letter P inside, can you explain to this Honorable Court what is this letter P indicate? 

WITNESS: 
      A    This is indicating the post because there are eight (8) posts. 

      Q    Will you indicate here -- I withdraw that-- In between these two (2) posts which you indicated in your sketch are two (2) rectangular figures also with lines inside them. Can you tell this Honorable Court what are these rectangular figures with lines inside them indicating? 

      A    Those are benches. 

      Q    Will you show to this Honorable Court in what particular bench did you

PAGE 23
PROS. GALANIDA:    (CONTINUATION)
sit at that time when you reached the West Entry from the Global Village? 

WITNESS:
      A    I was sitting near the last bench. (Witness showing the bench where she was sitting at that time by pointing the word X). 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we request, Your Honor, at this juncture, that this sketch prepared by this witness in open court be marked as Exh. "Q" for the prosecution and this portion here are rectangular portion marked with a letter X which the witness explained to be indicating where she sat at that time be encircled and marked as Exh. "Q-1"

COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          And this portion here, Your Honor, marked with the word EXIT and explained by the witness earlier as the Exit door be encircled also and marked as Exh. "Q-2" for the prosecution. 

COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    You have drawn here these two (2) circles, one is labelled M and J is labelled J. Will you explain to this Honorable Court what does this indicate, this M and this J? 

WITNESS: 
      A    "J" indicate Jacqueline and "M" indicates Marijoy. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we request, Your Honor, that this respective positions of Marijoy and Jacqueline

PAGE 24
PROS. GALANIDA:    (CONTINUATION) 
when the witness saw them standing near the steps be encircled and marked as Exh. "Q-3" for the prosecution. 

COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          And may we also request, Your Honor, that this printed name, the signature and the date of this witness as indicated in the sketch be marked as Exh. "Q-4" for the prosecution. 

COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    You stated earlier that you saw Jacqueline and Marijoy coming out from exit door and proceeded to this portion near the steps which in your sketch is indicated as Exh. "Q-3". My question is this, when you saw them standing near the steps while you were sitting in this portion indicated as Exh. "Q-1", what did you do, if any? 

WITNESS: 
      A    I just sat there watching them. 

      Q    How long did you sit and watched them at that time? 

      A     About fifteen (15) minutes more or less. 

      Q    And after fifteen (15) minutes of watching, what happened then? 

      A    I saw Marijoy left then I decided to approach Jackie. 

      Q    You said you approached Jackie, what happened when you approached Jackie at the place where she was standing? 

      A    I asked Jackie what were they doing there?

PAGE 25
PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    And what was the answer of Jackie? 

WITNESS: 
      A    They said they were waiting for their father to fetch them.  

      Q    After Jackie told you that, what did you do next? 

      A    I asked where did Marijoy go. 

      Q    And what was the answer of Jackie? 

      A    She said that Marijoy went to that Farmer's Plaza place where there is also a parking lot to look for the vehicle of their father. 

      Q    After Jackie answered you that Marijoy went to the Farmer's Plaza parking lot to look for the vehicle of their father, what happened next? 

      A    I just stayed with Jackie until Marijoy came back. 

      Q    About how many minutes was it if you can recall when Marijoy came back after you saw her left Jackie? 

      A    More or less ten (10) minutes. 

      Q    So, when Marijoy came back, what did you do? 

      A    I told Jackie I have to go. 

      Q    And in effect, did you leave them? 

      A    Yes, mam. 

      Q    Where did you proceed? 

      A    I proceeded to the waiting shed in the left side of the West Entry. 

      Q    Can you indicate in your sketch the location of that waiting shed which you said is located at the left side of the West Entry? Can you indicate that here in your sketch? 

      A    (Witness indicating the waiting shed of the West Entry).

PAGE 26
PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    When you reached this portion because you said you went to this waiting shed on the left side of the West Entry, when you reached this waiting shed which you have just indicated in your sketch, what happened? 

WITNESS: 
      A    I heard Jackie calling me. 

      Q    How did Jackie call you at that time? What did she say? 

