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"
and JAMS ANDREW Uy @ "MM",
                                           Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
                                                                                T R A N S C R I P T

                                                                                           of    the

                                                                 Stenographic notes taken before HON. 
                                                                 MARTIN A. OCAMPO, Presiding Judge of
                                                                 Branch 7, Regional Trial Court of Cebu 
                                                                 City, during the hearing on September 22, 
                                                                 1998
at 2:10 o'clock in the afternoon.
                                                                 

Present:
                                                                 HON. MARTIN A. OCAMPO
                                                                 Presiding Judge

ASSISTED BY:
                                                                  Mrs. Alicia L. Formentera
                                                                  Stenographer

                                                                   Mrs. Lucila C. Bajarias
                                                                   Interpreter

APPEARANCES:
                                                                   Prosecutor Primo C. Miro
                                                                   Prosecutor Cesar Estrera
                                                                   Prosecutor Teresita Galanida
                                                                   Prosecutor Ramon Jose Duyongco
                                                                   For the State
                                                                  
                                                                   Atty. Honorato Hermosisima
                                                                   Private Prosecutor)

                                                      Atty. Ferdinand Saornido                                                                         
                                                                   Appearing for accused Rusia

PAGE 2   
                                                                   Atty. Venustiano Ypil
                                                                  
Atty. Anacleto Debalucos
                                                                   Atty. John de Jesus
                                                                   PAO Lawyers  
                                                                  
Counsels de oficio for the
                                                                   rest of the accused

COURT:
          /TO COURT INTERPRETER
          Call the cases.

COURT INTERPRETER:    (Calling the cases)  
          PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PLAINTIFF versus FRANCISCO JUAN LARRANAGA alias PACO: 
JOSMAN AZNAR: ROWEN ADLAWAN alias WESLEY: ALBERTO CANO alias PAHAK: ARIEL BALANSAG: DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA alias DAVID FLORIDO alias TISOY TAGALOG: JAMES ANTHONY UY alias WANGWANG: and JAMS ANDREW Uy alias MM, Criminal Case Nos. CBU-45303 and CBU-45304 for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention. 

PROS. MIRO:
         
For the State, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
         
Respectfully appearing as private prosecutor, Your Honor, in collaboration with the Prosecutors.

ATTY. SAORNIDO:
         
Respectfully appearing as counsel for accused Rusia, Your Honor.

ATTY.  DEBALUCOS:
         
Respectfully appearing as counsel de oficio for the rest of the accused, Your Honor, in collaboration with Attys. de Jesus and Ypil.

COURT:
         
We want to know first if Rusia will be brought on Thursday for additional cross-examination. What shall we tell the CIG? So, we have to inquire from the accused. Will you be ready to cross-examine Rusia on the 24th, that is Thursday? If not, then we will not tell the CIG to bring him for additional cross-examination.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
         
Your Honor, please, about noon time today, Mr. Rusia himself called me up if he can have a tooth extraction because it was very painful because it’s swelling and thinking that we have still – how many more – we still have 6 more witnesses so there is a good chance that by Thursday Mr. Rusia even if he is still willing could not testify yet.

PAGE 3
PROS. GALANIDA:
         
About 8 more.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
         
8 more, in fact…

COURT:
         
You have 8 more witnesses to present?

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
         
Yes, but their testimonies would be quite short, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
So, the defense will not be ready to cross-examine Rusia anyway on Thursday.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
         
Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
Alright. So, we will just postpone that.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
         
Yes, Your Honor.

PROS. MIRO:
         
But other witnesses are available for cross-examination especially Mrs. Thelma Chiong because her cross-examination was also stopped.

COURT:
         
Alright. So let us ask the accused if they will have their counsels of their choice on Thursday to cross-examine – to begin cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.

ACCUSED LARRAÑAGA:
         
Your Honor, please, on the 24th we’ll have our lawyer already, Your Honor, but then I don’t know for sure he can be prepared for cross-examination because we also have to discuss everything, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
So, on the 24th, you will have your lawyer already?

ACCUSED LARRAÑAGA:
         
Yes, Your Honor, but then we’re not yet prepared for that---

PAGE 4
COURT:
         
Alright.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
What about the other accused, Your Honor, may we know also whether they will be ready with their respective counsel de parte?

COURT:
         
Yes. What about the other accused, Mr. Aznar, you will have your lawyer ready by Thursday?

ACCUSED AZNAR:
         
Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
Alright.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
How about Balansag and Caño, Your Honor?

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
And Adlawan.

ACCUSED BALANSAG, CAÑO AND ADLAWAN:
         
We are ready, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
On the 24th? Alright. The PAO lawyers will be the one to represent you. Alright. So, you will represent these 3 gentlemen because Atty. de la Cerna has left for abroad. I think he went to Canada.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
Your Honor, please, before City Prosecutor Miro will call on our next witness, our 17th witness, may I be allowed to manifest something for the record, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
Yes.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
Now, yesterday, Your Honor, we caused to be marked as our Exhibit “FF”, the orange t-shirt worn by Marijoy Chiong. However, when we reviewed our marked exhibits, we found out that we already have an Exhibit  “FF”. This is the picture of the dead body of Marijoy 

PAGE 5
PROS. GALANIDA:  (CONTIN
UATION)
taken at the Tupaz Funeral Parlor in Carcar, Cebu . In view of that, Your Honor, because there are now 2 Exhibit  FFs ”, we would like that the Exhibit  “FF” for the orange t-shirt yesterday, be remarked as our Exhibit “LL”.  So, the Exhibit “FF” is---

COURT:
         
Do you have an objection? Just a remarking of the exhibit.

ATTY. DEBALUCOS:
         
No objection.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
Is remarked as Exhibit “LL”.

COURT:
          Alright, remark it. Now, you may call your next witness, Fiscal.

PROS. MIRO:
          We will be presenting our 17th witness, Your Honor. His testimony will be part of our evidence in chief. He is Mr. Rene Rosalita.

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

PROS. MIRO:
          He will be presented by Prosecutor Ramon Jose Duyongco.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          The purpose in presenting this witness, Your Honor, is to establish that there was an unbroken chain of custody of the evidences recovered by the policeman from Carcar, I’m referring to the computer diskette, the hand grenade and the pair of rubber shoes; this witness will prove that sometime on the 23rd of July, 1997, he received from Policeman Sabala who testified yesterday, the above-mentioned pieces of evidence and thereafter, this witness turned over those evidences to the CIG, Criminal Investigation Group the following day, July 24, 1997; he will testify on some other material and relevant matters and other preliminary matters in amplification of the above-mentioned purposes.

COURT:
          Swear the witness.

PAGE 6
COURT INTERPRETER TO WITNESS:
          Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this hearing?

WITNESS: 
          I do.

COURT INTERPRETER TO WITNESS:
           
          Please state your name, age, civil status, and other personal circumstances.

WITNESS:
          Rene Rosalita, 41 years old, married, a Policeman, and a resident of Dakit, Bogo, Cebu .

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

COURT:
          Proceed.

ATTY. DE JESUS:
          Your Honor, please, before we proceed, may we be allowed to manifest for the record our observation of yesterday’s hearing that this witness, Your Honor, was present and was inside in the courtroom when all of the witnesses were presented yesterday, and therefore, we would like that this Honorable Court would reprimand the prosecution in not telling honestly to this Honorable Court when we moved for the exclusion of other witnesses and they said they do not have any other witnesses present . . .

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          Firstly, Your Honor, I did not hear the defense asking for the exclusion of other prosecution witnesses; secondly, I did not notice that this witness was around when I presented the embalmer and the policeman from Carcar, Sabala. If he was ever present yesterday, that was not to our knowledge and consent.

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

COURT:
          Yes.

COURT INTERPRETER TO WITNESS:

COURT INTERPRETER TO WITNESS:
          Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this hearing?

WITNESS:
          I do.

COURT INTERPRETER TO WITNESS:
          Please state your name, age, civil status, and other personal circumstances.

WITNESS:
          Rene Rosalita, 41 years old, married, a Policeman, and a resident of Dakit, Bogo, Cebu .

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

COURT:
          Proceed.

ATTY. DE JESUS:
          Your Honor, please, before we proceed, may we be allowed to manifest for the record our observation of yesterday’s hearing that this witness, Your Honor, was present and was inside in the courtroom when all of the witnesses were presented yesterday, and therefore, we would like that this Honorable Court would reprimand the prosecution in not telling honestly to this Honorable Court when we moved for the exclusion of other witnesses and they said they do not have any other witnesses present…

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          Firstly, Your Honor, I did not hear the defense asking for the exclusion of other prosecution witnesses; secondly, I did not notice that this witness was around when I presented the embalmer and the policeman from Carcar, Sabala. If he was ever present yesterday that was not to our knowledge and consent.

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

COURT:
          Yes.

PAGE 7
PROS. GALANIDA:
          Yesterday, I was the one who answered because there was a question from the defense whether there was another prosecution witness. I was the one who stated we had and I was referring to Inspector Edgardo Lenizo and he was really in the staff room. I did not even know about this witness that he came so when I said yesterday that we had one available witness but he was in the staff room, I was referring to Inspector Lenizo because I was really ready to present him yesterday afternoon.

