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 8, 1998 at 2:25 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
                                                                   PROSECUTOR REYNALDO ACOSTA
                                                                   (Appearing for the State)                                                            

                                                                   ATTY. HONORATO HERMOSISIMA
                                                                   (Appearing as private Prosecutor)

PAGE 2
PAO LAWYERS:                                      ATTY. VENUSTIANO YPIL
                                                                   ATTY. ANACLETO DEBALUCOS
                                                                   ATTY. PATRICIO MORALES
                                                                   ATTY. JOHN DE JESUS
                                                                   (Appearing as counsel de oficio for the 
                                                                     rest of the 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 as private prosecutor, Your Honor.

COURT:
          Our Legal Researcher will read this latest order from the Court for the benefit of everybody and certified true copies will be available shortly, they are still being signed by the Branch Clerk of Court.

LEGAL RESEARCHER:    (Reading the order)
          At the hearings held on September 3 and 7, 1998 the Prosecution presented the direct testimonies of Sheila Singson and Analie Konahap. Cross-examination of said witnesses was deferred until such time that the accused have appointed defense counsels of their choice (counsels de parte) which they promised in

PAGE 3
LEGAL RESEARCHER:   (CONTINUATION READING THE ORDER)
promised in their Motions to appoint within three (3) weeks or before September 24, 1998 hearing.

          The accused Larranaga and Aznar had manifested to the Court that they prefer to be assisted by their counsels de parte even during the direct examination of prosecution witnesses, and accused Larranaga has filed a "Motion to Strike Out" the testimony of the witness Singson on the ground that their PAO lawyers designated by the Court as their de oficio counsels are not authorized by them. The Court ruled, however. that it cannot suspend the trial of these cases for the period of three (3) weeks being requested by accused as that would be violative of SC A. 0. No. 104-96 to conduct "mandatory continuous trial" of these heinous crimes cases and terminate the same "within sixty (60) days from commencement of trial'; further, it is expressly so provided in said SC Order that "Pleadings or Motions found to have been filed for dilatory purposes shall constitute direct contempt of court and shall be punished accordingly." The former defense counsels of the accused were precisely imprisoned for direct contempt under this provision of the said SC Order and not because they were discourteous to the undersigned judge or that he got angry at them. They were imprisoned because they persisted in violating the law. 

          The Court concurred in the Prosecution's Memorandum submitted yesterday that the aforesaid Motions of the accused are "palpably dilatory moves.' Nevertheless, the Court resolved to allow the accused their requested period of three (3) weeks to look for new counsels de parte who way then conduct cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, including the accused-witness Davidson Rusia. But the Court warned them that if by September 24, 1998 they have not yet appointed new counsels de parte, it would order the PAO counsels de oficio to forthwith conduct such cross-examination of the prosecution---witnesses. In the meantime, the Court resolved to continue receiving the direct testimonies of prosecution witnesses - reserving for the the accused the right to cross-examine such witnesses after they have appointed their counsels-de-parte- in order

PAGE 4 
LEGAL RESEARCHER:   (CONTINUATION READING THE ORDER)
to comply with the above mandates of SC Order No. 104-96 to this Special Heinous Crimes Court. The Court further resolved to disallow further delays in the trial of these cases- avowing that only a restraining order from a higher court can stop the continuous trial of these cases.

          The Court further cites the following factors in support of this Order:

               I- The CA Justices at the hearing held last August 28, 1998 on the Habeas Corpus case filed by the former counsels of the accused had told the undersigned judge in open court that he had the "prerogative" to schedule the trial of these Chiong kidnap-rape-slay cases anytime- and that if the accused are without counsels de parte because of the withdrawal of their former counsels, the undersigned judge should designate counsels de oficio for them.

               2. The accused and their former counsels have an unenviable record of resorting to dilatory maneuvers- as a result of which the trial of these cases begun last August 12, 1998- when the crimes were committed last July 16, 1997. The last dilatory maneuver of their former counsels last August 24 of withdrawing en masse- without first filing with this Court the written consents of their clients (which were filed only three days later on Aug. 27) -  and immediately implementing their aforesaid dilatory oral motion to suspend the trial by their concerted withdrawal and announced trial boycott- in open defiance of the repeated warnings of this Court that it would imprison them for direct contempt pursuant to SC A. O. 104-96 resulted in the delay of eight (8) trial days (Aug. 24 thru Sept. 2).

