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 21, 1998 at 2:00 o'clock 
                                                                 in the afternoon.
                                                                 

Present:
                                                                 HON. MARTIN A. OCAMPO
                                                                 Presiding Judge

ASSISTED BY:
                                                                  MS. FARAH T. ABANGAN
                                                                  Court Stenographer

                                                                   MS. 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                                 
                                                                   ATTY. FERDINAND SAORNIDO
                                                                   (Appearing accused Rusia)

                                                                  

                                                     PAO LAWYERS;

                                                                   ATTY. VENUSTIANO YPIL
                                                                  
ATTY. JOHN DE JESUS
                                                                   ATTY. ANACLETO DEBALOCUS
                                                                   PAO Lawyers  
                                                                  
(Appearing as counsels de oficio for the
                                                                   rest of the accused

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 JAMS ANDREW Uy @ "MM", 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.

ATTY. SAORNIDO:
          For accused Rusia, your Honor.

ATTY. DEBALUCOS:
          PAO lawyers, Your Honor, appearing as counsels de oficio for the rest of the accused.

COURT:
          Well, Atty. Gica, former defense counsel has submitted his Manifestation to the effect that this court should not hear that matter concerning the Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct by the Presiding Judge, myself, in connection with their Petition for Inhibition  

PAGE 3
COURT:    (CONTINUATION)
or Disqualification. According to them it is the Court of Appeals that should hear their accusations that I violated one of the Canons of Judicial Conduct which is seeking publicity for personal vainglory, violation of the two (2) articles written by Editor Ivan Suansing which appeared in the Inquirer and Daily News. But that is not the law. This is a new ground for disqualification or inhibition that is being relied upon by them and the law says that should be directed to and considered by the Judge whose inhibition is being sought because I should decide in the first instance whether the ground is valid or not, di ba? (Isn't it so?) It is just a valid ground. It should be the Court, the Judge himself whose inhibition or disqualification is  being sought who should consider and passed upon this ground. This is a ground for inhibition they are citing, this violation of one of the Canons of Judicial Conduct. Will you read 137, Sec. 2, Fiscal, for the benefit of everybody. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
          Rule 137, Sec. 2-

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          "Rule 137, Sec. 2- Objection that Judge disqualified, how made and effect. If it be claimed that an official is disqualified from sitting as above provided, the party objecting to his competency say, in writing, file with the official his objection, stating the grounds therefor, and the official shall thereupon proceed with the trial or withdraw therefrom, in accordance with his determination of the questions of his disqualification. His decision shall be forthwith made in writing and filed with the other papers in the case, but no appeal or stay shall be allowed from, or by reason of, his Decision in favor of his own competency, until after final judgment in the case." (Prosecutor Galanida reading Rule 137, Sec. 2).   

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

PAGE 4
COURT:
          It is only proper that this Court should hear and determine, pass upon that ground cited by the former defense counsels in these cases for my disqualification or inhibition which is Violation of one of the Canons of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2.02, that is seeking publicity for personal vainglory. That is why we are asking Editor Suansing to testify today because we want to know or we want to make a determination as to that accusations being made by these former counsels. Call Mr. Suansing to the witness stand. 

          (Mr. Ivan Suansing to the witness stand)

COURT:
          Please take a seat. You are Mr. Evan or Ivan?

MR. SUANSING:
          Ivan, Your Honor.

COURT:
          Well, I am pleased to meet you, Mr. Suansing-

MR. SUANSING:
          Same with me, Your Honor.

COURT: 
          We never met before. We never even talked before. So, I am grateful nevertheless, thankful for your complementary article although we never met before. So, as you see, I am being accused of violating one of the Canons of Judicial Conduct because of your article in which I have nothing to do in the first place. So, 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.

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

PAGE 5
COURT INTERPRETER:
          Will you please state your name, address, and other personal circumstances. 

WITNESS:
      A    Ivan Suansing, 36 years old, married, Profession - Journalist and a resident of Labangon, Cebu City.

COURT:
          The private prosecutor will conduct the direct-examination of Editor Suansing.

ATTY. DEBALUCOS: 
          Your Honor please, may I say something before the direct-examination?

COURT:
          Yes.

ATTY. DEBALUCOS:
          We do agree, Your Honor, with the observation of that former counsel of the accused, Atty. Gica, that we believe that this Honorable Court has really no jurisdiction to hear this Motion or we call it per se which was filed earlier before the Court of Appeals. In the first place, Your Honor, this per se or a sort of Motion filed by the former counsels of the accused is now pending before the Court of Appeals and we believe that this hearing now to be conducted by this Honorable Court is out of place considering that the testimony of this witness has no bearing to the issues in this instant cases that we are hearing now.  

COURT:
          No, disqualification or inhibition. They want me to inhibit myself from further sitting as Judge in these cases. What do you mean it has no bearing? If I decide to inhibit myself, tapos na ito. (it's all finish.) I'll go back to my Chamber, bahala na kayo. (it's all up to you.) Let us re-shuffle this to another Branch. How can you say it has no bearing? They are asking for my inhibition and who is suppose to

(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)
hear the ground for inhibition in the first instance, di ba yong Judge mismo? (isn't it the Judge himself?) Sinasabi nang (The Rule says) Rule 137, Sec. 2, the Judge himself must - -  or that ground for inhibition must be addressed to the Judge himself and who will determine for himself, by himself whether he is disqualified or not and he will make that in writing which I did but the trial must go on. There is no appeal, there is no stay or you cannot suspend the proceedings, the trial must be finished if the Judge decides that he is qualified and he should not inhibit himself. That is precisely, that is a vital issue in these cases whether the Judge, that is me, I should continue hearing these cases or not. How can you say it is not a vital issue. It is very vital issue, di ba? (isn't it so?) And who will hear the ground for disqualification or inhibition if not me in the first instance? Bakit iwanan mo sa ibang Judge yon, (Why will you leave that to another Judge,) when the law says I should be the one to hear it and if I think I should be disqualified, that I should disqualify myself, if not, then I should go on and try the case. That is why we want to determine, should I be
disqualified, should I inhibit myself? I know walang basis. (there is no basis.) There has to be a hearing. He was the one who wrote this article that the former lawyers claimed is a Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He is the author. Then let us hear his explanation. Paano sinulat ang mga articles na ito? (How were these articles written?)  Who made you write these? How did you come to write these? Where did you get the information? E, papano? (So, how?) Basta (Whatever) I will disqualify myself or I will just say I am qualified without any hearing? That is why we are hearing it now. He was the author or is the author of those two (2) articles that appeared in the Inquirer and Daily News. Who else can verify that -  about those articles if we do not hear the author himself, di ba? (isn't it?) Alright- - 

ATTY. DEBALUCOS:
          May I continue, Your Honor? 

COURT:
          Yes.

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

PAGE 7
ATTY. DEBALUCOS:
          But the problem, Your Honor, is this Motion is now pending in the Court of Appeals. 

COURT:
          Yes, but nevertheless under the law I have the power, I am suppose to determine whether I should inhibit myself or not. The law says- - because this is the first time they alleged this ground- ngayon lang nila ina-alleged ito, e.( - only now did they alleged this.) So, I have the right to hear it in the first instance, to determine whether it is true or not.   

ATTY. DE JESUS:
          With due respect to this Honorable Court, Your Honor, may we just know, Your Honor, whether this Honorable Court would consider the matter now pending, the Petition filed by the previous counsels for the accused, the testimony of Mr. Suansing, may we know, Your Honor, whether the testimony of this witness be used as a defense or explanation addressed to the Court of Appeals?

COURT:
          It is in connection with the inhibition or disqualification of the Presiding Judge. You see, they are alleging this ground for the first time that I violated one of the Court of Judicial Conduct which is seeking publicity for personal vainglory. Now, the Court wants to determine whether there is basis for this or not, o, papano? (so, how now?) How are we going to determine if not through the testimony of the author of these articles that they are citing. Sila ang nagsa-cite nitong articles, e. (They were the ones who cited these articles.) You see- -  did you see their Motion? They are citing these articles written by Mr. Suansing. O, is it not proper to ask Mr. Suansing to testify?

ATTY. DE JESUS:
          Your Honor, as much as we understand the reason of this Honorable Court, Your Honor, of calling Suansing to the witness stand but we believe, Your Honor, it is our humble belief that since the previous counsels do not have anymore personality before this court as accord- 

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

PAGE 8
ATTY. DE JESUS:   (CONTINUATION)
ing to this Honorable Court they have withdrawn as counsels for the accused, it is therefore our humble belief, Your Honor, that this matter may even be naturally treated by this Honorable Court since the previous counsels of these accused now, Your Honor, do not have any personality- -  

COURT:
          You are correct there, you are probably correct they have no personality but they are insisting that they have that is why they filed that case in the Court of Appeals for Certiorari. What personality do they have in filling that? But they are insisting and they furnished a copy of their disqualification Motion to this Court.  