COURT:
          Well, the records will show now that this witness was present and . . .

COURT:
          You were outside?

WITNESS:
          Yes, I was outside?

COURT:
          During the testimonies of the witnesses?

WITNESS:
          Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
          While testimonies were being given?

WITNESS:
          Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
          He was outside.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          And if ever he was present, Your Honor, during the presentation of the embalmer, it has nothing to do with his testimony today because any witness could listen to the testimony of the embalmer and it has no bearing on other matters . . .

PAGE 8
COURT:
          Alright. So, the manifestation of the defense is now placed on record and whether or not it is damaging, well, it depends on the appreciation later by the Court. Now, if his testimony is not very important, I don’t think there is suppose to---

ATTY. DE JESUS:
          Thank you, Your Honor. May we therefore would like to further verify or inquire from the prosecution whether the other witnesses intended to be presented, Your Honor, are in this courtroom. May we know their specific names, Your Honor?

PROS. GALANIDA:
          Yes.

ATTY. DE JESUS:
           In order not for this incident to happen again, Your Honor.

PROS. MIRO:
          So, for the benefit of the counsels for the accused, we will be presenting today. Apart from Rene Rosalita, we have Alexis Elpusan, we have Capt. Ariston Era, We have Inspector Edgardo Lenizo, we have Dr. Nestor Sator. In this order, Your Honor, we will be presenting these 5 witnesses today.

PROS. GALANIDA:
          May we also state for the record, Your Honor, that the names as read by City Prosecutor Miro these persons concerned, are already outside of this courtroom. They are there in the Staff room.

ATTY. DE JESUS:
          Thank you, Your Honor.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          May I now proceed, Your Honor.

COURT:
          Yes.

                                                                     DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY
                                                             PROS. RAMON JOSE DUYONGCO

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

      A    15 years and 8 months.

PAGE 9
      Q    Where are you presently assigned as a policeman?

      A    I am presently assigned in the Intelligence and Investigation Branch, Cebu Provincial Police Office.

      Q    How long have been assigned there as a policeman?

      A    I’ve been assigned there for about 5 years.

      Q    Since when if you can recall?

      A    Since September, 1993.

      Q    Continuously up to the present time?

      A    Yes, Sir.

      Q    On the 23rd of July, 1997, could you recall where were you?

      A    I was in our office reporting for work.

      Q    Could you tell us your tour of duty on that day?

      A    My tour of duty was from 8:00 o’clock in the morning to 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon.

      Q    By the way, you said that you reported for work and your tour of duty was from 8:00 o’clock to 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon. What office are you referring to?

      A    I’m referring to the Intelligence and Investigation Branch, Cebu Provincial Police Office.

      Q    Where is that situated?

      A    At Barangay Apas, Cebu City.

      Q    In the afternoon of 23 July, 1997 at about 2:30 o’clock in the afternoon, could you recall where were you?

      A    I was in our office.

      Q    At about that time, could you recall what were you doing in your office?

      A    I was doing my usual work.

      Q    Could you recall if you met or talk to anybody about that time?

      A    Yes, I recalled.

      Q    Please tell the Court who was that person with whom you had a conversation?

      A    SP02 Elpusan came to our office looking for our Chief Intelligence and Investigation Officer by the name of Senior Inspector Patrocinio Comandador.

PAGE 10
      Q    Did you know what was the purpose of Policeman Elpusan in going to your office?

      A    At that time, I did not know.

      Q    Later on, did you come to know?

      A    Yes Sir.

      Q    What was her purpose?

      A    To get the evidences which were recovered in Carcar.

      Q    How did you know that there were evidences recovered from Carcar?

      A    It was SP01 Sabala who turned over the evidences and it was received by me.

      Q    When did you receive?

      A     I received it on July 23, 1997.

      Q    Could you recall what were those evidences you received on 23 July 1997?

      A    I received the following items: one (1) computer diskette; one (1) fragmentation grenade; and one (1) pair of shoes.

      Q    Now, going back to that time about 2:30 o’clock in the afternoon of 24 July, 1997 wherein you told the Court that a policeman by the name of Elpusan went to your office looking for your officer. What transpired after that?

      A    Major – Police Senior Inspector Comendador, our Chief Intelligence and Investigation Officer, instructed me to turn over to SP01 Elpusan, the CIG representative.

      Q    What are those things you have to turn over to Elpusan?

      A    The diskette, the fragmentation grenade and one pair of shoes.

      Q    In effect, did you turn over to Elpusan?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    Do you have any evidence to show to this Court that you actually delivered those evidence to Elpusan?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    I’ll show you this receipt. Please tell the Court what relation has that receipt to the one you issued or prepared to be signed by Elpusan?

      A    Yes, this is the one, sir. (Witness examined and identified Receipt dated July 24, 1997 signed by Mario Llanto Potot, Superintendent and received by Alexis Elpusan)

PAGE 11
PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
I pray, Your Honor, that this Receipt dated 24 July, 1997, be marked as Exhibit “RR”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
     
Q    There is a signature above the typewritten name Mario Llanto Potot, Police Supt., Prov’l. Director. Do you recognize whose signature is that?

      A    Yes, this is the signature of our Chief Intelligence and Investigation Officer. (Witness identified the signature of Mario Llanto Potot appearing at the bottom of Exhibit “RR”)

      Q    Are you telling the Court that Mario Potot is the Intelligence Officer of your office?

      A    No, sir.

      Q    Who is the Intelligence Officer of your office?

      A    Police Senior Inspector Patrocinio Comendador.

      Q    And why is it that he signed this above the typewritten name Mario Llanto Potot?

      A    He has the authority, sir. He was authorized to sign that receipt.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
I pray, Your Honor, that the signature of Police Sr. Insp. Patrocinio Comendador over the typewritten name Mario Llanto Potot in behalf of Mario Potot, be bracketed and marked as Exh. “RR-1”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
     
Q    Now, under the column Received the following items are the words SPO1 Alexis A. Elpusan. Do you know who wrote those entries including the date and time?

      A    Yes, sir, this is the one who received the items. (Witness identified the signature of SPO1 Alexis Elpusan appearing on the left portion of Exhibit “RR”).

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
I pray, Your Honor, that the signature evidencing 

PAGE 12
receipt of the above-mentioned items of SPO1 Alexis Elpusan including the date 24 1430H July 1997, be likewise bracketed and marked as Exh. "RR-2" .

COURT:
         
Mark it.

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

COURT:
         
Cross-examination of this witness is likewise deferred for the same reason. Thank you, Officer. Call your next witness.

PROS. MIRO:
         
Our 18th witness, Your Honor, is Alexis Elpusan. Her testimony will be part of our evidence in chief.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
May I state the purpose, Your Honor?

COURT:
         
Yes, state the purpose.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
The purpose in presenting the next witness, Your Honor, is also to prove that there was an unbroken chain of custody of the evidences particularly the computer diskette, the fragmentation grenade, the pair of shoes; and this witness will testify to prove that on the 24th of July, 1997 he received from Rene Rosalita those evidences I have just mentioned from the Provincial Police.

COURT:
         
Swear the witness.

COURT INTERPRETER TO WITNESS:
         
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this hearing?

WITNESS:
         
I do.

COURT INTERPRETER TO WITNESS:
         
Please state your name, age, civil status, and other personal circumstances.

PAGE 13
WITNESS:
         
SPO1 Alexis Elpusan, 43 yeas old, married, PNP/CIG, and a resident of Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
May it please this Honorable Court?

COURT:
         
Proceed.  

                                                                    DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY
                                                             PROS. RAMON JOSE DUYONGCO

      Q    SPO1 Elpusan, you just told the Court that you are a policewoman. How long have you been a policewoman?

      A    I have been a policewoman for almost 7 years now.

      Q    How long have you been assigned at the CIG or Criminal Investigation Group?

      A    I have been assigned for 20 years.

      Q    Would you please enlighten the Court because you have been assigned there for 20 years and you just told the Court that you have been a policewoman for about 7 years?

      A    The defunct Philippine Constabulary, I was assigned as intelligence agent of that PC assigned at the Criminal Investigation Service for 13 years. When the PNP was absorbed, I was absorbed into PNP uniform component with a rank of Senior Police Officer I.

      Q    On July 24, 1997, could you recall where were you?

      A    I was at the office of the CIG.

      Q    What was your tour of duty on that day?

      A    From 8:00 o’clock in the morning up to 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon.

      Q    About 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of that date July 24, 1997, could you recall where were you?

       A    I was in the office and then I was instructed by our Regional Officer, Superintendent Napoleon Estilles to proceed to the Cebu Provincial Police Office at Barangay Apas, Cebu City.

      Q    Now, what was your purpose in going to the Police Provincial Office at Barangay Apas?

      A    He instructed me to get the evidence that was found at the crime scene.  

PAGE 14
     
Q    When you said Barangay Apas, where I that located?

      A    Apas, sir. 

      Q    Where is that located, Barangay Apas?

      A    Lahug.

      Q    Cebu City?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    When you said that to get the evidence recovered from the crime scene. What crime are you talking about?