               3. Accused gave their written consents for the withdrawal of their former defense counsels last August 27, 1998 (filed on said date before this Court) but up to now or the lapse of two weeks, the accused have not yet appointed new counsels to represent them- despite the Orders of August 31 and September 2 of this Court- that it could no longer delay further the trial of these cases- and informing the accused that it would designate PAO lawyers temporarily as

PAGE 5
LEGAL RESEARCHER:    (CONTINUATION READING THE ORDER)
their de oficio counsels if by the hearing last September 3 they have not yet appointed their de parte counsels. 

               4. These cases are already in the trial stage and accused certainly have the resources to forthwith hire de parte counsel- except probably for accused Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Cano and Ariel Balansag (who could be represented by PAO lawyers)- hence, there is no reason why the trial of these cases has to be suspended for another three (3) weeks simply because the accused wish to take that long a time in hiring de parte counsels. 

               5. In the case of People vs. Macagaling, 237 SCRA 299, our Supreme Court held that it was proper for a trial court to appoint a PAO lawyer in the absence of accused's counsel de parte pursuant to the court's desire to finish the case as early as practicable under the continuous trial system; and in the case of U. S. vs. Laranja, 21 Phil. 500, it was held that it is not essential that the court appoint or designate a de oficio counsel chosen by the accused. 

               6. At any rate, the Court will receive only the direct testimonies of prosecution witnesses while PAO lawyers are acting as counsels for the accused- reserving for their de parte counsels cross-examination of said witnesses. 

               7. Besides, the accused can always for a restraining order from the higher courts- against the avowed continuation of the trial of these cases by this Trial Court- as we understand the Law Firm of Raymundo A. Armovit is now quite busy trying to obtain in Manila- on the ground that the accused and/or their families*s want this trial to be suspended for three (3) more weeks while they shop about for their do parte counsels. 

          WHEREFORE, the Prosecution is hereby directed to forthwith continue with the presentation of its evidence. 

          SO ORDERED-"

PAGE 6
COURT:
          The certified true copies will be made available shortly by the Clerk of Court. She is signing them. 

PROS. MIRO: 
          Your Honor - - - 

COURT: 
          Yes, Fiscal Miro. 

PROS. MIRO: 
          Your Honor, in obedience with the Order just read by the LegaI Researcher of this Honorable Court, may we be permitted to present another witness, Your Honor? 

COURT: 
          Yes, proceed. 

PROS. MIR0: 
          At this time, we will call on another witness in the person of Rolando Dacillo. He will be represented by Prosecutor Ramon Duyongco, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          Call the witness.  
                                                                   (Witness to the stand) 

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

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          Thank you. Your Honor. The People of the Philippines, Your Honor, offers the testimony of this witness as a direct evidence to the actual abduction or kidnapping of Jacqueline Chiong by Josman Aznar and his group in the evening of July 16, 1997 along Archbishop Reyes Avenue, this City and further, Your Honor, as a substantial corroborative evidence to the testi-

PAGE 7
PROS. DUYONGCO:    (CONTINUATION) 
mony of Davidson Valiente Rusia to the effect that after Marijoy Chiong and Jacqueline Chiong were forcibly abducted and kidnapped by accused Josman Aznar and Rowen Adlawan, the white-colored car moved a little bit farther and stopped and at that instance there was a commotion at the back seat of the car and Jacqueline Chiong managed to get out of the car and the testimony of Davidson Rusia that thereafter accused Josman Aznar alighted from the car pursued Jacqueline Chiong and forcibly grabbed her back into the car and the testimony of this witness, Your Honor, is presented to give justice to Miss Jacqueline Chiong; and, this witness will testify on some substantial and relevant matters and other preliminary maters in amplification of the above-mentioned purposes, Your Honor. 

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:    (TO THE WITNESS) 
          Will you please state your name, address and other personal circumstances? 