ATTY. DE JESUS:
          We just would like to be qualified- - - 

COURT:
          Never mind, objection overruled.

ATTY. DE JESUS:
          - - - that we are not supposed to conduct the cross-examination, Your Honor- -

COURT:
          Alright if you do not want to cross-examine it's up to you.

ATTY. DE JESUS:
          - - because we are not the private counsels, Your Honor.

COURT:
          We will ask you to cross-examine him if you want to cross-examine him.

PROS. GALANIDA:
          Your Honor- -
        

PAGE 9
COURT:
          Yes, Fiscal.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May the prosecution also be given a chance to make a counter manifestation, Your Honor? I think I have just read earlier into the record the content of Rule 137, Sec. 2, wherein it is clearly explicitly stated there that any party who is objecting of a Judge must file in writing the Petition before the Judge whose competency is being questioned and because of that, Your Honor, it is also the firm stand of the prosecution panel that the former counsels of the accused made a very untimely or premature Petition before the Court of Appeals seeking the inhibition of this Judge and this time alleging a new ground that allegedly this Honorable Court is seeking vainglory through media reports when it should have filed first that Petition for Inhibition of the Judge on this ground before this Honorable Court. That's why we believe, Your Honor, that it is really the right and the prerogative of this Honorable Court to ask questions to the persons who made such an articles in the newspaper as that is the only way for the Judge to determine where in the World did he get that information.   

COURT:
          Yes, we want to establish the truth. That is why we will ask Mr. Suansing to testify.

/to the private prosecutor:
          Please conduct the direct.

MR. SUANSING:
          Your Honor, may I just know whether I am here as a witness or just a - - - -

COURT:
          Yes, you are a witness in connection with the Petition for Disqualification or Inhibition of the Presiding Judge in these two (2) Chiong Kidnap cases.

PAGE 10
COURT/to Atty. Saornido:
          You want to say something?

ATTY. SAORNIDO:
          Yes, Your Honor. It appears that from the previous manifestations there was an accused side and the prosecution side, we would like to dig deeper to accused Rusia considering that Rusia is still an accused, that it is our opinion that the Court has jurisdiction contrary to the earlier manifestation by the distinguished counsels, Rule 137, Sec. 2, is very explicit, Your Honor, that it only says if it is claimed not necessarily there is another case filed-  if it is claimed, the word "claimed" be underlined, if somebody would claim that the Judge is bias, the Judge is free to establish whether he would inhibit himself- - 

COURT: 
          Yes, in fact I don't have to wait for any claim I just inhibit myself for just and valid reason without anybody asking me too. I just inhibit myself. That is what the other Judge did, Arriesgado, that is what he did, Wala  namang naghihingi nang inhibition niya. (Nobody asked for his inhibition) He decided to inhibit himself. O, papano yon? (So, how is that?)  I want to know if there is a just and valid reason for their accusations or claim. 

/to private prosecutor: 
      Please proceed, Panero. (my fellow lawyer.)

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
          May I state the purpose, Your Honor?

COURT:
          Yes.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
          The purpose of the testimony of this witness- - - 

COURT:
          Did you bring the articles or the copies of the articles?

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

PAGE 11
ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
          Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
          Proceed.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
          Mr. Ivan P. Suansing will explain to this Honorable Court how or why he came to write, published the articles found on the front page of the Philippine Daily Inquirer August 31, 1998 issue. May I proceed, Your Honor?

COURT:
          Yes.

                                                                DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS 
                                                                BY ATTY. HONORATO HERMOSISIMA, JR.

      Q    Mr. Suansing, you mentioned you are a Journalist. Are you in anyway connected with a newspaper company?

      A    I am the News Editor of Cebu Daily News and at the same time a Correspondent of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

      Q    Since when have you been connected with the Cebu Daily News as a News Editor?

      A    Officially since December of 1997.

      Q    And you also mentioned that you are a Correspondent of the Philippine Daily Inquirer?

      A    Correct.

      Q    Since when, Mr. Suansing?

      A    Since 1992, sir.

      Q    As News Correspondent of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, what do you do?

      A    Now, you mean now?      

PAGE 12
ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
      Q    Yes.

WITNESS:
      A    I have a regular column which appears every first Thursday of the month and I submit news articles now and then for big stories.

      Q    You mean you contribute news articles?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    Can you recall having contributed an article to the Philippine Daily Inquirer that was published on August 31, 1998?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    I show you this article caption and I quote: "OCAMPO, THE JUDGE WHO FEARS NO ONE". Is this the article which you said you have contributed to the Philippine Daily Inquirer?

      A    I believe so, yes.

      Q    Mr. Suansing, have you interviewed the Honorable Judge Martin A. Ocampo before August 31, 1998, the date the article you contributed to the Philippine Daily Inquirer was published?

      A    No, for two (2) reasons. No. (1) I already had sufficient materials about the Judge; and No. (2), I was told by a personnel of this Court, when I asked for an interview I was told that the Judge didn't usually grant interviews in the pendency of important cases such as this.

      Q    So that not having interviewed Judge Ocampo prior to the publication of the article you contributed to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, where then did you get the source of your write-ups which appeared on the August 31, 1998 issue?

      A    First, from my own personal observation. The Judge first caught my attention when he was handling the Abiabi case. So more or less had a pretty good picture of what the Judge is. No. 20, a feedback we got from    

PAGE 13
WITNESS:    (CONTINUATION) 
the field; 3) published reports; 4) a Libel Complaint which the Judge filed against a Local newspaper which contained narrations of his personal circumstances, his insights as well as his sentiments. And, lastly, a book titled "Cabbages and Kings" which contains collections of his articles published in the Philippine Press.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
      Q    Have you at any time been formally introduced to the Honorable Martin A. Ocampo before August 31, 1998?

      A    We had never been formally introduced.

      Q    Before August 31, 1998, have you ever personally met and got acquainted with the Honorable Judge Ocampo?

      A    No, sir.

      Q    Before August 31, 1998, was there any occasion that the Honorable Judge Ocampo approached or called on you for anything?

      A    No, sir.

      Q    Do you know the Honorable Judge Martin Ocampo now?

      A    All I know he is the Judge in this case.

      Q    And as you mentioned a while ago also because of the Abiabi case. Is that correct?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    Not having interviewed Judge Ocampo, not having been formally introduced to him neither have you personally met and got acquainted with the good Judge nor had he approached or called on you anything, then, please explain what made you write or published the article captioned I quote: "OCAMPO, THE JUDGE WHO FEARS NO ONE" which appears on the August 31, 1998 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer?

      A    What made me write the article? 

PAGE 14
ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
     
Q    Yes.

WITNESS: 
      A    First, that's an editorial decision. This is supposed to be the trial of the decade, bruited to be the trial of the decade. I figured readers not only in Cebu but elsewhere the country, we would like to know what kind of a Judge is handling these cases. Secondly, it is the policy of the Inquirer also Cebu Daily News that whenever there is a big story like this, we give the story a face by focusing individuals involved in the case. We have already written about the Judge and some star witness Davidson Rusia, some future time we plan to write about another personalities in this case and some of the accused with their consent and some of the lawyers.

      Q    So that it would be correct then to say that Judge Ocampo had absolutely nothing to do with your article that appeared on the August 31, 1998 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer?

      A    He had nothing to do with the article, he had not asked for the article, I wrote it on my own initiative.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
          No further questions, Your Honor.

COURT/ to PAO lawyers:
          Who wish to cross-examine the witness from the Public Attorney's Office?

ATTY. DE JESUS:
          With due respect to this Honorable Court, Your Honor, the Public Attorney's Office has no participation in the inhibition filed by the previous counsels. So, we therefore respectfully refuse to cross-examine him, Your Honor. 

PAGE 15
COURT: 
          So we can now discharge Mr. Suansing. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Suansing. Here is a copy of the Order of this Court today. Will you distribute this? (Court addressing to the Court Interpreter)

Mr. Suansing:
          May I now be allowed to resume my normal duties, Your Honor.

COURT:
          Yes. Thank you for your testimony and for your article. Having disposed of this matter we shall now proceed with the trial of the main case. Fiscal, you may now continue presentation of your evidence.