      A    Regarding the Chiong abduction case.

      Q    In effect, did you follow the order or instruction of Superintendent Estilles?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    What did you do after you were instructed?

      A    I proceeded to their office and then I talked to Police Senior Inspector Patrocinio Comendador who was then the Chief of the Intelligence Division and he told me further that the evidence is now ready for pick up. So, I met SPO1 Rosalita and he gave me the evidence.

      Q    Were you alone in going to the Provincial Police Office?

      A    I was in company with PO3 Rene Kyamko.

      Q    Now, when you met SPO1 Rosalita at the office of Police Officer Comendador, what transpired?

      A    Rosalita presented to me the 3 evidences, the computer diskette, windows 95, fragmentation grenade, and the pair of black rubber shoes.

      Q    So what did you do after it was presented to you?

      A    I examined the one that was in his receipt and the one being presented to me.

      Q    What do you mean by examined the one in the receipt and the one being presented to you? Please elaborate and enlighten the Court?

      A    I examined first the evidences whether it will tally with the receipt which I was about to receive.

      Q    So, what were you going to compare?

      A    The actual evidence compared to the one that was written in the receipt.

PAGE 15
      Q    Very good. After you have just compared the evidences presented to you and the receipt, what transpired next?

      A    After that, I received the evidences.

      Q    Were the documents evidencing the turnover of those evidences?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    I will show you a document marked already as Exh. “RR”. Please tell the Court what relation has that document to the one that was prepared and the document the transfer of the evidence?

      A    This is the receipt which I received from the Cebu Provincial Office from the person of SPO1 Rosalita. (Witness examined and identified Exh. “RR” and series)

      Q    There is a signature after the words Received the following items. Do you recognize whose signature is that?

      A    That is my own signature.

      Q    Now, after you received those evidences and signed this receipt, what else did you do?

      A    After I received the evidences, I proceeded to our office and there I informed our Regional Officer that these are the evidences I took from the Provincial Office.

      Q    After you informed your superior, what was his reply if there was any?

      A    He told me to keep all the evidences in our evidence room for safekeeping.

      Q    So, what did you do after you were instructed to do so?

      A    I placed all the 3 evidences in the evidence room. I locked it properly.

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

COURT:
         
The cross-examination of this witness is likewise differed. Next witness.

PROS. MIRO:
         
We will continue with the presentation of our witnesses, Your Honor. We will be presenting our 19th witness in the person of Capt. Ariston Era.  

PAGE 16
COURT:
         
State the purpose.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
Thank you, Your Honor. This witness, Your Honor, is presented to prove that these evidences recovered from the crime scene in Carcar I’m referring to the fragmentation grenade, the computer diskette, and the pair of black shoes were turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory for determination whether there were fingerprint impression and if there were fingerprint impressions to determine whose fingerprints were they; and that, he will testify that he was the one who personally delivered these object evidence to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination and these were duly received by PNP Insp. Edgardo Lenizo; and he will testify on other matters relevant to this case.

COURT:
         
Swear the witness.

COURT INTERPRETER TO WITNESS:
          Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this hearing?

WITNESS:
         
I do.

COURT INTERPRETER TO WITNESS:
          Please state your name, age, civil status, and other personal circumstances.

WITNESS:
         
Police Inspector Ariston Era, 55 years old, married, PNP member, and a resident of CIG Office at Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City.

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

COURT:
         
Proceed.

ATTY. DE JESUS:
         
Your Honor, please, we would like to manifest for the record, Your Honor, that this witness now about to testify has been in this courtroom for the past days when this case was called for hearing and we would just like to put that on record, Your Honor.

PAGE 17
COURT:
         
What do you say to that?

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
Well, Your Honor, during the testimony of accused, prosecution witness Davidson Valiente Rusia, this witness was one of the escorts in fact he is sometimes the team leader of the escorts and he is also sent here by the Director of the Criminal Investigation Group to coordinate with us in whatever evidence we need in the proper prosecution of this case because for the record, Your Honor, the Criminal Investigation Group is the lead agency in the investigation of this case, the Chiong case. So, it is just imperative that a representative from the CIG would always be around to coordinate with the prosecution in the prosecution of this case.

ATTY. DE JESUS:
         
Your Honor, please, may we just inquire from the prosecution whether when did they decide to have this witness now presented as a witness?   

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
Well, in my case, Your Honor, I just decided yesterday knowing that- after knowing that he was the one who turned over these evidences to the PNP Crime Laboratory and that’s all. With regard to other testimonies of the witnesses, the eyewitnesses accounts he has nothing to do, Your Honor, and his testimony has no bearing in the testimony of other witnesses.

COURT:
         
Alright, the explanation is in the record and it depends on the importance of the testimony of the witness whether that will affect his credibility- the fact of his having been present during the earlier part of the trial of this case. You may proceed.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          Thank you, Your Honor.

ATTY. DE JESUS:
         
We submit, Your Honor.

                                                                       DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY  
                                                                PROS. RAMON JOSE DUYONGCO  

      Q    Inspector Ariston Era, you just told the Court that you are a member of the PNP meaning Philippine National Police. How long have you been a member of the Philippine National Police?

PAGE 18      
      A    Well, in the PNP, if I remembered it right, that was effective 1991. That was with the PNP alone.

      Q    Before you join the PNP, what was your job?

      A    I was formerly enlisted in the Philippine Army on 31 October 1966 and after which I was transferred to the Philippine Constabulary sometime in 1972.

      Q    So, how long have you been in the government service as a policeman in the Philippine Constabulary or Philippine Army member?

      A    By 31 October 1998, I would be 32 years in the service.

      Q    Now, as a member of the Criminal Investigation Group, how long have you been assigned there?

      A    With the Criminal Investigation Group which was then the Criminal Investigation Service, I have been assigned since 1976.

      Q    Continuously up to the present?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    On October 3, 1997,could you recall where were you?

      A    I was in our office, sir.

      Q    What were you doing in your office at that time?

      A    I was doing my routinary work, sir.

      Q   Are you telling the Court that you reported for duty on that day?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    What was your tour of duty on that day?

      A    Well, our tour of duty in the office is from 8:00 o’clock to 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon.

      Q    In the morning of that day October 3, 1997 about 10:00 o’clock in the morning, could you recall where were you?

      A    I was in the office, sir.

      Q    Could you recall if you had a conversation with anybody in your life?

      A    I was ordered by Col. Estilles to contact Alexis Elpusan to prepare the fragmentation grenade, the diskette and the pair of rubber shoes which should be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination.

PAGE 19
      Q    After you were instructed by Col. Estilles to submit all those evidences you have mentioned to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination, what did you do?

     A    I prepared a request addressed to the PNP Crime Laboratory.

     Q    About that time did you prepare the document?

      A    About 11:30 in the morning thereof.

      Q    After you prepared the necessary document for the examination of those evidences, what else did you do?

      A    I went to the office of Col. Estilles and have it signed by him.

      Q    Do you have a copy of the receipt?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    Please show it to the Court.

      A    (Witness showing to the prosecutor a receipt dated October 3, 1997)

      Q    You told the Court that after you prepared a receipt you went to the office of Col. Estilles to have this signed. Did Estilles actually sign this document?

      A    Yes, sir.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
May I pray, Your Honor, that this documents which is a Memorandum for Chief PNP CLS RU7, Subject: Comparative Examination for fingerprint impressions; Request for, Date October 3, 1997, be marked as Exh. “SS”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
      Q    Now, there is a signature above the typewritten name Napoleon Romero Estilles. Do you recognize whose signature is that?

      A    This is the very signature of Col. Estilles, sir.

      Q    Why do you say so?

      A    Because he signed the name in my presence.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
I pray that this be marked as Exh. “SS-1”, Your Honor.

PAGE 20
COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO:

      Q    After Col. Estilles had signed this document, what else did you do?

      A    I again contacted Sgt. Alexis Elpusan that after lunch she will accompany me and deliver the fragmentation grenade, the diskette and a pair of rubber shoes to the PNP Crime Laboratory.

      Q    Thereafter, what else did you do?

      A    At about 1:30, Alexis Elpusan accompanied me and brought along with her the fragmentation grenade, the diskette and the pair of rubber shoes for turn over to the PNP Crime Laboratory.

      Q    By the way, where is the office of the PNP Crime Laboratory located?

      A    It is about 20 meters more or less from our office.

      Q    Where is it particularly situated?

      A    Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City.

      Q    Are you telling this Court that your Office is also situated inside Camp Sotero Cabahug?

      A    Yes, sir.

     Q    What means of transportation did you take from your office to the PNP Crime Laboratory?

      A    By foot.

      Q    In effect, did you arrive at the office of the PNP Crime Laboratory?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    What transpired when you reached there?

      A    It was received by Police Inspector Edgardo Lenizo at exactly 1:30 in the afternoon of 3 October, 1997.

      Q    Do you know personally this Police Inspector Edgardo Lenizo?

      A    Yes, sir.

      Q    Do you know where is this police officer assigned?

      A    He is assigned with the PNP Crime Laboratory, sir.