WITNESS: 
      A    Rolando Dacillo, 47 years old, married, driver and a resident of Sitio Camagong, Lahug, Cebu City.

ATTY. DE JESUS: 
          May we move for the exclusion of other prosecution witnesses, Your Honor? 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          We have no other witnesses inside this court-

PAGE 8
PROS- DUYONGCO:    (CONTINUATION)
room right now, Your Honor. 

ATTY. DE JESUS: 
          We also would like, Your Honor, that this Court admonish the witness to remove his glasses. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          It's glaring, Your Honor. May we request - - - 

COURT: 
          Does he had an eye defect? 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          According to him, Your Honor, it's glaring, the sunlight. 

COURT: 
          Glaring? Then what is your basis for asking him to remove his glasses? 

ATTY. DE JESUS: 
          As a witness, Your Honor, the Court must observe every demeanor of the witness and the sense of sight and even the eyes, Your Honor, is very important. 

COURT: 
          So, you want me to be able to observe his eyes? 

ATTY. DE JESUS: 
          Yes, Your Honor. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          Okey, to avoid further arguments, Your Honor, witness may remove his glasses. 

COURT: 
          But that does not apply to me. So, you want me to be able to observe him without you

PAGE 9
COURT:    (CONTINUATION) 
observing my eye. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          May I proceed, Your Honor? 

COURT: 
          Proceed. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          With the kind permission of this Honorable Court. 

                                                           DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS 
                                                                   BY PROSECUTOR R. DUYONGCO 

      Q    Mr. Rolando Dacillo, do you know accused Rowen Adlawan? 

      A    Yes, sir. 

      Q    Please tell the Court why do you know him? 

      A    Because we were neighbors before. 

      Q    Could you tell the Court the year? 

      A    From 1994 up to the time he was arrested. 

      A    A while ago you told the Court that you are residing at Sitio Camagong, Lahug, this City. When did you start residing in that place. 

      A    I started living in Sitio Camagong since 1977 until now. 

      Q    Is accused Rowen Adlawan inside this Courtroom? 

      A    Yes, sir. 

      Q    Would you please point at him? 

      A    The one wearing orange t-shirt. 
          (Witness pointing to a person sitting on the prisoners deck who when asked answered that his name is Rowen Adlawan).

PAGE 10
PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          May I also request, Your Honor, that the sunglasses of this accused be removed? So that his demeanor could also be observed? 

ATTY. DE JESUS: 
          He is not a witness, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          He has the right to wear his sunglasses. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          But the Court and the prosecution would also like to observe his demeanor. 

COURT: 
          But it applies only to witnesses. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          We submit, Your Honor. 

      Q    How about accused Josman Aznar, do you know him? 

WITNESS: 
      A    Yes, sir. 

      Q    Why? 

      A    Because I saw him twice already. 

COURT/TO THE WITNESS: 
      Q    Before July 16? 

      A    Last week of June, Your Honor. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      A    When was the first time you saw him? 

      A    I saw him at Fuente Osmena for the first time. 

      A    Who was with him, if there was any?

PAGE 11
WITNESS: 
      A    Rowen Adlawan. 
          (Witness pointing to a person by saying Rowen Adlawan). 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q   Are you referring to accused Rowen Adlawan? 

      A    Yes, sir. 

      Q    You told the Court that you saw accused Aznar and Adlawan at Fuente Osmena. Are you referring to Fuente Osmena, Cebu City? 

      A    Yes, sir, Cebu City. 

      Q    Where in particular at Fuente Osmena? 

      A    At Croissant Snack Bar. 

COURT/to the witness: 
      Q    When was the second time you saw Aznar? 

      A    At the time when Jacqueline was kidnapped. 

      Q    So, that was the second time? 

      A    Yes, Your Honor. 

/to prosecutor: 
         
Proceed. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          Is accused Josman Aznar inside this Courtroom? 

      A    Yes, sir. 

      Q    Would You please point at him? 

      A    The one sitting there at the last. 
          (Witness pointing to a person who when asked answered that his name is Josman Aznar). 

      Q    You told the Court a while ago that you are a driver. Before You became a driver, what was your job or occupation? 