PROS. MIRO:
          We will continue with the presentation of our 14th witness. His testimony will be part of the evidence-in-chief in support of our allegations in the Informations filed against them. We will call upon Mr. Manuel Rodriguez, our 14th witness. He will be presented by private prosecutor Atty. Honorato Hermosisima, Jr., subject to our direction and control.

COURT:
          Call the witness. And state the purpose of his testimony for the record.

                                                       (Witness to the stand)

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
          That this witness, Your Honor, will testify to the fact that as a part-time job he is a photographer; that he worked as a photographer in Carcar and that on July 18, 1997 at about 12:00 noon somebody approached him and told him that SPO4 Arturo Unabia, Acting Chief of Police of Carcar called on him because there was found at the bottom of the ravine in Tan-awan, Carcar, a woman whom the Acting Chief of Police wanted to be photoed and that upon reaching 

PAGE 16
ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:   (CONTINUATION)
Tan-awan, he saw that dead woman and upon instructions of Acting Chief of Police Unabia he took pictures front side and back side and thereafter he had the film developed. And that he will identify the picture that have already been marked and that he will testify on related matters that will be in support of the foregoing 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:
          Yes, I do.

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

WITNESS;
      A    Manuel Rodriguez, 44 years old, married, driver and a photographer and a resident of Sangi, Guadalupe, Carcar, Cebu.

ATT. DE JESUS:
          Your Honor please, may we move for the exclusion of other witnesses.

COURT:
          You have other witnesses?

PROS. GALANIDA:
          Yes, but they are in the staff room, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
          May it please this Honorable Court.      

PAGE 17
COURT:
          Proceed.

                                                                   DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS
                                                                       BY ATTY. HONORATO HERMOSISIMA

      Q    Mr. Witness, you mentioned that by occupation you are a jeepney driver and that you have a sideline as a photographer. Can you tell us for how long you have been a photographer?

      A    For two (2) years until at present.

      Q    So that would be from 1996 up to now. Is that correct?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    On July 18, 1997 at about 12:00 o'clock noon, can you recall of any unusual incident that happened?

      A    Yes, sir, there was.

      Q    Can you please tell this Honorable Court?

      A    While I was taking my lunch a person approached me and told me that somebody wanted to have a photograph at Tan-awan, Carcar and that a person was thrown into a deep ravine. 

PROS. GALANIDA:
          Your Honor, may I request the translation - 

COURT INTERPRETER:     (READING THE ANSWER)
          While I was taking my lunch a person approached me and told me that somebody wanted to have a photograph at Tan-awan, Carcar and that a person was thrown into a deep ravine. 

PROS. GALANIDA:
          Your Honor please, because I heard he mentioned something "nagka-on ko ug may tawo nga miadto sa mo" (I was eating and there was a man who went to us)  which was not included in the translation.

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

PAGE 18
COURT INTERPRETER:
          While I was eating my lunch, a person approached me to have a photograph - - -

PROS. GALANIDA:
          So "went to the house" was not earlier mentioned, Your Honor.

COURT:
          Proceed.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
      Q    After having been told so, what did you do?

WITNESS:
      A    I told him by saying after eating my lunch we will go there.

      Q    After taking your lunch, did you in effect go to Tan-awan.

      A    After taking my lunch we boarded a "habal-habal" (motorcycle unlicensed to pick up paying passengers) motorcycle and went to Tan-awan, Carcar.   

      Q    What time did you reach Tan-awan, Carcar?

      A    It took us about thirty (30) minutes.

      Q    You reached Tan-awan, Carcar on top about 12:30. Is that correct.

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    Upon reaching Tan-awan, Carcar, you are referring to this cliff at Tan-awan, Carcar. Is that correct?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    After reaching there, what did you do next?

      A    We went down to the foot of the ravine because the way is really very difficult.

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

PAGE 19
ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
      Q    What made the way very difficult?

WITNESS:
      A    Because the cliff is really very stiff.

      Q    How was the condition of the soil at that time when you went down?

      A    It was very slippery and muddy because of the heavy rain.

      Q    What time did you reach the bottom of the cliff at Tan-awan, Carcar?

      A    Past 1:00 o'clock.

      Q    Upon reaching there, what did you find?

      A    I saw a dead body of a woman.

      Q    Having seen that dead woman, can you describe to the Court her position at that time you first saw the body?

      A    On her left hand there was a handcuff.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
          We make it of record, Your Honor, that the witness demonstrating that his left hand is at his back.

      Q    What did you observe on the face of that woman, if any?

      A    I observed that on the face of a woman there was a masking tape.

      Q    Where was that masking tape located?

      A    It was placed on her eyes, also wrapped around her mouth and there were also worms came out from her mouth and from her nose and there were also flies.

      Q    What was that woman wearing, if you can recall?

      A    She was wearing an orange t-shirt.           

PAGE 20
ATTY. HERMOSISIMA: 
      Q    How about - - was she wearing pants?

WITNESS:
      A    Yes, she was wearing a maong pants.

      Q    And what have you observed on the t-shirt of that woman?

      A    Her t-shirt was raised up and her bra was lowered.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
          We make it of record, Your Honor, that the witness indicated that the bra was somewhere around his waist.

      Q    And what have you observed on the maong pants of that woman?

      A    It was torn because she fell down from the cliff which was very deep?

      Q    You mentioned that you went to that spot because you were called upon to take photographs and those were upon the instructions of SPO4 Arturo Unabia. Did you in fact take photographs of that woman?

      A    Yes, I took photographs.

      Q    On what angles of the body did you take photographs of that woman, if you can recall?      

      A    I took photographs on her front and at her back.

      Q    After you took that photographs, what did you do next?

      A    SPO4 Unabia ordered to take the dead body and brought to the Funeral Parlor.

      Q    After SPO4 Unabia made that order, what did you do next?

      A    I went home.

      Q    And what did you do with the films, if any?

PAGE 21
WITNESS:
      A    On July 19 at 8:00 o'clock in the morning I immediately went to Cebu City to have the films developed.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
      Q    And did you in fact have the films developed? 

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    Where was that?

      A     At Fuji Colon. 

      Q    If shown those photographs, Mr. Rodriguez, can you still recognize them?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    I show you photographs already marked as Exh. "Z" with submarkings and Exh. "BB" and submarkings. Please take a look at these photographs and tell the Court if these are the ones that you took on the dead woman at Carcar, Cebu?

COURT INTERPRETER:
          Yes, these are the pictures, Your Honor. (Witness examined Exh. "Z" and series and Exh. "BB" and series). 

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
          No further, Your Honor.

COURT: Cross-examination of this witness is also deferred for the same reason like the other prosecution witnesses.

/ to the witness:
          Witness is excused.

/ to the prosecutor:
          Please call your next witness, Fiscal.
          

PAGE 22
PROS. MIRO: 

          For our 15th witnesses, Your Honor, we will be calling upon Mr. Dionisio Enad, Jr., whose testimony will be part of our evidence-in-chief in support of our allegations contained in the Informations. He will be presented by Prosecutor Duyongco.

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

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          Mr. Enad will testify, Your Honor, that he is an Asst. Embalmer of the Tupaz Funeral Homes based in Carcar, Cebu. His testimony is offered to prove that sometime on the 18th of July 1997 between 2:00 o'clock to past 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 18th of July 1997 he was the one who embalmed the body of Marijoy Chiong; that before he embalmed Marijoy Chiong he removed the masking tapes wrapped around her eyes, the masking tapes placed around Marijoy's neck; that he was the one who removed the blouse or t-shirt colored orange and the maong pants of Marijoy Chiong including Marijoy Chiong's bra and panties; that he also removed the hair band of Marijoy Chiong; that found on the left wrist of Marijoy Chiong was a handcuff; he will testify on some very important and relevant matters and some preliminary matters 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:
          Yes, I do.

PAGE 23
COURT INTERPRETER: 
         
Will you please state your name, address and other personal circumstances?

WITNESS:
      A    Dionisio Enad, 39 years old, married, Assistant Embalmer of Tupaz Funeral Parlor, Carcar, Cebu and a resident of Sangat, San Fernando, Cebu.

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

COURT:
      Proceed.

                                                              DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS
                                                                BY PROSECUTOR RAMON DUYONGCO

      Q    Mr. Enad, you just told the Court that you are an Assistant Embalmer of Tupaz Funeral Homes, would you please tell the Court where is this Tupaz Funeral Homes located?

      A    It is located at Carcar, Cebu.

      Q    How long have you been connected with that funeral parlor?

      A    Twenty (20) years.

      Q    With this span of twenty (20) years, are you telling the Court that you have been an embalmer of this funeral parlor for about twenty (20) years?

      A    I was working for about twenty (20) years but as an embalmer only for about ten (10) years.