      Q    Now, you told the Court that the evidence were personally 

PAGE 21
received by Police Inspector Edgardo Lenizo. Could you please point to this document his name or signature showing that he actually received it?

      A    (Witness pointing to the name appearing at the bottom left portion of Exh. “SS” the name of Edgardo Lenizo)

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
I pray, Your Honor, that the rubber stamped impression Received 2 October, 97, Police Inspector Edgardo D. Lenizo, Received by, then Police Inspector Ariston Era, Delivered by, be bracketed and marked as Exh. “SS-2”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
      Q
    Could you just enlighten the Court why it was only in October, 1997 that these evidences you just mentioned were turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory?

      A    Of course, on 24 July 1997, the date when Alexis Elpusan received the fragmentation grenade, the diskette and the pair of rubber shoes were received, it did not occur into our minds that there were or there could be possible fingerprints on the questioned times.

      Q    And why is it that it was only on October 3, 1997 that you decided to turn these over to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination?

      A    Because by that time the suspects were already arrested and fingerprinted.

      Q    And so what if they were arrested and fingerprinted?

      A    So, Col. Estilles made up his mind that there might be out of curiosity, there might be possible fingerprint impressions on the fragmentation grenade, the diskette and the pair of shoes so he ordered me to submit it to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
         
That would be all for the witness, Your Honor. Thank you, Inspector Era.

COURT:
         
Thank you, Inspector.

WITNESS:
         
Thank you, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
Cross-examination is likewise deferred for the same reason. Next witness.

PAGE 22
PROS. MIRO:
         
We will be presenting our 20th witness whose testimony will be part of our evidence in chief, he is in the person of Inspector Edgardo Lenizo. He will be presented by Prosecutor Teresita Galanida.

COURT:
         
State the purpose.

PROS. GALANIDA: 
        
Yes, Your Honor. Inspector Edgardo Lenizo is presented, Your Honor, in order to testify that he is a duly licensed Criminologist after having passed the first government board examination for Criminology sometime in 1988; that he is presently the head of the Fingerprint Identification Branch of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Regional Office 7, Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City; he will testify that in the morning of July 20, 1997 while he was in his office whose address has already been stated on the record, somebody, a personnel from the Provincial Command came and personally delivered to him a written request of Provincial Director Manuel Potot relative to the fingerprint examination of the dead body which was recovered at the foot of the cliff or very deep ravine at Sitio Tan-awan, Carcar, Cebu; that attached to the written request was the Voter’s Registration Record of victim Marijoy Chiong; he will testify that  after receipt of that written request and the attached specimen, he, together with Dr. Nestor Sator, Dr. Langcanon and other police officers, immediately went and proceeded to the Tupas Funeral Parlor in Carcar, Cebu; that arriving thereat, he requested Dr. Sator to slice off a skin tissue on the right and left thumb of the dead body; he will testify what transpired in the Tupaz Funeral Parlor thereafter; he will also testify that upon a thorough examination of the skin tissue that was sliced off from the right and left thumb of the dead woman in Tupaz Funeral Parlor, he found out that the impression on the right thumbprint of the dead body perfectly matched with the impression of the right thumbprint found on the Voter’s Registration Record of victim Marijoy Chiong; he will also testify that he conducted a fingerprint examination on the packaging tape which was removed wound around the face, head and neck of the victim Marijoy Chiong when found at the foot of the cliff in Carcar; he will testify that the fingerprints in the adhesive part of the packaging tape was destroyed because the packaging tape was already crumpled; he will also testify that he was the one who conducted a fingerprint examination on the computer diskette which was one among the articles which were found during the crime scene search at Sitio Tan-awan, Carcar, Cebu; he will testify that the impression on the latent print which he lifted from the computer 

PAGE 23
diskette perfectly matched with the specimen, the left thumbprint of accused Josman Aznar; he will also testify, Your Honor, on preliminary matters and on other matters related to the purpose already cited.

COURT:
         
Swear the witness.

COURT INTERPRETER TO WITNESS:
         
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this hearing?

WITNESS:
         
I do.

COURT INTERPRETER TO WITNESS:
         
Please state your name, age, civil status, and other personal circumstances.

WITNESS:
         
Police Inspector Edgardo Delostrico Lenizo, 38 years old, married, Police Officer, and a resident of 133 Natalio Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City.

COURT:
         
You may proceed, Fiscal.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May it please this Honorable Court? Before propounding direct-examination questions to the witness, Your Honor, may I ask the defense panel if they can stipulate that this witness will testify as an expert witness?

ATTY. YPIL:
         
We will not admit the qualification of this witness, Your Honor. You qualify the witness first.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
Okay, in that case, Your Honor, I will establish his qualifications.

                                                                  DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY 
                                                                PROS. TERESITA GALANIDA  
      
      Q    Now, Inspector Lenizo, may we know what is your highest educational attainment?

      A    I am a graduate of the Bachelor of Laws.

      Q    From what university?

 PAGE 24
      A    at the University of the Visayas.

      Q    When did you finish your law course from the University of the Visayas?

      A    I finished my law course in 1993.

      Q    Alright. Before you pursued your law studies, may we know what preparatory course did you finish?

      A    I finished also Bachelor of Science in Criminology.

      Q    From what school did you obtain your degree?

      A    In the same university.

      Q    When was it that you finished your B.S. in Criminology?

      A    That was in year 1981.

      Q    After graduation with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Criminology, may we know whether you had taken any government board examination?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

      Q    What kind of government board examination?

      A    I took the first Criminology Board Examination.

      Q    When was it that you took the first Criminology Board Examination?

      A    That was in the year 1988, April.

      Q    Did you successfully hurdle said examination?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

      Q    After successfully passing the said examination, did you take the oath of your profession?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

      Q    Before you took that government board examination in Criminology sometime in 1988, were you already employed?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

      Q    Where were you employed?

      A    I was already connected with the Philippine National Police.

      Q    Since when have you been connected with the PNP?

      A    Since June 16 of 1986.

      Q    Continuously up to the present?

PAGE 25
      A    Continuously up to the present, yes ma’am.

      Q    So, after you became a duly licensed Criminologist because you said you passed that first government board examination for Criminology and you had taken the oath of your profession, may we know where you were assigned?

      A    I was assigned then at the Cebu City Police Station.

      Q    What year was it?

      A    That was in the year 1987.

      Q    Alright. You said that you were assigned at the?

      A    Cebu City Police Station.

      Q    Cebu City Police Station. How long have you been assigned at the Cebu City Police Station?

      A    From the time I entered in the police service in 1986 up to the time in 1991.

      Q    So, in 1991, where were you assigned then?

      A    In 1991, I was transferred to the National Headquarters PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City.

      Q    You said you were transferred to the PNP National Headquarters particularly the PNP Crime Laboratory. How long were you assigned there?

      A    I was assigned for more than a year.

      Q    In your assignment there at PNP National Headquarters at Camp Crame particularly at the PNP Crime Laboratory, what were your functions, if any?

      A    I was then required to undergo an on the job training for about a year and I was also assigned as to examine fingerprint examinations.

      Q    You said that while there in Camp Crame, you were there actually, you underwent an on the job training and you performed fingerprint examinations. In your more than a year stint at the PNP Headquarters in Camp Crame, can you tell this Honorable Court how many fingerprint examinations had you conducted?

      A    I conducted 500 cases of fingerprint examinations that is equivalent to 500 people with fingerprint records that I have examined.

      Q    Okay. Out of these 500 fingerprint examinations that you did, how many fingerprint examinations were performed on a dead body?

      A    For about 30.

PAGE 26
      Q    After you being assigned there to undergo an on the job training at the PNP National Headquarters more particularly in the Crime Laboratory, where were you assigned next?

      A    I was transferred - no. I was required to undergo Officers Basic Course at the Silang, Cavite.

      Q    When was it if you can recall when you underwent that Officer’s Basic Course Silang,Cavite?

      A    That was on October 1, 1993.

      Q    How long did that Officer’s Basic Course last?

      A    It was 5 months.

      Q    In the 5-month period that you underwent that Officer’s Basic Course, what subjects, if any, had you taken then?

      A    Law Enforcement and Fingerprint Courses.

      Q    After you completed the Officer’s Basic Course at Silang, Cavite, where were you assigned then?

      A    I was transferred back to Cebu City at the Regional Crime Laboratory Office located at Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City.

      Q    So, when you were transferred at the Cebu City PNP Regional Crime Laboratory, what year was it if you can recall?

      A    That was November 10, 1994.

      Q    And what was the position you were holding when you were transferred at the PNP Crime Laboratory Regional Office 7?

      A    I was designated as the head of the Fingerprint Identification Branch of that office until the present time.

      Q    Alright. Now, you said that until the present time you are designated as the head of the Fingerprint Identification Branch of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Did Regional Office 7. May we know what is your main function there as the head of that office?

      A    My main function is personal identification.

      Q    Considering that you are duly licensed Criminologist at the same time you are holding the position as the head of the Identification Branch of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Regional Office 7. May we know whether you still have other part time job?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

PAGE 27
      Q    Can you tell the Honorable Court what is that part time job?

      A    I am presently a college professor at the University of the Visayas, Cebu City teaching Criminology subjects.