      A    I was a driver of rent-a-car.

PAGE 12
PROS- DUYONGCO: 
      Q    When did you start to become a driver of rent-a-car? 

WITNESS: 
      A    I started driving a rent-a-car in 1984 until October of 1997. 

      Q    Are you telling the Court that in July of 1997 you were driving a rent-a-car? 

      A    Yes, sir. 

      Q    On July 16, 1997 in the morning of that day, could you recall where you were? 

      A    I was driving a rent-a-car. 

      Q    Would you please tell the Court what type of vehicle you were driving at that time? 

      A    Toyota Corolla 1994. 

      Q    Until what time were you driving that rent-a-car, a Toyota Corolla? 

      A    Until 6:00 o'clock in the evening. 

      Q    After 6:00 o'clock in the evening of July 16, 1997, please tell the Court where were you and what did you do? 

      A    I went home and took a rest. 

      Q    When you told the Court that you went home, are you referring to your residence at Sitio Camagong, Lahug, Cebu City? 

      A    Yes, sir. 

      Q    When you reached home, what did you do? 

      A    I took my rest while waiting for supper. 

      Q    In effect, did you take your supper? 

      A    Yes, sir. 

      Q    At about what time?

PAGE 13
WITNESS: 
      A    Past 7:00 o'clock, more or less. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    After you took your supper, what did you do? 

      A    I took my rest. 

      Q    After you took your rest, what else did you do? 

ATTY. DEBALUCOS: 
          We object, Your Honor. May we know the materiality of this line of questioning, Your Honor? 

PROS. DUYONGCO:    (to counsels) 
          It will be known after this two (2) or three (3) questions, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          He will show the materiality later on. So. we can accept it conditionally. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          As I said in my purpose, Your Honor, this witness will testify on some preliminary matters in amplification of the purposes I just mentioned. 

COURT: 
          Conditionally admitted. 

ATTY. DEBALUCOS: 
          Because there are so much preliminaries already done, Your Honor. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          Your Honor please, the accused cannot be tipped how the prosecution will present the witness.

PAGE 14
COURT: 
          Proceed. 

COURT STENOGRAPHER: 
          Q    After you took your rest, what else did you do? 

WITNESS: 
      A    I accompanied my wife to see the movie at Ayala Center. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    Where is this Ayala Center located? 

      A    It is located at Cebu City. 

      Q    About what time did you leave your house in going to Ayala to watch a movie? 

      A    Eight (8:00) o'clock. 

      Q    What mode or means of transportation did you take in going to Ayala Center purposely to watch a movie.

      A    We only walked because it is just very near. 

      Q    In effect, did you reach Ayala Center? 

      A    Yes, sir. 

      Q    When you reached Ayala Center, what did you do? 

      A    We bought ticket and went inside the movie theater. 

      Q    What movie did you watch? 

      A    Anaconda. 

      Q    After watching the movie entitled Anaconda, what did you and your wife do? 

      A    We went home. 

      Q    What mode of transportation did you take in going home?

PAGE 15
WITNESS: 
      A    We again walked in going home. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    What rode or route or street did you take in going home? 

      A    We passed through covered walk of Ayala. 

      Q    After Passing through the covered walk of Ayala, where did you proceed? 

      A    We went towards Archbishop Reyes Avenue. 

      Q    While you were along Archbishop Reyes Avenue this City, could you recall if you witnessed a very unusual incident? 

      A    Yes, sir. 

      A    Please tell the Court? 

COURT/to prosecutor: 
      Q    About what time was that? Ask him. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    About what time was that when you were along Archbishop Reyes Avenue - - - 

COURT: 
      Q    And you witnessed the unusual incident? 

WITNESS: 
      A    Eleven (11:00) o'clock. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    Tell the Court what was that unusual incident? 

      A    While we were about to cross Archbishop Reyes Avenue together with my wife I saw a white car parked top my right side and a red colored taxi without top light. 

      Q     What was the unusual incident? Tell the Court?

PAGE 16
WITNESS: 
          A    I witnessed that the car as if it was shaking and as if somebody was quarrelling inside and I heard a shout of a woman saying: "Don't" ("Ayaw"). 