      Q    On July 18, 1997 about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, could you recall where were you?

      A    I was in the house.

      Q    About that time, could you recall if you met with anybody or you talked with anyone?

      A    I was informed by my employer that there was a dead body.

PAGE 24
PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    What did you do after you had informed that there was a dead body?

WITNESS:
      A    I went to the Funeral Parlor and waited there.

      Q    And when you told the Court that you went to the Funeral Parlor, are you referring to Tupaz Funeral Homes?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    While you were there past 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 18 July 1997, could you tell the Court what transpired?

      A    I waited for the dead body.

      Q    In effect, did the dead body arrive?

      A    Yes, sir, at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon.

      Q    When the dead body arrived, what did you do?

      A    I waited an instruction from my employer what to do.

      Q    By the way, what was that dead body? Was it a male person or a female person?

      A    At first I did not know whether that was a female or a male body.

      Q    Later, did you come to know whether it was a male or a female?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    Tell the Court whether it was a male person or a female person?

      A    I was informed by my companions that they saw a dead body of a woman.

      Q    A while ago you told the Court that you were waiting for the instruction of your employer, on what to do with the dead body. In effect, did your employer tell you what to do?                           

PAGE 25

WITNESS:
      A    Yes, sir.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    What did your employer tell you?

      A    I was instructed by my employer that the dead body would be embalmed.

      Q    Did you follow the instruction of your employer?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    Are you telling the Court that in effect you embalmed the dead body?

      A    When I was instructed by my employer to embalm the dead body I first cut the masking tape.
             (Witness pointing to his face)

      Q    By the way, why did you have to cut the masking tape?

      A    Because the masking tape was stuck to the face.

      Q    Aside from removing the masking tape by cutting it was wrapped around the face of that dead person, what else did you do?

      A    There was another masking tape on the neck of the body. (Witness pointing to his neck).

      Q    How did you remove that masking tapes?

      A    I also cut the masking tape.

      Q    And why did you have to cut it?

      A    Because it stuck to the neck.

PROS. GALANIDA:
          May I request that the Interpreter also manifest for the record the hand demonstration of the witness while testifying.      

PAGE 26 
COURT INTERPRETER; 
          (Witness pointing to his neck with his two (2) fingers as if it represents the scissors by cutting).

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    By the way, to make it clear, what did you use in cutting those tapes?

WITNESS:
      A    Scissors.

      Q    After you have done it removing the two (2) tapes, what else did you do?

      A    I also cut her t-shirt because the body was already bloated and the t-shirt could not be taken off. (Witness while testifying pointed to his right upper arm by demonstrating that he was cutting it then his right hand to the left upper arm also demonstrating by cutting the shirt and then from the tip near the waist cutting the shirt upwards towards the neck).

      Q    After you have removed the t-shirt - - - by the way, could you recall what was the color of the t-shirt?

      A    Orange t-shirt.

      Q    After you have removed the t-shirt by cutting it, what else did you do?

      A    I cut also the pants because the legs of the dead body, the thighs were already bloated.

      Q    Could you recall what was the color of the pants?

      A    Maong pants.

      Q    A while ago you told the Court that you already knew that the dead body was that of a female because you were informed by your co-employee. While you were already removing the tapes, the t-shirt and the pants, did you already know by yourself whether it was a male person or a female person?

PAGE 27
WITNESS:  
      A    Yes, sir, it was a woman.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    You told the Court a while ago that you had to cut the t-shirt and the pants because the body of the dead person had already bloated and that the removal of the same was difficult. What did you use in cutting the t-shirt and the pants?

      A    Scissors. (Witness demonstrating by using his right hand with two (2) fingers representing the scissors).

      Q      After you had removed the t-shirt and the pants, what else did you do?

      A    I took off the bra. (Witness pointing to his breast by cutting the bra).

      Q    Why did you have to cut off the bra?

      A    I have to cut the bra because it is very difficult to take off so I have to cut it because the bra was already tight.

      Q    After you had removed the bra, what else did you do?

      A    I have to cut also her panty. (Witness pointing to his left and right waist).

      Q    Why would you have to cut the panty?

      A    Because it was very dirty and I have to clean it.

      Q    By the way, aside from removing all those things, what else did you do after that?

      A    I covered her private parts with a white blanket.

      Q    By the way, what was your purpose in removing the t-shirt, the pants, the bra, the panty and the masking tapes around the woman's eyes and the neck? Please tell the Court?

      A    I have to remove all these things in order to see whether she suffered stab wounds, injuries           

PAGE 28
WITNESS: (CONTINUATION)
or gunshot wounds an
d if there were any we can stitch it so that the medicines that we are going to apply will not be wasted.  

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    Did you find any stab wounds or gunshot wounds?

      A    There was none.

      Q Q            Q    After you found out that there was no gunshot wounds or stab wounds, what did you do with the dead body?

      A    
I cleaned her face because there were so many worms.

      Q   
What part of the body of the dead woman where there were worms? Please be specific?

      A     (Witness pointing to his nose, eyes, and mouth). 

      Q   
After you cleaned the dead body removing the worms coming from the eyes, the mouth and the nose, what did you do with the dead body?

      A    We embalmed the dead body.

Q                      Q    How long did it take you to embalm the dead body?  

A                       A    I finished embalming until about 4:30 o’clock in the afternoon.  

Q                      Q    You told the Court that you were through in embalming for about 4:30, about what time did you start?  

A                       A    About 2:00 o’clock, sir.  

Q                      Q    When you said 2:00 o’clock that includes the time for removing the tapes, the t-shirt, the pants, the bra and the panty?  

A                       A    Yes, sir.

      Q    Since you were the one who embalmed the dead body of that person on the 18th of July 1997 between the hours of past 2:00 o’clock in the

PAGE 29
PROS. MIRO:

afternoon, could you still recognize the tapes, the t-shirt, the pants, the bra and the panty of that dead woman?

WITNESS:
      A    Yes, sir. I can still recognize.

      Q    Aside from those things you removed, were there still other things not removed from the body of that person?

      A    Yes, sir, there was.

      Q    Please tell the Court what was that something you failed to remove or you were not able to remove?

      A    The handcuff. (Witness raising his left hand and placing his right hand over his left wrist representing the handcuff).

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
At this juncture, Your Honor, considering that these pieces of evidence were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory and is now under the custody of Jude Mendoza, Medical Technologist I of Medico Legal Branch, PNP Crime Laboratory, I have caused the issuance of a subpoena for him or for her to bring all these documents for identification purposes of this witness.

COURT:
         
Do we have to go through this?

PROS. DUYONGCO:

          Yes, Your Honor, because these are material pieces of evidence. Anyway these are just very few.

COURT:
         
What relevance or materiality that he have to the identity of the victim?

PAGE 30
PROS. DUYONGCO:
          To establish the chain of custody from the time these pieces of evidence were removed until such time they were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory because for example the panty, Your Honor , it was established that there were semens or seminal fluids and --- 

COURT:
         
Well, you cannot prove that through the testimony of this witness.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
Yes, for purposes of identification that these were the things removed from the body of the dead person, the marking and there is an unbroken chain of custody, from the body of the dead person to the time it was brought to the Crime Lab for examination.

COURT:
         
So, they have to maintain the identity of these pieces of clothing and to show that these were not substituted or changed.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
Because they will prove later on through laboratory examination what was found in these pieces of clothings.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
So, they have to prove through this witness that these are the same clothings that were removed from that dead body.

ATTY. DE JESUS:

         
I just would like to manifest, Your Honor, our observation that there was no testimony of this

PAGE 31
ATTY. DE JESUS:  (CONTINUATION)
witness now insofar as establishing an unbroken chain of undertakings, Your Honor.  

COURT:
          That is why they will ask him to identify the clothing that he removed from the dead body.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
Precisely that is our purpose - - -

COURT:
         
That is how they will establish the continuity of these - - -

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
There is a continuity of - - -

COURT:
          - - pieces of clothing or evidence.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          May I request the witness to open these pieces of evidence, Your honor, wrapped in a newspaper.

COURT:
         
Will you see if these are the same - - - - -

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    Please tell the court which of those pieces of evidence was the t-shirt of the dead woman whom you embalmed?

WITNESS:
      A    (Witness is opening the object wrapped in a newspaper which was the torn orange t-shirt cut on the left shoulder and another cutting done on the left arm and the front also of the t-shirt was cut).

PAGE 32
PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    You have already identified that this is the very t-shirt you removed from the dead body which you embalmed on July 18, 1997. Today, did you already know who is that dead body?