      Q    What particular Criminology subjects are you teaching at the University of the Visayas?

      A    One of which is Personal Identification, in other words, Finger Print Course.

      Q    Now, you said that this is your part time job. What time do you teach at the University of the Visayas handling these Criminology subjects particularly mentioning Personal Identification?

      A    Right after office hours, ma’am. That is 5:00 o’clock already, after 5:00 o’clock.

      Q    You mean right after 5:00 o’clock when you will be off from your office at the PNP Crime Lab?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

      Q    Now, with your expertise as having declared by you before this Honorable Court with the fact that you are a duly licensed Criminologist at the same time with the training that you had undergone and the fact that you are also teaching Criminology subjects in the University Of the Visayas more particularly Personal Identification, can you tell this Honorable Court what are the ways of Personal Identification?

      A    There are several ways of Personal Identification especially in identifying a person. No. 1, is by means of tattooing. That is bodily designs and symbols. Another is, scarifications.

      Q    What- come again?

      A    Scarification. That is making scars on the body by means of mutilations. Another is personal description. That is with the use of recognition and observations. Another is a photograph. That is with the use of a camera. Those are the ways of identification methods. But the most positive means of personal identification is by the use of fingerprints.

      Q    Now, you said that the most positive means of identification is by the use of fingerprints. Can you tell this Honorable Court what is your basis in saying that fingerprint examination is the most positive and conclusive way of identifying a person?

      A    Yes, ma’am, because there are 3 principles involved in the science of fingerprints. No.1 is individuality. Individuality, it follows with the natural law of variations. Meaning, no 2 persons of the same finger-

PAGE 28
prints have found to have alike. In other others, fingerprints of the 2 persons even with regards to his own 10 fingers have never found to be exactly alike in all aspects. Twins, triplets, quadruplets and even quintuplets have never found to have the same fingerprints. And the second one is the principle of permanency.

      Q    Can you tell this Honorable Court what is that so-called principle of permanency?

      A    The principle of permanency is that fingerprints have said to have been formed during the third embryonic period or the third month of pregnancy and that these fingerprints will ever remain the same during his lifetime and will continue to be the same after his death unless his body or his flesh and body have fallen away. And the third principle is the principle of infallibility. Meaning, this principle involves that it cannot be forged, it cannot be altered, it cannot be changed, it cannot be copied in many ways and those are the 3 principles of fingerprints which I have established the basis that the fingerprint is the most and positive means to conclude that there are no 2 persons of the same type.

      Q    Alright. You just testified that one of the principles in fingerprint examination, which you said makes it the most positive means of identification is permanency and you just also stated for the record that the fingerprint of a person will remain the same from the third month of pregnancy even until after the death of the said person. Now, my question Mr. Witness is this- Supposing a dead person’s body is exposed to sun or is exposed to water, would it not affect his fingerprints after death?

      A    Definitely it could not affect, ma’am.

      Q    Now, can you tell this Honorable Court where were you in the morning of July 20, 1997?

      A    I was in my office reporting for work.

      Q    When you mentioned your office, where is your office located?

      A    Located at Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City.

      Q    While you were in your office at Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City, what happened that morning of July 20, 1997?

      A    A certain SPO2, SPO2 rather- SPO2 Rosalita arrived and delivered a letter-request signed by Senior Superintendent Mario Potot, the then incumbent Cebu Police Provincial Office.

      Q    Now, what was that letter-request about, that letter-request which you said was issued by Provincial Director Potot and was personally delivered to you by a certain SPO2 Rosalita?

      A    It was all about the request to conduct fingerprint examinations on the dead woman found in the deep ravine at Barangay Tan-awan, Carcar, Cebu .

      Q    Alright. Do you have a copy of that letter-request which you just mentioned?

      A    Yes, ma’am, I brought along with me the copy of the letter-request, which I have mentioned to you a while ago. (Witness is producing and showing to the Prosecutor a letter-request dated July 20, 1997 signed by Mario Llanto Potot, Superintendent, Provincial Director)      

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May I request, at this juncture, Your Honor---

COURT:
         
What date was it?

PROS. GALANIDA: 
        
July 20, 1997. May I request, Your Honor, that this letter-request signed by Police Senior Superintendent Mario Llanto Potot, Provincial Director and dated July 20, 1997, be marked as Exh. “TT” for the prosecution.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
And the portion here, Your Honor, which is a rubber-stamped marking showing the date this was received and who delivered, be marked as our Exh. “TT-1”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    Now, Mr. Witness, would you know who made these markings here, Received 200830H July 97 then Received by Police Inspector Ed Lenizo, Delivered by SPO2 Rene Rosalita?

      A    I personally made these markings, ma’am. (Witness identified the markings marked as Exh. “TT-1”, the name Lenizo and SPO2 Rene Rosalita)

      Q    Considering that we are not very much conversant with military time, can you tell this Honorable Court what time is this 200830H July 97?

      A    I received this at 8:30 in the morning on July 20, 1997.

      Q    Now, in this request already marked as Exh. “TT” , item no. 9 here has this entry, Evidence Documents Submitted and below it is Voter’s Registration No. 31993938. We would like to know whether when you received this letter-request, you also received this evidence submitted which is Voter’s Registration Record No. 31993938 indicated in this letter-request?

      A    Yes, ma’am, I have received also the Voter’s Registration Record No. which appears the name of Marijoy Chiong. (Witness producing and showing to Prosecutor Galanida the Voter’s Registration Record No. 31993938 of Marijoy Chiong)

PROS. GALANIDA: 
        
Now, considering, Your Honor, that this Voter’s Registration Record will have to be returned to the Comelec, may we request the defense counsel to compare the machine copy of this Voter’s Registration Record so that we will mark the machine copy instead of the original because this is to be returned to the Comelec Office. May we request the gentlemen---

COURT INTERPRETER:
         
Defense counsels comparing the original copy of the Voter’s Registration Record to the machine copy.

ATTY. DEBALUCOS:
         
Yes, Your Honor, we admit that this machine copy appears to be a faithful reproduction from the Voter’s Registration Record of a certain Marijoy Chiong.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May we know whether that is also the same manifestation of the other 2 PAO lawyers, Your Honor, because that was the manifestation only of Atty. Debalucos. We would like to know whether the other 2 will also adopt the same manifestation.

ATTY. YPIL:
         
We adopt, Your Honor.

ATTY. DE JESUS:
         
The manifestation of Atty. Debalucos, Your Honor, is also our manifestation.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
Thank you, Gentlemen. May we request, Your Honor that this photocopy of the Voter’s Registration Record of Marijoy Jimenea Chiong, be marked as Exh. “UU”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
And the name, Your Honor, Marijoy Jimenea Chiong, be bracketed and marked as Exh. “UU-1”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
And the specimen thumbprints, Your Honor, the right and the left, be bracketed and marked as Exh. “UU-2”.

COURT:
        
Mark it.
         Are the thumbprints clearly imprinted?

PROS. GALANIDA: 
        
Yes, Your Honor, the original.

COURT:
         
They are not smudged- clearly imprinted?

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
No, Your Honor.
They are not.

      Q    Now, Mr. Witness, after you received that letter-request from Provincial Director Potot, as well as the attached Voter’s Registration Record of Marijoy Jimenea Chiong, what did you do then?

      A    I and the others, meaning I’m referring to my companions assembled and proceeded to Carcar, to the Tupaz Funeral Homes.

      Q    Alright. You mentioned that you and your companions assembled and you proceeded to particularly at the Tupaz Funeral Homes. Can you tell this Honorable Court who were then your companions in proceeding or in going to the Tupaz Funeral Parlor in Carcar, Cebu?

      A    My companions were Dr. Nestor Sator, Dr. Langcauon, SPO3 Jose Dagopioso, SPO1 Alexander Soledad, PO3 Ugdamin, and the driver.

      Q    Who is this Dr. Nestor Sator you mentioned as one of your companions?

      A    He is our Medico Legal Officer.

      Q    What about this Dr. Langcauon?

      A    He is the dental officer of the Dental Service Unit.

      Q    What about the other policemen whose names you mentioned, who are they?

      A    They are our PNGO’s. That’s the enlisted personnel.

      Q    Now, what time did you leave your office in proceeding to Tupaz Funeral Parlor?

      A    At about also 9:00 o’clock in the morning.

      Q    And what time did you arrive at the Tupaz Funeral Parlor?

      A    At about also 10:00 o’clock.

      Q    When you arrived at the Tupaz Funeral Parlor, who entertained you, if any?

      A    It was the embalmer of the Tupaz Funeral Homes.

      Q    And what happened when you arrived there?

      A    When we arrived at the Tupaz Funeral Parlor, I saw a dead woman on top of the table covered with a white blanket. I also observed and noticed that on her left wrist, a handcuff was hanging and also I noticed that underneath the table, there was torn maong pants, an orange t-shirt, a bra, panty, a garterized hair clip, and the packaging tapes.

      Q    Now, you mentioned you saw the body of a dead woman on top of a table with a handcuff still hanging on her left wrist. If you will be shown some pictures of that dead woman, would you be able to recognize it?

      A    Let me see, ma’am.