COURT: 
          "Ayaw" does it mean "don't"? Di ba, (Isn't it?) "ayaw" means "ayaw ko, huwag". ("I don't want, don't".) 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    After you witnessed this - - -  by the way, what car are you referring to considering that you told the Court that there were two (2) cars, a taxicab colored red and a white car. Which car are you referring to? 

WITNESS: 
      A    The white car. 

      Q    Aside from what you noticed there was as if somebody quarrelling inside and you heard a voice of a woman saying "don't", what else did you observe? 

      A    After that a woman alighted from the right rear door of the car then the driver alighted also passing infront of the car. 

      Q    After the woman alighted from the right rear door of the white colored car, what did the woman do? 

      A   The driver also alighted and passing through the front of the car and forcibly snatched the girl back to the rear of the white car. 

COURT/to the witness: 
      A    You mean the driver grabbed the girl? 

      A    Yes, Your Honor. 

      Q    And pushed her back into the car? 

      A    Yes, Your Honor. 

/to prosecutor: 
          Proceed. 

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

PAGE 17
PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    Immediately after the woman got out from the car, what did the woman do? 

WITNESS: 
      A    She struggled from the man. 

      Q    Where was she or where was woman when she struggled with that person, with that man? 

      A    She was still at the side of the car. 

COURT/to the witness: 
      A    Did you hear the woman say or shout anything? 

      A    Yes, Your Honor. 

      Q    What did she say?

      A    Helped. 

      Q    How many times did she say that? 

      A    As far as I can recall only once. 

      Q    In Cebuano? 

      A    Yes, Your Honor. 

      Q    In what exact words did she utter? 

      A    The woman said by saying: "Tabang intawon", "Please help me". 

/to prosecutor: 
          Proceed. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    How far was that woman from that white colored car when she struggled with that man? Supposing this is the car where you are seated right now, where was the woman? That is the rear door of the car?

PAGE 18
WITNESS: 
      A    It is about five (5) steps away from the door of the car. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    Did you recognize that woman who got out from the car? 

      A    Yes, sir. 

      Q    Please tell the Court if you know her? 

      A    Jacqueline Chiong. 

      Q    How did you come to know that that woman who got out from the car was Jacqueline Chiong? 

      A    Because after one (1) week of the incident I saw her picture through the Sunstar and that was really the woman I saw who alighted from the car and I saw also her face when she was pushed back inside the car. 

COURT/to the witness: 
      Q    How far were you from the car? 

      A    It is about twenty (20) steps, Your Honor. 

      Q    Twenty (20) steps from the car? 

      A    Yes, Your Honor. 

/to prosecutor: 
          Proceed. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    Are you referring to the white colored car, twenty (20) steps? 

      A    Yes, sir. 

COURT/to the witness: 
      Q    Was the street well lighted? 

      A    It was very bright because there is a sodium post which is just very near to the place

PAGE 19 
WITNESS:     (CONTINUATION) 
which was just right above. 

COURT: 
      Q    Right above the white car, you mean? 

      A    In between the two (2) cars, the red and the white. 

/to prosecutor: 
          Proceed. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    You told the Court that immediately after the woman whom you now identified as Jacqueline Chiong alighted from that white colored car the driver of the car also alighted and pursued Jacqueline Chiong. Do you know that person who pursued Jacqueline Chiong? 

WITNESS: 
      A    Yes, sir. 

      Q    Is that person inside this courtroom? 

      A    Yes, sir. 

      Q    Would you please point at him? 

      A    Josman Aznar.
           (Witness saying Josman Aznar and pointing to a person, who when asked answered that his name is Josman Aznar). 

      Q    When you said that this person now you identified as accused Josman Aznar as the very person who alighted from the car and pushed Jacqueline back into the car, are you very sure of that? 

      A    Yes, sir, I am very sure because he was facing me. 

      Q    Mr. Dacillo, would you draw a sketch showing Archbishop Reyes and the relative positions of the two (2) cars, the white colored car and the red colored car and the lamp post which illuminated the area and the places where you and

PAGE 20
PROS. DUYONGCO:    (CONTINUATION) 
your wife were standing? 