      A    "Mam Shei, do not go yet" (Mam Shei, ayaw sa ug lakaw). 

      Q    Who is this Mam Shei? 

      A    She referred to me. 

      Q    Are you telling this Honorable Court that your nickname is "Shei"?  

      A    Yes, mam. 

      Q    When Jackie called you "Mam Shei, don't go yet, what did you do? 

      A    I turned my head to where Jackie was standing. 

      Q    When you turned your head to where Jackie was standing, what happened? 

      A    I saw Paco approaching. 

      Q    You said you saw Paco approaching, whom was Paco approaching? 

COURT/to the witness: 
      Q    What do you mean, who is this Paco? 

      A    I am referring to that person. 
          (Witness pointing to a person sitting on the prisoners bench who when asked answered that his name is Francisco Juan Larranaga). 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    Where was Paco whose real name is Francisco Juan Larranaga at that time when you saw

PAGE 27
PROS. GALANIDA:    (CONTINUATION) 
him - - - you said you turned your head to where Marijoy and Jackie were standing you saw Paco whose real name is Francisco Juan Larranaga approaching them. Did I get you right? 

ATTY. YPIL: 
          We object to the question, Your Honor, there is no basis. The witness never mentioned the name of Francisco Larranaga. 

COURT: 
          That is why I asked her who do you mean by Paco and she pointed to the accused Francisco Larranaga. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          And the accused volunteered to tell his name. 

COURT: 
          That's why she was referring to the accused Larranaga. Overruled. 

COURT STENOGRAPHER:    (Repeating the question) 
          You said when you turned your head to where Marijoy and Jackie were standing you saw Paco whose real name is Francisco Juan Larranaga approaching them. Did I get you right?  

WITNESS: 
      A    Yes, mam. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    Specifically, where was Paco at that time when you turned your head towards Jackie after she called you and told you not to go yet? 

      A    He was stepping at the second step of the West Entry stairs. 

      Q Can you indicate that here in your sketch?

PAGE28PROS. GALANIDA    (CONTINUATION) 
      Q    Will you kindly encircle that - this point which you said representing Paco at that time you turned your head you saw him and encircle it and label it with letter P meaning Paco or the word Paco. 

COURT INTERPRETER: 
          (Witness indicating in the sketch the place where Paco was and labelling the word Paco in the sketch).

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we request, Your Honor, that this circle here labelled as Paco representing the location of Paco which the witness narrated to be stepping on the second step be marked as our Exh. "Q-5"

COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS. GALANIDA:  
      Q    When you saw Paco approaching where Marijoy and Jacqueline were standing specifically in this portion indicated in your sketch as Exh. "Q-5", what did you do? 

WITNESS: 
      A    I continued watching until Paco got near Marijoy. 

      Q    Can you tell this Honorable Court what was your reason why your reason continued watching Paco until he got near to Marijoy? 

      A    Because I remember when Jackie told me once that Paco was an admirer of Marijoy. 

      Q    When was it that Jackie told you that Paco is an admirer of Marijoy? 

      A    That was sometime summer of 1997. 

      Q    Summer consist of several months. Can you specify to this Honorable Court which month in

PAGE 29
PROS. GALANIDA:    (CONTINUATION) 
Summer of 1997 did Jackie tell you about Paco being an admirer of Marijoy? 

WITNESS: 
      A    That was sometime May of 1997. 

      Q    Where were you at that time when Jackie told you in May of 1997 that Paco is an admirer of Marijoy? 

      A    We were on our way to the CR then Jackie saw this man and I asked Jackie who was that and she said he is an admirer of Marijoy. 

      Q    You mean you are referring to Paco? 

      A    Yes, mam. 

      Q    You said you watched until Paco got near Marijoy. Can you tell this Honorable Court how far was Paco from Marijoy when he got near to her? Let us suppose that where you are sitting now is the place where Marijoy was standing at that time? Can you point to a location here inside the courtroom to represent where Paco was at that time when you said he got near Marijoy? Where? 

COURT INTERPRETER: 
          (Witness indicating a distance of two (2) meters). 