      Q    Alright. I’ll show you here our Exh. “EE” and “FF”, will you kindly take a look at these and tell this Honorable Court if that is the same dead woman whose body you saw in the Tupaz Funeral Homes with the handcuff still hanging on her left wrist?

      A    (Witness examining Exh. “FF” and “EE”) 
            Yes, ma’am, this is the dead body of a woman that was found on top of a table at the Tupaz Funeral Parlor. (Witness identified the dead body of a woman)

      Q   So, after you saw that dead body as you described, what did you do next?

      A    I initially examined the fingers of the dead woman and I found out that were already stiffening.

      Q   So, what did you do when you saw that the fingers were already stiffening?

COURT:
         
What was that?

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
Stiffening.

      Q    I then requested Dr. Sator to slice off the skin tissues on the left and right thumbprints of the dead woman.

      Q    In effect, did Dr. Sator slice off the skin tissues on the right and the left thumbs of the dead woman, did you have any inkling on who she was?

      A    There was none at all.

      Q    So, what did you do with the skin tissues then?

      A    Right after the skin tissues has been out and removed, it was placed in a small bottle preserved with a formalin.

      Q    After that was done, what next happened there at the Tupaz Funeral Parlor?

      A    The dental officer, Dr. Langcauon immediately conducted a dental examination on the dead woman.

      Q    After Dr. Langcauon conducted a dental examination, what happened next?

      A    It was already the turn of Dr. Sator who conducted a postmortem examination of the dead woman also.

      Q    Were you present when Dr. Sator conducted an autopsy or postmortem examination?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

COURT:
         
By the way, was the victim identified also through her dentures? Was she identified also?

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
Not anymore, Your Honor, because after the positive identification with the thumbprint, the right thumbprint, the denture examination was not anymore conducted because according to this witness, the thumbprint is the best or the most positive way of identifying a person and also, Your Honor, because according to the dentist, the teeth were all broken up and down. The teeth were broken.

COURT:
         
Why, did he say why? Because of the exposure – exposure to the elements or what?

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
Maybe because of the fall.

COURT:
         
Because of the fall?

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
Yes, the impact. But we will request the dentist to testify on that point, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
So, we understand from this witness that they did not resort to the other methods of identification that he mentioned earlier in his testimony. So, they relied solely on the fingerprint.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
The other methods that he mentioned were not utilized.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
Yes, Your Honor, because secondly, Your Honor, apart from the fact that the teeth of the dead body were all broken, it needed the dental records of the victim. They did not go through it anymore after the positive identification.

COURT:
         
Proceed.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    May we know how long or what time did Dr. Sator finish his necropsy or postmortem examination?

      A    That was already past 12:00 o’clock.

      Q    So, after Dr. Sator finished the autopsy or postmortem examination at past 12:00 o’clock that day of July 20, 1997, what did you and your companions do?

      A    We immediately proceeded to our office, ma’am, in Camp Sotero Cabahug.

      Q    Are you telling this Honorable Court that you proceeded back to your office without taking your lunch?

      A    Yes, of course, ma’am. We took lunch at the funeral parlor, Tupaz Funeral Parlor.

      Q    You took lunch right there at the Tupaz Funeral Parlor?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

      Q    So, what time then did you leave that Tupaz Funeral Parlor?

      A    We left Tupaz Funeral Parlor at past 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon.

      Q    And?

      A    And arrived at our office at 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon.

      Q    Can you tell this Honorable Court why it took you until 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of July 20, 1997 to reach your office since you said you left the Tupaz Funeral Parlor at about 2:00 P.M.

      A    Along the way, ma’am our vehicle bogged down and we tried to check the engine and also the fact that there was a heavy rain. That was the reason why we arrived late in our office.

      Q    Why, what vehicle did you use then at that time?

      A    It was an assembled Tamaraw, ma’am.

      Q    Assembled Tamaraw. Now, when you arrived in your office at about 5:00 o’clock that day, what did you do?

      A    Right after we arrived in our office, I immediately placed the specimens, the left and the right thumbprints of the dead woman in our filing cabinet and that filing cabinet has also been placed in the Evidence Room that is properly and securely locked.

      Q    Are you telling this Honorable Court that both the steel cabinet and your Evidence Room were both locked at that time?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

      Q    Now, what about the following day, July 21, 1997 at about 8:00 o’clock in the morning, can you recall where were you?

      A    Yes, ma’am. I was reporting for work in our office.

      Q    When you reported for work in your office, what was the first thing you do?

      A    I took the specimens that I have mentioned awhile ago and requested Dr. Sator to scrape off the tissues of the thumbprints for purposes of mounting said thumbprints on the glass slab to permit good photographic contrast of the ridge details.

      Q    In effect, did Dr. Sator do as you requested?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

      Q    Were you present when he scraped off the remaining tissues as you said?

      A     Yes, ma’am.

      Q    And after that was done by Dr. Sator, what did you do with that skin tissue?

COURT:
      Q
    So, only the epidermis or skin was left for examination. Is that what you want to say?

      A       Yes, Your Honor.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May I proceed, Your Honor?

COURT:
         
Yes.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    So, what did you do with that skin epidermis or epidermis?

      A    Right after it has been scraped off and what was left only was the thin portion of the skin, I mounted the left and right thumbprints on the glass slab in between the other places of glass to make it spread out and thin.

      Q    Do you have any evidence to show that indeed you mounted that thin skin or epidermis which you said on that glass slab; do you have an evidence?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

      Q    Will you kindly show it to the Honorable Court?

      A    This is the glass slab which I have mentioned on which appears the left thumbprint and the right thumbprint of the dead woman. (Witness showing to the Prosecutor the glass with the left and right thumbprints of the dead woman)

COURT:
      Q    How did you make that thumbprints on the glass?

      A    Right after it has been scraped off by the doctor, I mounted it and pasted it with what you call this – a rugby and then I covered it with another glass to spread thin the left and right thumbprints, Your Honor.

      Q    These are the very skin or epidermis of the dead woman?

      A    Yes, Your Honor.

      Q    These are not mere prints but they are the skin itself?

      A    Yes, the skin – original itself.

      Q    Original skin of the dead woman?

      A    Yes, Your Honor.

      Q    Pasted there on the glass?

      A    Yes, Your Honor.

      Q    Alright, that’s clear enough. That is the original skin of the dead woman identified as Marijoy Chiong. It is not a mere print or impression. It is the skin itself pasted there. Alright. Dr., am I correct?

      A    Yes, Your Honor.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    Now, in this glass slab here are some markings I red ink. One is Q-R, below one skin in the shape of a thumb and the other is Q-L. Can you tell this Honorable Court the significance of these markings and you know who put these markings there?

      A    I personally put these markings Q-L and Q-R. Meaning, Q-L refers to the questioned left thumbprint and Q-R refers to the questioned right thumbprint.

      Q    And below this, there is also another marking in red ink reading as follows, F-025-97. May we know who put these markings here?

      A    I also did the same marking.

      Q    Can you tell this Honorable Court the significance of this marking?

      A    Yes, ma’am, but that is the fingerprint identification report no. 0-25-97 which makes as a reference if any if somebody would require the production of such fingerprint identification report.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May I request, Your Honor, that this glass slab with all the markings which contains the original skin tissues on the right and left thumbs of the dead body, be marked as Exh. “V V” and we request that the marking be placed on the right top on the side.

COURT:
         
Be careful because that will break or fall.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
Or if not, may we request, Your Honor, that considering that this one is---

COURT:
         
Mark it. That is a fragile material. You have to put some---

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    So, after you have mounted this original skin tissue from the right and left thumbs of the dead body in the manner you described to the Honorable Court, what was the next thing that you did?

      A    I took photographs on the specimens mentioned and also photograph of the thumbprints in the Voter’s Registration Record belonging to Marijoy Chiong.

      Q    What was your purpose in taking photographs of this glass slab and the Voter’s Registration Record of Marijoy Chiong?

      A    The purpose of which is to make an enlargement of it so that a comparison would be easy to arrive at.  

COURT:
      Q    Were there left and right thumbprints in the Voter’s Registration?

      A    Yes, Your Honor.

      Q    So, there were left and right?

      A    Yes, Your Honor.

      Q    There were 2 prints that were compared?

      A    Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
Proceed.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    In effect, did you make enlarge photos the ones that you just testified now?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

      Q    Will you kindly show it to this Honorable Court?  

      A    Yes, ma’am. I will take the enlarged photographs of the specimens that I have mentioned which was chartered on the--- (Witness producing and showing to the Court)

      Q    Show it to the Court.

      A    Your Honor, please, this is the enlarged photograph of the glass slab and the enlarged photograph of the Voter’s Registration Record itself. Below these documents, are the enlarged photograph of the thumbprint which I marked Q-R and on the right, is the standard photograph meaning the enlargement of the right thumbprint of Marijoy Chiong appearing on the Voter’s Registration Record, Your Honor.  

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May we request, Your Honor, that this chart with the caption Republic of the Philippines, Department of Interior and Local Government, PNP Crime Laboratory, Regional Office 7, Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City and Fingerprint Identification Report No. F-025-97, the whole of this, be marked as Exh. “WW”.