WITNESS: 
      A    Yes, sir. 

COURT: 
          And also the position of Ayala Center. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          Yes, Your Honor, he will do that. 

COURT INTERPRETER: 
          (Witness preparing a sketch indicating the Ayala Center, the location of the white car and the red car and the location also of the light post). 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          May I respectfully request, Your Honor, that this sketch drewn by the witness Rolando Dacillo be marked as our Exh. "S"

COURT: 
          Mark it. Show it to the de oficio counsels of the accused. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          After I shall have make the necessary markings, Your Honor. 

      Q    Would you please write your name on this sketch? Please print - - -  

COURT: 
          And then sign it. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          Yes, Your Honor, I will let him print first. Would you please sign that document above your printed name?

PAGE 21
COURT INTERPRETER:    
          (Witness signing his name above his printed name on the sketch). 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          May I respectfully request, Your Honor, that the name and the signature of witness Rolando Dacillo be bracketed and marked as Exh. "S-I"

COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    I noticed, Mr. Dacillo, that there are two (2) figures here beside the rectangular figure where you wrote "waiting-shed". What are these figures represents? 

WITNESS: 
      A    (Witness writing the name his wife and I). 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          May I request, Your Honor, that the figure labelled by witness as "wife", meaning his wife and the other figure labelled as "I", meaning witness Rolando Dacillo be also bracketed and marked as Exh. "S-2"

COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          May I also request, Your Honor, that to the right of witness Dacillo along Archbishop Reyes is a figure which he labelled as "white car", the white car be encircled and marked as Exh. "S-3", Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          Mark it.

PAGE 22
PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          May I also request, Your Honor, that another figure farther to the right and infront of the white car which the witness labelled as "taxicab" be encircled and marked as Exh. "S-4"

COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          And likewise, Your Honor, the figure in between Exh. "S-3" which is the white car and Exh. "S-4" which is the taxicab be labelled as "lamp - - - - - - 

ATTY. DEBALUCOS: 
          No, Your Honor, we object. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    May we know what is the figure, Mr. Dacillo? 

WITNESS: 
      A    This is the sodium lamp. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          May we request, Your Honor, that the figure labelled by witness as "sodium lamp" be marked as Exh. "S-5".

 COURT: 
          Mark it. 

PROS, DUYONGCO: 
          And Archbishop Reyes, Your Honor-  the word Archbishop Reyes Avenue be bracketed and marked as Exh. "'S-6"

COURT: 
          Mark, it.

PAGE 23 
PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    Mr. Dacillo. you told the Court a while ago that after Jacqueline Chiong got out of the car the driver of the car now you identified as Josman Aznar forcibly brought back Jacqueline back into the car. Will you please tell the Court what was the action or reaction of Jacqueline Chiong at that very moment? 

WITNESS: 
      A    I will demonstrate, sir. 

COURT INTERPRETER: 
          He is asking if he wants to demonstrate. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    You would like to demonstrate? 

WITNESS: 
      A    Yes, sir. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          May I request, Your Honor, that this police woman, the escort of Prosecutor Galanida be asked to act as Jacqueline Chiong and the witness as Josman Aznar. 

COURT:  
          Yes. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    Supposing this is now where the exact spot where Jacqueline Chiong according to you was forcibly grabbed or brought back by Josman Aznar back into the white colored car, where was the rear right door of the car or the car itself? 

WITNESS: 
          (Witness pointing to his right side)

PAGE 24
PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    Please demonstrate before this Honorable Court how Josman Aznar grabbed Jacqueline Chiong back into the car? 

COURT INTERPRETER:  
          (Witness holding the left hand or arm of the police woman and embracing her by the neck with his left hand and forcing her down into the seat of the white car). 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    After all these dusterly acts committed by accused Josman Aznar, what did Josman Aznar do? 

WITNESS: 
      A    Then he turned back passing through the back of the car and returned to the driver's seat. 

      Q    After that, what else transpired?