COURT: 
          Is that agreed, the distance? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Two (2) meters. 

ATTY. YPIL: 
          Agreed, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          The distance was agreed by the prosecution and the defense about - - - - - -

PAGE 30 
PROS. GALANIDA:    (CONTINUATION) 
          We can measure, Your Honor, there is a tape measure. 

COURT/to Court Interpreter: 
          Will you measure? So much the better. 

COURT INTERPRETER: 
          (Measuring the distance with the use of a tape measure). 

COURT: 
          A distance measured by the Court Interpreter of this Court to be about 1.5 meters. 

COURT INTERPRETER: 
          (Witness indicating a distance of 1.5 meters or 1 1/2 meters). 

COURT: 
          Proceed. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q    So, what did you observe when you saw Paco got near Marijoy at that distance of about 1.5 meters? 

WITNESS: 
      A    They were talking. 

      Q    So, when you saw them talking, what then did you do? 

      A    I just watched them for a while then I waved Jackie goodbye. 

      Q    Are you telling this Honorable Court that Jackie was looking at your direction at that time? 

      A    Yes, mam. 

      Q    About what time was it when you waved Jackie goodbye? 

      A    Around 8:00 P.M., more or less.

PAGE 31
PROS GALANIDA: 
      Q    Can you tell this Honorable Court whether you have seen this Paco before July 16, 1997? 

WITNESS: 
      A    Yes, mam. 

      Q    How many times have you seen him? 

      A    Five (5) times. 

      Q    Can you recall when  was the first time that you saw him? 

      A    Main entrance of the University of San Carlos. 

      Q    When was it that you saw him at the main entrance of the University of San Carlos? When? 

      A    That was sometime in November of 1996. 

      Q    Where is this University of San Carlos located? 

      A    It is located along P. del Rosario Street.  

      Q    What was Paco doing at that time when you saw him at the main entrance of the University of San Carlos? 

      A    He was with some guys. 

      Q    How about you, why were you there at that time? 

      A    Because that was the time that I kept on looking for a job and then I had my application and bio-data encoded in those encoders in Dunkin Donuts. And then it's my routine that after my documents were encoded, I crossed the opposite side of the street to browse for magazines and then passed infront of the main entrance of San Carlos. 

      Q    What about the second time when you saw Paco, when was it, if you can recall? 

      A    At the lobby of the University of San Carlos. 

      Q    When was it when you saw him again for the second time at the lobby of the University

PAGE 32
PROS. GALANIDA:    (CONTINUATION) 
of San Carlos? 

WITNESS:
      A    Same month. 

      Q    You are referring to? 

      A    November of 1996. 

      Q    What was he doing at that time, the second time that you saw him and which you said he was there at the lobby of the University of San Carlos? 

      A    He was with some guys. 

      Q    How about the third time, where did you see him? 

      A    At Ayala Center. 

      Q    Particularly where in Ayala Center did you see him for the third time? 

      A    At the ground level of Ayala Center. 

      Q    When was it when you saw Paco there at the ground level of Ayala Center? 

      A    It was sometime April of 1997. 

      Q    What about the fourth time that you saw him, when was it? 

      A    That was in Ayala also. 

      Q    And when was it when you saw him for the fourth time? 

      A    That was May of 1997. 

      Q    Where was he when you saw him for the fourth time? 

      A    He was near Glicos. 

      Q    Glicos where? 

      A Glicos in Ayala Center, third level.

PAGE 33
PROS. GALANIDA: 
      Q   What about the fifth time that you saw Paco, where was he at that time? 

WITNESS: 
      A    The third level of Ayala Center near Glicos because they always lounged there. 

      Q    And when was it? 

      A    It was sometime May of 1997. 

      Q    Where were you at that time during the fifth time that you saw Paco Larranaga again at the 3rd level, where were you at that time? 

      A    Me and Jackie were on our way to the Comfort Room then we saw Paco, she saw Paco and I was asking who was that. 

      Q    And what did she answer? 

      A    She said that was an admirer of her sister. 