COURT:
          Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
And may we also request, Your Honor, that this enlarged photo or photograph of the glass slab containing the original skin tissue or skin extracted from the right thumb and the left thumb of the dead body, be marked as Exh. “WW-1”; the enlarged photograph of the Voter’s Registration Record of Marijoy Jimenea Chiong, be marked as Exh. “WW-2”.

COURT:
         
Mark them.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
And, Your Honor, this enlarged photograph of the skin extracted from the right thumb of the dead woman marked Q–R, be marked as our Exh. “WW-3”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
And the enlarged photograph of the right thumbprint as found in the Voter’s Registration Record of Marijoy Jimenea Chiong and marked as S, be marked as our Exh. “WW-4”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    Mr. Witness, can you tell this Honorable Court what then did you do after you have made this enlarged photographs already marked Exh. “WW-1” to “WW-4”, inclusive?  

      A    I compared both the questioned thumbprints and the standard thumbprints of the enlarged photographs of Marijoy Jimenea Chiong.

      Q    And what was the result of your comparison?

      A    The result was that the questioned thumbprint and the standard right thumbprint of Marijoy Chiong are identical with each other.

      Q    By the way, what instrument did you use, if any, in comparing the questioned thumbprint with the standard thumbprint?

      A    I used a magnifying glass, a fingerprint camera, an enlarger, materials for inking the fingerprint and the glass slab.

      Q    Now, you mentioned earlier that after comparing the questioned thumbprint and the standard thumbprint found on the Voter’s Registration Record of Marijoy Jimenea Chiong, you found that they are identical. What do you mean when you say that you found them to be identical?

      A    I mean that all of the individual characteristics present in the questioned thumbprint and the right thumbprint are perfectly matched with each other on the theory that the ridges itself on both the questioned thumbprints are similarly located, the same relative positions, the same relative locations and the same number of intervening ridges with the questioned and the standard thumbprints.

      Q    Now, you have made such a lengthy answer Mr. Witness. Will you kindly specify what you meant when you said that these 2 specimen, the questioned and the standard, are identical because you found similar individual ridges, the location are also similar and even the intervening ridges are the same. Will you kindly point to this Honorable Court what is this that you are mentioning that the individual ridges are similarly located and so on and so forth? Will you please explain?

      A    I will go in details, ma’am. This questioned right thumbprint whose individual ridge characteristics nos. 1 to 12 and also the individual ridge characteristics that is found in the standard are similarly located, the same relatively positions, the same relative locations and the same number of intervening ridges. Now, Ridge no. 1 to no. 7 are all bifurcation, meaning... (Witness referring to Exh. “WW-3” and Exh. “WW-4”)

      Q    You mentioned bifurcation. Will you tell us what do you mean by bifurcation?

      A   Bifurcation’s under the fingerprint parlance are those forking or dividing of 2 lines or 2 or more branches. Now, Ridge no. 1, whose ridges coming from the left portion of the pattern then spread in 2 lines to the right portions. Ridge no. 2, are also bifurcation. Ridge no. 3 are bifurcation. The ridges here, the ridges 2 and 3 coming from the right portion and spread into 2 parts towards the left portion following the lateral flow of the ridges. Now, Ridge no. 4 beneath ridge no. 2 are also bifurcation in which case, the ridges coming from the left portion and spread out in 2 branches towards the right portion also following the flow of the ridges. Ridge no. 5 are also bifurcation, in which case the ridges coming from the right portion is spread in 2 branches towards the left portion and ridge no. 6 are also bifurcation whose ridges coming from the left portion and spread downwards towards the right portion. And this ridge no. 7 are also bifurcation in which case, the ridges coming from the right portion and spread towards the left portion following the natural flow of the ridges in which case, the standard which I have mentioned and the ridges 1 to 7 are similarly located, the positions are similarly the same, and the number of intervening ridges between these ridges 1 to 2 are also the same.

      Q    What about that no. 8 you mentioned there as ending ridge?  

      A    Now, no. 8, ma’am is an ending ridge for the reason that there is a sudden stop of the flow of the ridges. Notice that in the questioned right thumbprint, there is an abrupt flowing of the ridge and also, the standard thumbprints which are also similarly located, there is also an abrupt ending of a ridge.

      Q    What about the island ridge which is mentioned there in your 10 and 12?

      A    The island ridge are also another type of ridge characteristics which it bifurcates first then rejoins to form a single ridge. In which case, this island ridge found in the questioned right thumbprint is also the same as found in the standard right thumbprint.

      Q    In other words, Mr. Witness, what is your conclusion after you have made such a comparison and after explaining to this Honorable Court what you did while you made the comparison?

      A    I therefore conclude, ma’am, that both specimens, the questioned right thumbprint and the standard right thumbprint were impressed by one and the same finger belonging to Marijoy Chiong.

COURT:
      Q    So, in your expert opinion, Inspector, that dead woman that you saw in the Funeral Parlor on July 20 was none other than Marijoy Chiong?

      A    Yes, Your Honor.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    At the bottom portion of this chart, here are writings reading as follows: Prepared by Edgardo Delostrico Lenizo, Police Inspector, Head Fingerprint Identification Branch and a signature appearing on top of it. Will you kindly take a look at it and tell this Honorable Court if you can recognize whose writings are these and the signature appearing therein?

      A    The writings and signature appearing thereon is my customary handwriting signature.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
Thank you, Mr. Witness. May we request, Your Honor, that this portion here mentioned by the witness including the signature which he admitted to be his, be bracketed and marked as Exh. “WW-5”.

COURT:
          Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
At this juncture, Your Honor, may I manifest for the record that we are returning to this witness Exh. “V V”, the glass slab, the original of the Voter’s Registration Record, as well as, the chart he prepared already marked as Exh. “WW” considering, Your Honor, that he is still to be cross-examined by the defense panel and the prosecution does not want to have these yet in its custody.

COURT:
         
Alright.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    On July 22, 1997 in the afternoon of said day, can you recall Mr. Witness, where were you?

      A    Yes, ma’am. I reported for work in our office.

      Q    The same office which you said is located at Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City?

      A    Exactly the same office, ma’am.

      Q    While you were there at that time and date, what happened, if any?

      A    A certain SPO1 Arturo Llamedo arrived at our office and requested us to conduct a fingerprint examination on the accompanying specimens.

      Q    You mentioned that Llamedo went to your office. Who is this SPO1 Llamedo?

      A    He is a member of the Carcar Police Office.

      Q    Was the request in writing?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

      Q    Do you have it with you that written request which according to you was delivered by SPO1 Llamedo of the Carcar Police Station?

      A    Yes, ma’am. I have here the written request of SPO1 Llamedo.

      Q    You also mentioned that there was an accompanying specimen to this letter-request. What specimen are you referring to?

      A    I am referring to the packaging tape. (Witness showing the letter-request dated July 22, 1997 signed by Arturo Alegado Unabia, Senior Police Officer 4, Officer-in-charge)

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May we request, Your Honor, that this letter-request signed by Senior Police Officer 4 Arturo Unabia of the Carcar Police Office, Carcar, Cebu dated July 22, 1997, be marked as our Exh. “XX”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.  

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    Now, you mentioned about an accompanying specimen which is the packaging tape. Where is that accompanying specimen?

      A    This is the packaging tape that I am referring to which has been presented and exhibited yesterday during trial. (Witness showing the packaging tape marked as Exh. “JJ”)

      Q    Now, what was that written request about relative to this packaging tape?

      A    It is all about the request of the fingerprint and examination on the packaging tape whether or not there is a presence of a fingerprint on the surface of such packaging tape.

      Q    After you received this letter-request and the packaging tape, what did you do then?

      A    I immediately conducted a fingerprint examination.

      Q    How did you conduct the fingerprint examination on that packaging tape?

      A    I applied a chemical reagent on the adhesive portion of the packaging tape.

      Q    What chemical reagent did you apply?

      A    It is a Victoria blue.

      Q    Victoria blue? Will you kindly spell for the stenographer?

      A   Victoria spells V as in vine-i-c-t-o-r-i-a, Victoria blue.

      Q    What is the purpose of this reagent which you said is Victoria blue?

      A    The purpose of such reagent is to reveal the presence of fingerprints on the adhesive portion of the packaging tape.

      Q    And so what happened after you applied that Victoria blue on the adhesive portion? What did you find, if any?

      A    There was no fingerprint at all on the packaging tape.

      Q    Can you explain what could be the factor why you did not find any fingerprint on the adhesive portion?

      A    The main factor is that the packaging tape when it was submitted was already crumpled and if it is crumpled, the tendency is all of the fingerprints appearing thereon will be destroyed.

      Q    Will you kindly open and show to us that packaging tape?

      A    (Witness showing the packaging tape marked as Exh. "JJ")

      Q    Can you tell this Honorable Court whether when you received this accompanying specimen in the afternoon of July 22, 1997 whether there was already this bluish color as we see it now?

      A    There was none. Only that the bluish color was the result of the Victoria blue.

      Q    So, what was then the original color?