      A    The taxi driver signalled his left hand, meaning "Go ahead". 
          (Witness demonstrating by waving his left hand forward meaning "Go ahead"). 

      Q    After the driver of that taxicab signalled - - - 

ATTY. DEBALUCOS: 
          Excuse me, Your Honor, we object to that word "Go ahead" because the witness just raised - - -

COURT INTERPRETER: 
          No- he stated "go ahead", meaning "go ahead". 

COURT: 
          He stated it. 

ATTY. DEBALUCOS: 
          Then how can the - - -

PAGE 25 
COURT: 
          Let us ask him- 
      Q    You said "go ahead", did you hear the driver of the red car said that when he motioned his left hand? 

WITNESS: 
      A    Only a sign, meaning "go ahead". 

      Q    He did not say "go ahead"? You did not hear him saying "go ahead"? He just made a motion with his left hand as if to say "go ahead"? 

      A    Yes, Your Honor. 

      Q   That is your interpretation of that signal? 

      A    Yes, Your Honor. 

ATTY. DEBALUCOS: 
          May we request, Your Honor, that that particular phrase "go ahead" be stricken off the record because that's speculative, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          No, he is saying that is his interpretation. That is how he understood that signal meant. We understood that is just his interpretation of that signal - - 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    Why did it occur to you - - - - 

COURT: 
          But it was not actually said by the driver. 

ATTY. DE JESUS: 
          Your Honor please, we would like also to make it of record that when the witness made a sign of his left hand going forward he was closing his fist, Your Honor

PAGE 26
WITNESS: 
      A    No.  

ATTY. DE JESUS: 
          He changed that, Your Honor. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          It is now very clear - - - 

ATTY. DE JESUS: 
          He changed that. Your Honor. 

ATTY. DEBALUCOS: 
          He is now changing, Your Honor - - - 

COURT: 
          Well, how do you know? 

ATTY. YPIL: 
          We saw it, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          You can put that in the record that it appeared to you that his hand was clenched. But what about the prosecution? Would you agree to that? 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          No, we don't agree, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          O, papano? (So, how now?) So, let it be on record that according to the defense lawyers, counsels de oficio the left hand of the witness was clenched when he motioned his left hand. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          Anyway, Your Honor, those are trivial matters. What is important is the act of abduction.

PAGE 27
COURT: 
          But the prosecution says otherwise that his fist was clenched. So, we will just limit at that. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    After the driver of the white colored car signalled to the driver of the car behind that red taxicab, what transpired next? 

WITNESS: 
      A    I do not know anymore what happened next. 

      Q    What I mean, where did the white colored car and the red colored car proceed? 

ATTY. DEBALUCOS: 
          We object, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          There is an objection. What's the ground? 

ATTY. DEBALUCOS: 
          Already answered, Your Honor. The witness said he did not know anymore what happened next. 

COURT: 
          No, I think he can answer the direction, south, west, east, north. He does not know where they went. But when you say in what direction they went - - - 

ATTY. DEBALUCOS: 
          There is no basis, Your Honor, There as no answer by the - - - 

COURT: 
          Well, the Court is asking him now, in what direction did they go? I am not asking his where did they go? I am only asking him in what direction did they go?

PAGE 28
WITNESS: 
      A   They proceeded to the north direction, Your Honor. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    You told the Court that infront of the white colored car was a red taxicab which according to you did not have - - - - -  

COURT: 
          Was it infront or beyond? 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          Infront, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          Infront of the white car? 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          Yes, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          So, the red car was infront of the white car. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    You told the Court that it was a taxicab although there was no top light. What made you say that it was a taxicab? 

WITNESS: 
      A    Because I saw a big mark "taxi". 

      Q    Where the marking placed? 

      A    At the left door side of the driver's seat. 

COURT/to the witness: 

      Q    Do you remember the name of the taxicab? 

      A    I cannot recall. Your Honor.

PAGE 29 
COURT: 
          He does not recall the name. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q    What door of the car where the marking was placed? 

WITNESS: 
      A    At the front side of the driver's seat. 

      Q    How far was the red car to the white car? 

      A    Five (5) steps only. 

COURT/to the witness: 
      Q    Did you see the face of the driver of the red car? 