WITNESS:
      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    Please stand up and tell the Court who is the owner of this torn t-shirt colored orange?

      A    Marijoy Chiong. (Witness pointing to the torn t-shirt colored orange).

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
At this juncture, Your Honor, may I request that this t-shirt colored orange with a brand Giordano and at the left side the word “Classics” and some trade mark above the word “Classics” be marked as our Exh. “FF” and a tag will just be used for marketing, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    You also told the Court that aside from this t-shirt which you removed by cutting with the use of scissors, you also removed the pants of the dead woman now you identified as Marijoy Chiong. You removed also the pants by cutting with the used of the same scissors. Please tell the Court which among these evidence was the pants you removed from the body of Marijoy Chiong?

      A    This is the pants which I cut. (Witness pointing to a portion of the torn maong pants which he cut).

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
May I request, Your Honor, that this identified maong pants with Brand “Guess” by George Marciano underneath Petite be marked as our Exh. “GG”.

PAGE 33
COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    You also told the Court that aside from this t-shirt and pants you also removed the bra. Please open those plastic bags and show to us the bra which you removed?

      A    (Witness showing the dirty bra and pointing to a portion of the bra which he cut and the Brand is “ Avon ”).

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
That this bra, Your Honor, be marked as our Exh. “HH”.

COURT:
          Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    You also told the Court that you removed the panty. Please show it to us?

WITNESS:
      A    (Witness showing the dirty and torn panty with “Gogie Elegance” brand).

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
I pray, Your Honor, that this panty be marked as Exh. “II”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    Earlier you told the Court that you also removed the tapes around his face. Show it to the Court the tapes?

WITNESS:
      A    (Witness is opening the plastic bag which contains the masking

PAGE 34
WITNESS:  (CONTINUATION)
tapes and showing the masking tape to Prosecutor Duyongco and pointing the crumpled brown color masking tapes which he took from the dead body of the woman).

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
May we request, Your Honor, that this packaging or masking tapes identified by the witness be marked as our Exh. “JJ”.  

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    What is that something you are holding, Mr. Witness?

WITNESS:
      A    This is a hair band. (Witness identifying a hair band).

      Q    From where did you take that hair band?

      A    From her hair, tied to her hair. (Witness pointing to his back).

      Q    When you said from her hair, are referring to Marijoy Chiong?

      A    Yes, sir.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
I pray, Your Honor that the garterized hair band be marked as Exh. “KK”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
We would like to make it of record, Your Honor, that the packaging tapes were brought to this Court by Inspector Edgardo Lenizo, Head of the Fingerprint Identification Branch of PNP Crime Lab. Regional Office 7, Cebu City , who has taken custody of that packaging tapes.

PAGE 35
ATTY. DE JESUS:
         
Your Honor, we would like to make it of record our observation that except the masking tapes others were placed in a very simple ordinary plastic bag with paper. In other words, except for the masking tapes the rest of the pieces of evidence were not placed in a sealed plastic - - -

PROS.  DUYONGCO:
         
Anyway, these pieces of evidence were wrapped in newspaper then placed inside the plastic bag, Your Honor, and together were personally brought to this Court by the Medical Technologist and the packaging tapes were brought to this Court by Inspector Edgardo Lenizo.

      Q    Mr. Enad, after you embalmed the body of Marijoy Chiong and you told the Court that you covered with a white blanket her private parts, what else transpired after that?

WITNESS:
      A    No more.

      Q    Do you know if photographs were taken of the dead body that you embalmed?

      A    Yes, sir, a photographer was present there and took the picture of the embalmed dead body.

      Q    Do you know who ordered the photographer to take photographs of the dead body?

      A    The policeman of Carcar, Cebu .

      Q    Where were you when the photographs were taken?

      A    I was just at the morgue.

      Q    I show you two (2) photographs of a dead woman, please tell the Court if this is the dead woman you embalmed on the 18th of July 1997?

      A    Yes, sir, I am the one who is standing here. (Witness examined a picture marked as Exh. “FF” and “BB” and pointing to a person standing near the embalmed body stating that that person is he).

PAGE 36
PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
Actually, Your Honor, the witness just identified
Exh. “FF” and the person he pointed to as wearing green t-shirt referring to him as the person standing beside the dead body be bracketed and marked as Exh. “FF-1”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
And the other picture, Your Honor, marked already as Exh. “EE”, the part of the body of the person standing beside the dead body be bracketed and marked as Exh. “EE-1”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.  

PROS. DUYONGCO:  
      Q    A while ago you told the Court that the only thing you left or which was left on the body of Marijoy Chiong was the handcuffed at her left hand because you were not able to remove it because you have no keys. Do you know if days later the said handcuff was removed and by whom?

WITNESS:
      A    The handcuff was taken for five (5) days.

      Q    About five (5) days later, do you know if that handcuff was removed from the hand of Marijoy Chiong?

      A    After five (5) days, three (3) CI policemen arrived and I was given two (2) keys.

      Q    Do you know the reason why the policemen who were there gave you those keys?

      A    In order to remove the handcuff.

      Q    Were you able to remove the handcuff?

      A    The handcuff was not removed by using the two (2) keys that they gave it to me.

PAGE 37
PROS. DUYONGCO:
     
Q    What did you do after that?

WITNESS:
     
A    Since the handcuff was not remove, they told me to saw it off.

      Q    Did you grant the request?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    In effect, were you able to remove the handcuff?

      A    Yes, sir, I was able to remove the handcuff by placing a zinc in her hand in order that her hand will not be wounded when I saw it off.

      Q    What did you use in sawing the handcuff?

      A    A steel saw with a fine teeth.

      Q    I will show you a handcuff - - - by the way, I would like to make it of record that this handcuff is now in the possession of the CIG or Criminal Investigation Group which I caused to be brought to this Court today for purposes of identification by this witness. I will show to you a handcuff, please tell the Court what relation is this handcuff to the one you saw and you sawed using a steel saw with fine teeth?

      A    This is the one which I sawed. (Witness pointing to the portion of the handcuff which he sawed and explaining that after he sawed the handcuff he has to take out the rivet then it was already removed. (Witness pointing to the rivet).

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
I pray, Your Honor, that this handcuff identified by witness Enad be marked as Exh. “MM”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PAGE 38
PROS. DUYONGCO:
          And the sawed portion be bracketed showing the rivet as Exh. “MM-1”, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    Mr. Enad, you told the Court that five (5) days later from the time you embalmed the dead body of Marijoy Chiong you cut this handcuff. After you cut off this handcuff, what did you with this?

WITNESS:
      A    I gave the handcuff to the three (3) CI’s or policemen.

      Q    Could you recall the names of those CIG personnel or policemen who went to the Funeral Parlor.

      A    I do not know their names but if there faces were showed to me I can recognized them.

      Q    Will you please look around and tell the Court if three (3) of them, two (2) of them or anyone of them is inside this Courtroom whom you turned over this handcuff?

      A    (Witness pointing to a person who when asked answered that his name is SPO3 Benjamin Pepino).

      Q    How about the clothings of Marijoy Chiong, the panty, the bra, the t-shirt, the pants as well as the hair band and the packaging tapes, what did you do with that?

      A    I placed all those things in a bag and gave it to the policemen and his companion together with the handcuff. (Witness pointing to SP03 Benjamin Pepino).

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

PAGE 39
COURT:
         
Cross-examination of this witness is likewise deferred for the same reason as the other prosecution witnesses.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
Your Honor please, we would like to request that a subpoena Duces Tecum be issued to Inspector Edgardo Lenizo. The head of the Fingerprint identification Branch of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Gorordo Avenue , Cebu City , for him to bring the original of fingerprint Identification No. F-025-97 of victim Marijoy Chiong. Likewise, Your Honor, we also pray that a subpoena Duces Tecum be issued to Dr. Nestor Sator, the Medico Legal Officer of the PNP, for him to bring the original of Medico legal Report No. M-175-97, for them to appear tomorrow in the afternoon.

COURT:
         
They will be subpoenaed. So, ipagawa mo na ang (make already the) subpoena, sabihin mo, (mention that the) subpoena Duces Tecum to be served by the Sheriff. So, we will now - - -    

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
I have still two (2) witnesses, Your Honor, they are waiting already, just very short. Anyway, it is still 3:45.

COURT:
         
Alright.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          
I would like to make it of record, Your honor, that these pieces of evidence particularly the pants, the t-shirt, the bra, the panties and the hair band, I am now turning it over to Jude Mendoza, the Medical Technologist of PNP Crime Laboratory, who is presently in custody of these evidence and the packaging tapes, I am now returning to Inspector Lenizo who is also in  custody of this packaging tapes and I would like also to make it of record, Your Honor, that I am returning this handcuff to SPO3 Benjamin Pepino, who is the Custodian

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

PAGE 40
PROS. DUYONGCO:  (CONTINUATION)

 of this handcuff.