      Q    After July 16, 1997, did you ever see Paco Larranaga again at the Ayala Center? 

      A    No more. 

      Q    What about Jackie and Marijoy, did you ever see them again after you waved them goodbye about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of July 16,1997? 

      A    No more. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          We have no further direct-examination questions, Your Honor, except, Your Honor, that I would like to request for submarking, one (1) more submarking, this portion here, I forgot to ask, You Honor -  

      Q    Will You kindly indicate in your sketch where were you particularly in this waiting shed at that time Jackie, called you "Mam Shei, don't yet go or don't go yet?"

PAGE 34 
COURT INTERPRETER: 
          (Witness indicating the place where she was at the time when Jackie shouted to her by saying "Mam Shei, don t go yet"). 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          And may I request, Your Honor, that this portion here indicated by this witness to represent where she was at that time Jackie called her be marked Exh. "Q-6" for the prosecution. 

COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          That would be all, Your Honor. 

ATTY. YPIL:  
          Your Honor, may we be allowed to have the xerox copy of that people's Exh. "Q"? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          By all means. 

COURT: 
          The cross-examination of this witness will be conducted when the accused have already appointed their new lawyers which they indicated in their Motions which they will do within three-weeks time from today. We know the rule that if an accused is not given a chance to or does not cross-examine the witness against him or the testimony of that witness is without value and it will have to be stricken from the record, so, the accused have the right to cross-examine this witness at all. There is no doubt at all about that. But the Court is giving them until three-weeks to hire new lawyers who shall then conduct examination of this witness. So shall we proceed tomorrow? Are you ready to present another witness tomorrow?

PAGE35
PROS. MIRO: 
          I believe it's only up to Thursday, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          Besides the Court wants to receive your Memorandum on the right of the accused to legal counsel. 

PROS. MIRO: 
          So, meanwhile we will be ready with another witness, Your Honor, after this Honorable Court will have a ruling. 

COURT: So, we will proceed on Monday to receive direct testimony only of the prosecution witnesses. 

PROS. MIRO: 
          Yes, Your Honor. 

COURT: 

                             O R D E R  

                                       (Please see on record)

 

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

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


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

                                                            signed: FARAH T. ABANGAN
                                                                        Court Stenographer                            

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

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS FROM THE WEBMASTER:
     
Only days after the alleged kidnapping, the above witness, Sheila Singson, was personally investigated by the then Region 7 National Bureau of Investigation (NBI 7) Director Atty. Florencio Villarin. In his affidavit (page 3, item 18) dated February 27, 2004, Atty. Villarin attested: "Sheila Singson was also interviewed but, like Mrs. Chiong, she never mentioned to us the name of Francisco Larraņaga and the names of the other accused in this case. Ms. Singson, however, alleged that she saw somebody who appeared suspicious passing by the Global Village, where she and Jacqueline worked, on the evening of the victims' disappearance; hence, a cartographic sketch was drawn by our artist based the description she furnished us but said sketch was not clear;" 

      This affidavit was formally presented by defense counsels to the Supreme Court (SC) in their Motion for Reconsideration (page 19), dated March 2, 2004. However, the Supreme Court did not accept this affidavit when they swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the Office of the Solicitor General's (OSG) argument doubting Villarin's motives  "... In executing the affidavit, it appears that Atty. Villarin would want to impress that he, rather than those promoted, deserved the promotion. ..." The OSG's argument and the SC decision  is completely baseless since Atty. Villarin was reaching already the compulsory age of retirement. At 65, he had no other chance of a promotion. In fact, one of the prosecutors in this case was appointed to take Villarin's place upon his retirement.   

      It was established during Mrs. Chiong's testimony that there was heavy rains during that particular night. How then did Sheila Singson testify "that Marijoy went to the Farmer's Plaza parking lot to look for the vehicle of their father".  She surely would have gotten wet.

      The question now, what made Ms. Singson testify the way she did? Was it the reported "lump sum" payments awarded to the government witnesses for their testimony?  For more comments on Singson's testimony please see PART 16.

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

           HOME     INDEX     Next Trial Date