      A    It is not clear. The face of the driver is not clear, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          He could not see the face clearly. Proceed. 

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      A    A while ago you told the Court that on your way to Ayala Center you and your wife were walking considering that your house is just a walking distance to Ayala Center. What was the condition of the weather at that time? 

      A    At first there was a heavy rain and then it changed to drizzling. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          May we have the word "mihinay" in parenthesis, Your Honor? 

COURT: 
          Parenthesis the Cebuano word.

PAGE 30
COURT INTERPRETER: 
          - - it was drizzling ("mihinay"). 

PROS. DUYONGCO: That would be all for the witness, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          We will reserve the cross-examination of this witness for the de parte counsels of the counsels when they shall be appointed. So, we will adjourn today. 

PROS. MIRO: 
          Adjourn, Your Honor, because we will be presenting another witness tomorrow. 

COURT: 
          No. tomorrow is a holiday.  On Thursday - - - 

PROS. MIRO: 
          Yes, Your Honor. 

COURT: 
          0 R D E R 

          At the continuation of the trial of these cases today, Prosecutor Ramon Duyongco conducted direct-examination of the prosecution witness Rolando Dacillo. Cross-examination of said witness was deferred until the time the accused have appointed counsels of their own choices on or before September 24, 1998. 

          The continuation of the trial of these cases on September 10, 1998 shall proceed as scheduled at the same time. 

          SO ORDERED. 

          Given in open court, this 8th day of September 1998, at Cebu City, Philippines. 

                                                                                (SGD) MARTIN A. OCAMPO 
                                                                                J u d g e

PAGE 31

C E R T I F I C A T I 0 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.

signed: FARAH T. ABANGAN
Court Stenographer 


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

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS FROM THE WEBMASTER:
         
In this hearing, the judge tries to justify his earlier ruling of not allowing the accused counsels of their own choice to represent them in a nearly 3-1/2 pages Order. In this Order,  the judge sacrifices the accuseses' constitutional right to a fair trial for an administrative order of the Supreme Court to a mandatory continuous trial of only 60 days. 

          In this Order read in Court, he even went further and accused the defense lawyers of dilatory tactics without any basis. Remember, their clients were held in jail without bail for over a year now and it is against their best interests to delay the hearings any further. They must have had a valid reason If they wanted 3 weeks suspension. Was it because they wanted their new lawyers to go over the voluminous affidavits, Motions, etc. before going to court? If so, this writer believes that is fair. Remember, we are not trying here who is the rightful owner a carabao.  We are deciding here whether these young men will be killed or will be set free.  

          "It is an enshrine doctrine in criminal law that every doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused for if there stands a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, he must be acquitted, even though his innocence may be doubted since the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can only be overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. ".... Court of Appeals Judge Pampio Abarintos.

          On page 7 of his testimony, the witness,  when asked his "other personal circumstances", conveniently failed to mention that he is a "police asset" of Police Officer Roy Codiņera. Codiņera is accredited for 'convincing' the star witness, Davidson Valiente Rusia, to turn state witness. In the Philippines, police assets are beholden to their handlers.  In this case, Dacillo to Codiņera. Why then did it take him 42 days after the "very unusual incident" to execute an affidavit to this effect. Why didn't he immediately notify his police handler, Roy Codiņera? (See more details on this subject on PART 7). 

          With this witness, one is beginning to see the pattern of all incoming testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Outside of Rusia, it appears that all their witnesses have seen, but have never met the person they are accusing at least some other time before they saw them again on the night of the Chiong sisters disappearance.  From Mrs. Chiong, Paco, Aznar and Adlawan, at least two or three times before; to Sheila Singson, Paco at least 5 times before; to Ann Konahap, Aznar and Paco at least twice before; and to this witness (at least once before, Aznar, in Croissant Snack Bar). Watch out for the succeeding testimonies of the other witnesses for the prosecution on this regard.   

          One strange thing though that this witness testified was that the other car, the red car was a taxicab. Rusia never testified to that effect, and neither did any of the other witnesses who had claimed to have seen the red car.     

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

           HOME     INDEX      Next Trial Date