PROS. MIRO:
          We still have two (2) witnesses to present, Your Honor.

COURT:
          Yes.

/to prosecution:
          Will you alert those laboratory experts?

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          Yes, they are here, Your Honor.

COURT:
          Well, you tell them already.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          I would like to request - - - -

COURT:
          They are here, tell them to appear tomorrow.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          Jude Mendoza be ordered to come - - -

COURT:
          Where is he? 

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          Here, Your Honor.  

COURT/ to Jude Mendoza: 
          Will you come tomorrow?

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          No, Wednesday, Your Honor.

PAGE 41
PROS. GALANIDA:
         
And Inspector Lenizo will be the one presented tomorrow, Your Honor. May we request that he be made to sign the record, Your Honor?

COURT:
         
What about the laboratory experts, when they will be presented?

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
He is a fingerprint examiner, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
So, tomorrow.

PROS. GALANIDA:
          Tomorrow and after him is Dr. Sator.

COURT:
         
So, be here tomorrow, 2:00 o’clock.

INSP. LENIZO:
          Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
Sino pa yong isa? (Who else is the other one?)

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
So, no need of subpoena, Your Honor -

COURT:
         
They are notified in open court, let them sign.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
But Dr. Sator, Your Honor, is not here. So, may we just request that a subpoena to be issued to him to be hand carried by Inspector Lenizo. Dr. Sator, the Medico Legal Officer.

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

PAGE 42
PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
I would like also to make it of record, Your Honor - - -

COURT:
         
Will you inform Dr. Sator that he will come tomorrow afternoon, the two (2) of you will have to come. Subpoena have to follow. Alert him already so that he will not go anywhere else. Tell him to come tomorrow at 2:00 o’clock to testify in these cases.

INSP. LENIZO:
         
Yes, Your Honor.

PROS. MIRO:
         
Our next witness to present, Your Honor, is Mr. Antonio Sabala, Jr.

COURT:
         
Call the witness.

                                                             (Witness to the stand)

PROS. MIRO:
          Our 16th witness, Your Honor, his testimony is still part of our evidence-in-chief. He will be presented by Prosecutor Ramon Duyongco.

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

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
This witness, Your Honor, is presented by the Prosecution to prove that on July 18, 1998, in the afternoon thereof their Acting Police Chief of Carcar, Cebu, retrieved from the crime scene a fragmentation grenade and that on July 22 - - -

PAGE 43
COURT:
         
What do you mean “ crime scene”, where is that?

WITNESS:
      A    In Sitio Tan-awan, Guadalupe, Carcar, Cebu .

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
And on the 22nd day of July, 1997, this witness Sabala, a policeman from Carcar, Cebu, retrieved from the crime scene, I am referring to Sitio Tan-awan, Guadalupe, Carcar, Cebu, a pair of rubber shoes brand “Converse”, one partially burned and the other was not but with possible blood stains and a Computer diskette and that he recovered these pieces of evidence together with SPO4 Unabia who earlier testified before this Court and that by virtue of the order or instruction of Unabia, he caused these evidence to be forwarded to the Cebu Provincial Command and received by SPO3 Rosalita. And he will testify on some other matters related or relevant to this case and for such other purposes, Your Honor.

COURT/ to Court Interpreter:
         
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?

WITNESS:
      A    SPO1 ANTONIO SABAL, JR., 38 years old, married, policeman and a resident of Poblacion Carcar, Cebu .

PAGE 44
PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
May it please this Honorable Court.

COURT:
         
Proceed.  

                                                          DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS 
                                                             BY PROSECUTOR RAMON DUYONGCO

      Q    Mr. Sabala, you told the Court that you are a policeman. How long have you been a policeman?

      A    Since September 20, 1982.

      Q    You told the Court that you are assigned at Carcar Police Station. Did I get you correctly?

      A    Yes, sir, I am.

      Q    For how long have you been assigned in that police station.

      A    Since August 1, 1987.

      Q    Continuously up to the present?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    On the 18th of July 1997 in the afternoon thereof, can you recall where you were?

      A    I was at our police office.

      Q    Could you tell the Court what were you doing at that time?

      A    I was doing some office works.

      Q    Particularly what did you do?

      A    I was entering into the police blotter the events which SPO4 Unabia and the rest of our police officers recovered from Tan-awan, Carcar, Cebu .

      Q    What events are you referring to?

PAGE 45
      A    Their returning from Tan-awan, Carcar, Cebu , where they recovered a fragmentation grenade from the vicinity of the cliff where the alleged dumping was recovered.

COURT: 
         
Where you found - - - what do you mean by vicinity?

      A    At Tan-awan, Carcar, Cebu - - -

COURT:
         
At the bottom of the cliff?

WITNESS:
      A    No, at the - - -  

COURT:
      Q    On top?

WITNESS:
      A    On top, Your Honor.

/to the prosecutor:
         
Proceed.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    You told the Court that recovered from the scene was a fragmentation grenade where there was dumping. What do you mean by “there was dumping”? Please enlighten the court?

WITNESS:
      A    There was - - - -

      Q    What was dumped?

      A    A female, a woman.

      Q    Dumped into a deep ravine?

      A    Yes, sir.

PAGE 46
PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    So, what did you enter into the blotter? Please tell the Court?

WITNESS:
      A    I entered their returning to the office and with the fragmentation grenade they recovered and I think that was all.

      Q    Do you have evidence to prove that you really entered into the blotter the events regarding what you told the Court the dumping of a woman into the ravine and the recovery of the fragmentation grenade?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    Do you have evidence?

      A    I have a police report, sir.

      Q    Please show it to the Court?

      A    It’s in my bag. (Witness taking from his bag a police report and showing to Prosecutor Duyongco).

PROS. DUYONGCO:
     
Witness is showing to this representation, Your Honor, a police report dated 17 September 1998, which is actually an extract of Police Blotter Entry No. 132; Page No. 648 of their Blotter, Your Honor, which I request to be marked as Exh. “NN”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.  

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
And the Entry, Your Honor, second paragraph stating “Team led by SP04 Unabia returned office from Tan-awan, Guadalupe, Carcar, Cebu, with one live fragmentation grenade, etc.,etc.,” be bracketed and marked as Exh. “NN-1”, Your Honor.

PAGE 47
COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
Now, this police report is issued by one CLEMENTE GESTA SANDIGAN, Police Superintendent. Do you know who is this Clemente Gesta Sandigan?

WITNESS:
      A    He is our present Chief of Police.

      Q    Do you recognize whose signature is this above the typewritten name CLEMENTE GESTA SANDIGAN?

      A    That’s SPO4 Unabia’s signature, sir. (Witness identifying the signature found at the bottom of Exh. “NN”).

      Q    Why is it that this was signed by SPO4 Unabia not by Police Superintendent Sandigan?

      A    Because he was authorized to sign in case our Chief of Police is not around being the Deputy.

      Q    Why do you say that this is the signature of Unabia?

      A    Because I saw him personally signing it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
     
May I request, Your Honor, that the signature of SPO4 Unabia above the typewritten name CLEMENTE GESTA SANDIGAN be bracketed and marked as Exh. “NN-2”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    Now, on the 22nd day of July 1997, could you recall where were you?

WITNESS:
      A    I was in our office in Carcar Police Station.

PAGE 48
PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    Could you tell the Court what was your tour of duty on that day?

WITNESS:
      A    From 8:00 in the morning until 5:00 in the afternoon.

      Q    Now, could you tell the Court what were your activities on that day, July 22, 1997?

      A    As usual I do some office works and about in the afternoon of the 22nd, the team from the Regional Mobile Group arrived at our office requesting for our assistance to go to Tan-awan, Guadalupe, Carcar, Cebu .

      Q    How many were they who went to your office?

      A    Seven (7).

      Q    Do you recall their names?

      A    Only their team leader.

      Q    Please tell the Court the name of the team leader?

      A    Yes, Inspector Martin Logan.

      Q    Considering that they requested from your office for assistance to go to Sitio Tan-awan, did you grant their request?

      A    SPO4 Unabia granted their request.

      Q    What did you do after that?

      A    Since I was called by our Officer-in-Charge at that time to go with them, I went with them to Tan-awan.

      Q    How many were you going to Sitio Tan-awan?

      A    About nine (9).

      Q    What mode of transportation did you take in going to Sitio Tan-awan from your headquarters, from your police station?

PAGE 49
WITNESS:
      A    I rode with my motorcycle.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    How about the other policemen, what transportation did they take?

      A    They rode with our patrol car.

      Q    In effect, did you reach Sitio Tan-awan?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    When you say Sitio Tan-awan, are you referring to Sitio Tan-awan, Guadalupe, Carcar, Cebu ?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    By the way, what was your purpose in going to Sitio Tan-awan?

      A    To search for more evidences.

      Q    About what time did you arrive at Sitio Tan-awan

      A    About 2:00 o’clock.

      Q    How long did you stay in Sitio Tan-awan?

      A    For almost three (3) hours.

      Q    By the way, where in particular in Sitio Tan-awan did you go to search for further evidence?

      A    At the cliff where the alleged dumping was told to us.

      Q    You said you were searching for evidence, did you find any?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    What evidence did you retrieve or recovered from the scene of the crime?

      A    First, I was able to recover a pair of rubber shoes black.

PAGE 50
PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    Where in particular did you recover the pair of rubber shoes?

WITNESS:
      A    At the garbage site near the cliff.

      Q    What was the color of that rubber shoes?

      A    Black.

      Q    Did you know the brand of that rubber shoes?

      A    I believed it’s “Converse”.

      Q      Aside from that pair of shoes, what else did you recover?

COURT/to the witness:
      Q    Was it ladies or men’s shoes?

      A    It’s unisex, Your Honor.

      Q    Unisex?

      A    Yes, Your Honor.

      Q    So, you do not know if it was ladies or men’s?

      A    No, Your Honor.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    What else did you recover if any?

      A    A black diskette.

      Q    Where?

      A    Below the railings near the cliff.

      Q    Who actually found that diskette?

      A    Myself, sir.

      Q    What else did you recover aside from those two (2)---

COURT:
         
What is that diskette?

PAGE 51
PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
Computer diskette, Your Honor. This is very material, Your Honor, because the diskette was submitted for examination and there was a thumbprint of accused Josman Aznar.

COURT:
         
There was a thumbprint?  

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. DEBALOCUS:
         
We object to that unnecessary manifestation, Your Honor.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
The Court is asking me, so I told the court.

COURT:
         
I am asking him what is the materiality of the diskette and he said there was a thumbprint, then they will prove that, which is admitted conditionally if they will prove it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
That’s why I am establishing, Your Honor.

ATTY. DEBALOCUS:
         
That’s why, Your Honor, we are objecting it because it is still the prosecution or the PNP Crime Laboratory who is still in the process of - - -
 

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
Well, I am giving advance information, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
We are admitting it conditionally that they have to present such proofs otherwise we will strike it out from the records if they cannot

PAGE 52
present such proofs later on. 

ATTY. DEBALOCUS:
         
The Rules, Your Honor, simply prohibits that kind of - - -

COURT:
         
No-- we can admit this conditionally. They will show the materiality or relevance later on, that is why it is conditionally admitted. But if they cannot, they fail to show the connection we will strike it out.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          I am taking exception to the word that phrase in the process of examining- it has long been examined. That was examined last year. That’s why I am giving advance information - 

COURT:
         
That is why we are admitting it conditionally but that has to be proven in Court.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
Yes, tomorrow. I will prove it tomorrow, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
Proceed.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    Aside from the diskette and the pair of rubber shoes which you yourself discovered or recovered from the crime scene, what else did you recover?

WITNESS:
      A    Nothing more.

      Q    After your search for evidence, what did you and your companions do?

PAGE 53
WITNESS: 

      A    We returned back to our police office and I recorded the events and the things that we recovered at the vicinity of the cliff at Tan-awan, Guadalupe, Carcar, Cebu .

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    In effect did you enter into the blotter upon your arrival on the 22nd day of July 1997 the recovery of those evidence particularly the diskette?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    Please scan the records and tell the Court and show it to the Court the recording of that evidence in your police blotter?

      A    It was recorded in Page No. 662, Entry No. 166 dated 221615H July 1997.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          I pray, Your Honor, that this police report be marked as our Exh. “OO” dated September 17, 1998. This is the date of the issuance.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
And this first paragraph, Your Honor, “This is to certify that according to what it appears in the Police Blotter of Carcar Police Office, Carcar, Cebu, Page No. 661, Entry No. 165 dated July 22, 1997, be bracketed and marked as Exh. “OO-1”

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
And the entries, Your Honor, regarding the recovery of black diskette marked 95S3 TRIO 64V with markings JB70305N02FC recovered at the crime scene and also the recovery of worn black 

PAGE 54
PROS. DUYONGCO  (CONTINUATION)

rubber shoes marked “Converse” when the left pair partially burned. This last entry be bracketed and marked as Exh. “OO-2”, Your Honor.

COURT:
          Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q   
After you entered into the blotter the recovery of these pieces of evidence, what did you do with these pieces of evidence?

WITNESS: 
      A    I placed them inside my locker and locked it.

      Q    You placed them inside your locker and locked it. What else did you do after you recovered these items?

      A    SP04 Unabia requested me to make a receipt for the said items to be turned over to the Provincial Police in Lahug, Cebu City .

      Q    By the way, why is it that you were taking instructions from SP04 Unabia at that time?

      A    Because he was our officer-in-charge.

      Q    Meaning the Chief of Police at that time?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    Did you comply with his Orders or instructions to prepare the receipt?

      A    I did, sir.

      Q    After you had prepared the receipt, what else did you do?

      A    Following morning I went back to the office and took out the rubber shoes, the diskette together with the grenade and the receipt and I went to the Provincial Police Office.

      Q    Do you have a record to that effect that you left your office in Carcar to proceed to the

PAGE 55
PROS. DUYONGCO  (CONTINUATION)
Provincial command to turn over the fragmentation grenade, the diskette and a pair of shoe?

WITNESS:
      A    I entered it in our police blotter upon my departure.

      Q    Please show to the Court the entry in your blotter about your departure on July 23, 1997 to the Cebu Provincial Command to turn over the above-mentioned items?

      A    It is here it’s dated 23083JH July 1997.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q   
I pray, You Honor, that this police report issued 17 September 1998 be marked as Exh. “PP”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          And the whole entry about his departure from Carcar to Cebu City to turn over the fragmentation grenade, the one (1) black Windows Computer diskette and a pair of worn-out rubber shoes be bracketed and marked as Exh. “PP-1”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    By the way, Mr. Sabala, I forgot to ask you a very important question regarding the signature above the typewritten name CLEMENTE GESTA SANDIGAN, JR. in Exh. “OO”, do you recognize whose signature is that?

WITNESS:
      A    SP04 Unabia’s signature, sir.

      Q    Why is it that the signature appearing on top the typewritten name of Clemente Gesta Sandigan

PAGE 56
PROS. DUYONGCO  (CONTINUATION)

is the signature of SP04 Unabia and not of Police Superintendent Clemente Gesta Sandigan?

WITNESS:
      A    It’s SP04 Unabia’s signature but the typewritten name is Police Superintendent Clemente Gesta Sandigan, Jr. who happens to be our Chief of Police.

      Q    Why is it that it was Unabia who signed in behalf of Sandigan?

      A    Since our Police Chief was not around and he was the one authorized to sign in behalf of Sandigan.

      Q    To abbreviate proceedings, is that also what happens to Exh. “PP” where there is a signature above the typewritten name of Sandigan?

      A    Yes, sir.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
     
I pray, Your Honor, that the signature of SP04 Unabia on top the typewritten name of CLEMENTE GESTA SANDIAGAN, JR. be bracketed and marked as Exh. “00-3”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    How did you know that that is the signature of Unabia?

WITNESS:
      A    I personally saw him when he signed it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    So with Exh. “PP” you were present when Unabia affixed his signature?

      A    Yes, sir.

PAGE 57
PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
I pray, that is also be bracketed, Your Honor, and marked as Exh. “PP-2”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO;
      Q    After being ordered or instructed by SP04 Unabia to turn over these evidences to Provincial Command, did you comply with that order?

WITNESS:
      A    Yes, sir, I did.

      Q    Do you have evidence to show that you actually delivered or turned over those pieces of evidence to the Provincial Command?

      A    Yes, sir, I have a receipt signed by the Personnel from the Provincial Police Office.

      Q    This was the receipt signed by SP01 Rene Rosalita. (Witness identifying a receipt dated July 23, 1997).

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          I pray, Your Honor, that this receipt dated July 23, 1997 be marked as Exh. “QQ”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q   
There is a signature above the typewritten name ARTURO UNABIA. Do you recognize that signature?

WITNESS:
      A    This is his signature. (Witness identifying the signature of Arturo Unabia).

PAGE 58
PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
I pray also, you Honor, that this signature of Unabia and above the typewritten name SP04 Unabia be also bracketed and marked as Exh. “QQ-1”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    Do you know who actually received these pieces of evidence Windows 95S3, I am referring to the diskette, the pair of black rubber shoes and a fragmentation grenade? Do you still remember who received those evidences?

WITNESS:
      A    It was SPO1 Rosalita.

      Q    Why do you say that?

      A    Because I personally talked to him and turned over it to him.

      Q    Do you have evidence to show that he actually received?

      A    Yes, his signature right here. (Witness referring to the signature of SPO1 Rosalita found in the receipt Exh. “QQ”.)

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
I pray, Your Honor, that the signature of SPO1 Rosalita and underneath is the date 23 July 1997 including the word Received by be bracketed and marked as Exh. “QQ-2”.  

COURT:
     
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    After you turned these over to SPO1 Rosalita, where did you go?

PAGE 59
      A    I went back to our office.

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

COURT:
         
Cross-examination of this witness is likewise deferred for the same reason as the other prosecution of witnesses. Alright, shall we continue today?

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
I still have one (1), Your Honor.

COURT:
          You still have one (1) witness?

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          Yes, Your Honor, very short.

COURT:
         
You still have three (3) days before September 24.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
I will present him tomorrow, Your Honor.  

COURT:
          The accused promised to hire their lawyers on or before September 24 to conduct cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. So, now it is only the 21st---
 

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
I will just present them tomorrow, Your Honor.

COURT:
          So, you have two (2) days more before they will be asked to conduct cross-exami-

PAGE 60
COURT:  (CONTINUATION)

nation.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:  

                   O R D E R

          At the continuation of the trial of these cases today, private prosecutor Atty. Honorato Hermosisima conducted direct-examination of the Editor of Cebu Daily News, Mr. Ivan Suansing. Thereafter, Atty. Hermosisima also conducted direct-examination of another prosecution witness Manuel Rodriguez, a photographer of Carcar, Cebu . Prosecutor Ramon Duyongco then conducted direct-examination of prosecution witnesses Dionisio Enad, Asst. Embalmer of Tupaz Funeral Homes of Carcar, Cebu and SPO1 Antonio Sabala, Jr., a policeman of Carcar Police Station, Carcar, Cebu .

          Cross-examination of said prosecution witnesses were 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 shall proceed as scheduled tomorrow at the same time.

SO ORDERED.

          Give in open Court, this 21st day of September 1998, at Cebu City , Philippines

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

PAGE 61

                                                                               CERTIFICATION

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

                                                                       (SGD) FARAH T. ABANGAN
                                                                               Court Stenographer 

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

COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS FROM THE WEBMASTER:
          The hearing commences with the Judge's insistence to present a witness not at all connected with the case at hand and filed in a higher court. The former counsels of the accused filed a case for inhibition against the Judge at the Court of Appeals alleging that the Judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct in "seeking personal vainglory by the publication of two (2) articles written by Ivan Suansing and published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Cebu Daily News. 
         
          Mr. Suansing was presented as a witness by private prosecutor Hermosisima without the presence of the lawyers that filed the case in the Court of Appeals. The PAO lawyers refused to cross-examine the witness claiming "
the Public Attorney's Office has no participation in the inhibition filed by the previous counsels". So much for the Speedy Trial Act.
          
          The prosecution presented their 14th witness (the 12th with the accused not being represented with lawyers of their own choice). This is only the third prosecution witness citing the heavy rains at that time. All the others presented so far were silent on this aspect. However, he contradicted the earlier witnesses and photographs presented in Court which he allegedly took,
by testifying that the masking tape "also wrapped around her mouth". The star witness also testified that masking tape were placed "around their mouths" (the two Chiong sisters).

          This witness was suppose to identify all the photographs taken at the ravine and at the funeral parlor. However, as I understand it from the above transcript, only Exh. "Z" and series and Exh. "BB" and series were presented to him to identify. Why? Furthermore, from page 20 of the above transcript, the witness testified that he went home after SPO4 Unabia ordered the body to be brought to the funeral parlor. If this is the case, who took the photographs taken at the funeral parlor, Exh. EE and Exh. FF?
In the previous hearing, SPO4 Unabia testified that all the pictures, including the ones at the funeral parlor were taken by the photographer. The next question, why were a total of only 7 pictures presented by the police in court.  It is standard practice by photographers to charge by the roll. What happened to the other pictures? Were the police hiding some evidence as questioned by Judge Ocampo in page 3 of his  Omnibus Order?  

          All these questions would have been answered if the prosecutors only presented the negatives of the photographs, as taken by the photographer. One might even venture to ask further, considering that most of the prosecution witnesses were either jeepney or tricycle drivers and Mr. Rodriquez's main occupation was a jeepney driver, was he really the photographer who took the pictures? Remember, in the previous Court hearing (page 23), Pros. Galanida, when ordered by the court to present the one who took these pictures, said "Yes, if he is still alive now, Your Honor, the one who took these pictures."  Why will she say if he is still alive, when the photographer presented in Court was only 44 years old when he testified? In a recent follow up in Carcar (2005) the alleged photographer presented by the police was said to be "close" to the policemen of that town.  Is he another police asset? Was he presented as the alleged photographer after the real photographer wouldn't cooperate with their charade? 

          The alleged embalmer of the body found in the ravine is also presented by the prosecution, their 15th; and the 13th witness to testify while the accused were not represented with lawyers of their own choice. The embalmer when interviewed recently (2005) by a foreign attorney investigating the case for a foreign group, mentioned that he wasn't aware of any police autopsy done in the funeral parlor in Carcar. (After this foreign interview, the embalmer was visited by the police and he has since refused any other interview.) This writer also doubts if there was any autopsy done by the police. (See Part 3). The embalmer identified the clothes presented by the prosecutor as to be the same clothes he took from the unidentified lady found in the ravine. On page 32, when asked, "Please stand up and tell the Court who is the owner of this torn t-shirt colored orange?", the embalmer answered "Marijoy Chiong". The court appointed defense lawyers never objected to the answer. How can he identify her as Marijoy Chiong when he never met her. 
          The only thing the pieces of clothing presented was to reinforce  that the body was not really Marijoy. First of all, the panty presented (EXH II), Photo D, identifies it as Large size. Marijoy couldn't be wearing large size panties (Marijoy Photo). She appears at the most, Medium size. 
          Second: The prosecutor never asked and not one of the  witnesses, on their own,  ever identified the kind of shoes the unidentified lady was wearing. This is very important since in the help-find ad of the Chiongs published in the newspapers, they mentioned that when last seen, Marijoy was wearing pearled
sandals. Not one of the pictures presented by the prosecutors in court showed the kind of shoes the lady was wearing. Could the black converse rubber shoes found belonged to the unidentified lady?
          Third: The witness identified the dead lady to have been wearing a
"garterized hair band" (Exh. KK). This particular piece of clothing was never mentioned in the help-find ad.  

          The 16th prosecution witness presented was SPO1 ANTONIO SABAL, JR., a policeman and a resident of Poblacion Carcar. He is the 14th witness presented in court while the accused was still not represented with lawyers of their own choice. He testified, that on July 22, 2006, he went with some policemen from the Regional Mobile Group to Tan-awan "to search for more evidences." He further testified that he found a pair of black rubber shoes and a black computer diskette. However, newspaper articles at that time printed a different story of the event.  They reported, "a joint Regional mobile group (RMG) 7 and Carcar police operatives combed the cliffs of Sitio Tan-awan, Barangay Guadalupe, Carcar after residents complained of a foul smell in the area". Not "to gather more evidences". 
          Also the newspapers added further; "Police found no body, except for a pair of old black rubber shoes which they brought along for examination". No computer diskette being found was ever reported by any of the newspapers at that time. (See Part 10 for more of this mysterious diskette.) 
         
In The Freeman's July 23, 1997, it was reported that a fragmentation grenade was also recovered, near the lifeless body. Contrary to the testimony of the witness that the grenade was found on top of the cliff.
          One more think that baffles this writer is the 2 affidavits presented by the witness in court in order to prove that a computer diskette was earlier found. Instead of actually presenting the police blotters and certified true copies of the pages concerned, he only  presented affidavits claiming that the statements were taken from the police blotter, (Exh. OO and Exh. PP.) Was it because the computer diskette was only "manufactured" and came in just before the trial date? Just adding it to the police blotter would surely have been noticed.

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

           HOME     INDEX      Next Trial Date