      A    The original color is brown. That is its original color. (Witness pointing to the brown color appearing on Exh. “JJ”)          

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
We are also manifesting, Your Honor, that we are returning this Exh. “JJ” to this witness considering that he will still be subjected to cross-examination by the defense panel.

      Q       Now, Mr. Witness, in the afternoon of October 3, 1997, can you recall where were you? We give time to the witness, Your Honor, because he is still keeping the evidence and sealing. Okay, in the afternoon of October 3, 1997 Mr. Witness, can you still recall where were you at that time?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

      Q    Where were you?

      A    I was reporting for work in the office.

      Q    The same office which you have previously stated in your previous answers?

      A    Yes, previously stated.

      Q    Now, while you were in your office at Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City , that afternoon of October 7, 1997, who arrived, if any?

      A    It was Police Inspector Ariston Era, ma’am.

      Q    What was the purpose of Police Inspector Ariston Era in seeing you in your office at that time and date?

      A    The purpose of Ariston Era was to request us to conduct a finger print examination on the accompanying specimen which Ariston Era had brought.

      Q    By the way, do you know personally Inspector Era?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

      Q    Why do you know him personally?

      A    Because his office is also adjacent to our office.

      Q    You mentioned that Inspector Era was bringing a letter-request and some accompanying specimen. Will you kindly show to this Honorable Court that written request?

      A    Just a minute, ma’am, I will take the written request. I have here the written request, ma’am, duly signed by the Regional Officer, Police Superintendent, Napoleon Romero Estilles. (Witness showing the letter-request dated October 3, 1997 signed by Napoleon Estilles, Police Superintendent, Regional Officer)  

PROS. GALANIDA:  
         
May we request, Your Honor, that this written request signed by Police Superintendent Napoleon Estilles, be marked as Exh. “YY” for the prosecution.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    Can you tell this Honorable Court what was this request about?

      A    The request is about the examination of the specimens which have been carried along by Ariston Era.

      Q    When you mentioned specimens, what specimens are you referring to?

      A    The specimens I am referring to are the mentioned diskette, the – may I be allowed, Your Honor, that I will read?

COURT:
         
Yes.

      A    The one fragmentation grenade and the pair of black worn-out rubber shoes marked Converse which is partially burned allegedly found during the crime scene search at Sitio Tan-awan, Barangay Guadalupe, Carcar, Cebu, where the dead body of Marijoy Chiong was recovered.

      Q    Now, in this letter-request more particularly paragraph 2 thereof, which I would like to read for the record, Request: Conduct Comparative Examination if there are fingerprint impressions to the herein questioned items to the attached booking sheets of Francisco Larrañaga, Josman Aznar, Alberto Cano, Rowen Adlawan, and Ariel Balansag arrested relative to the Chiong kidnapping. My question is this, aside from the items which you mentioned were brought by Inspector Era to you together with this letter-request, what about these things mentioned in paragraph 2 meaning the booking sheets of the accused whose names are already enumerated into the record. Did you also receive this?

      A    Yes, ma’am. That is together with the other specimens submitted to us.

      Q    Will you kindly show to us these items? First, this computer diskette with marking JV70305, this black rubber shoes, partially burned and the fragmentation grenade?

      A    Here is the diskette which I have read a while ago. It is placed in a small box marked Motorolla. (Witness opening the box and showing to the Court the computer diskette)  

COURT:
      Q    You mean it was found at the scene of the crime in that condition, with that box?

      A    No, I understand, Your Honor, that the diskette was found only but it was arranged and placed it in a carton.

      Q    In the box?

      A    In the box.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May we request, Your Honor, that this diskette with number appearing on the diskette itself, JV70305 No. 2 FC, be marked as Exh. “ZZ” for the prosecution. But may we request that the marking be made on the box, Your Honor, on the innermost portion of the box.

COURT:
          Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    What about this pair of black worn-out rubber shoes marked Converse with the left shoe partially burned, where is it?

      A    Here is the partially burned left shoe which has also been exhibited yesterday. (Witness showing the pair of black partially burned shoes)

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May we request, Your Honor, that that pair of Converse shoes, be marked as Exh. “AAA”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    What about this one fragmentation grenade, will you kindly show it to this Honorable Court so we can request for its marking?

      A    Yes, this is the fragmentation grenade which has already been defused. (Witness showing the defused fragmentation grenade)

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May we request, Your Honor, that this defused fragmentation grenade, be marked as Exh. “BBB” for the prosecution.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

      Q    Do you know who defused it?

      A    Yes, Your Honor. It was at the Explosive Ordinance Division Unit at Camp Lapulapu.

      Q    So, it was a live grenade?

      A    It was a live grenade, Your Honor.

      Q   Before it was defused?

      A    Before it was defused.

COURT:
         
Proceed.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    Now, what about this booking sheets of accused Francisco Larrañaga, Josman Aznar, and the rest of the accused. May we see it?

      A    Just a minute, ma’am.

      Q    Yes, you can have your time.

      A    I have here also the booking sheets which you have been mentioning of the 5 suspects which had  been submitted together with the mentioned specimens. (Witness showing the booking sheets of the 5 accused)

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May we request, Your Honor, that this booking sheets for Josman Fornolles Aznar, be marked as Exh. “CCC” for the prosecution.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
And this booking sheet for accused Francisco Juan Larrañaga, be marked as Exh. “DDD” for the prosecution.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
I will manifest for the record, Your Honor, that these booking sheets has 2 faces. One face contains all the fingerprints meaning of all the fingers and on the other side only the right palm and left palm. So, what has been marked here for the booking sheet of Josman Aznar Fernolles, is the side showing the right palm and the left palm of said accused. So, may I request, Your Honor, that the other side containing all his fingerprints, be marked as Exh. “CCC-1” and the same is thru with all the other booking sheets.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
And also, Your Honor, the other side of the booking sheet of Francisco Juan Larrañaga nicknamed Paco showing all his fingerprints, be marked as Exh. “DDD-1”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
And this booking sheet of Rowen S. Adlawan showing his left palm and right palm, be marked as Exh. “EEE” and the other side showing all the his finger prints, be marked also as
Exh. “EEE-1”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

ATTY. DE JESUS:
         
Your Honor, please, may we know from the prosecution the purpose of presenting the rest of the booking sheets other than the booking sheet of Josman Aznar?

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
Well, the purpose, Your Honor, is to show that these things are mentioned and that he received them as indicated in the letter-request and to show also later, that in comparing it, he compared the thumbprint that was lifted in the diskette with all the thumbprints on all of these booking sheets. That’s the purpose.

COURT:
         
Well, they will submit all these booking sheets to show that they were not discriminating against a particular accused. We wanted the laboratory to determine if these items contained the fingerprints of any of these accused not on any particular accused only. That’s the purpose.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May I proceed, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
Yes.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May I request, Your Honor, that this booking sheet of accused Ariel Balansag showing the right palm and the left palm prints, be marked as Exh. “FFF” and the other side showing all the fingerprints, be marked as Exh. “FFF-1”.

COURT:
         
Mark them. Had they submitted only the booking sheet of Josman Aznar’s thumbprints – that would be highly questionable. That means they were discriminating against Aznar, di ba? (Is it so?) So, we have to admit all these booking sheets.

ATTY. DE JESUS:
         
We submit, Your Honor.

PROS. GALANIDA:"
         And lastly, Your Honor, this booking sheet of Alberto Villamero Cano showing the right palm and the left palm prints, be marked as Exh. “GGG” for the prosecution and the side showing his fingerprints, be marked as
Exh. “GGG-1”.

COURT:
         
Mark them.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    Mr. Witness, after you received this letter-request already marked as Exh. “YY” and all the accompanying specimen including the booking sheets of the 5 accused, what did you do then?

      A    I initially examined the diskette which was submitted to me.

      Q    How did you examine that diskette marked as Exh. “ZZ”?

      A    I applied a black powder. I dusted it with a black powder on the surface particularly those surfaces that are non-absorbent.

      Q    What was that black powder which you applied to the surface?

      A    That is a fingerprint powder?

      Q    And what was your purpose of putting that black powder?

      A    The purpose of which is to reveal the presence of latent prints on the diskette.

      Q    So, what was the result after you applied that black powder which you just described?

      A    After I dusted it with a fingerprint black powder, it found out that there is indeed a latent print found in it.

      Q    Where was the latent print found, can you show it using the said diskette?

      A    The latent print was found on the diskette which I dusted with a fingerprint black powder on the smooth surface of this metal. (Witness pointing to the smooth surface metal of the diskette)

      Q    Now, without applying the black powder which you mentioned, what could have happened?

      A    It would be difficult to see the fingerprint because of the reason, of the fact that the name itself, latent print, it cannot be seen by naked eye. So, that was the reason why it has to be applied with a fingerprint black powder to reveal its latents.

      Q    Alright. So, after you saw and you have observed the latent print in that smooth surface or portion of the diskette which you have just pointed to this Honorable Court, what did you do next?

      A    After I have dusted it, I developed and lifted said latent prints and mounted it our crime scene search data form.

      Q    Can you show us where that crime scene search data form which you mentioned?

      A    Yes, ma’am. This is the crime scene search data form which I have been mentioning a while ago. (Witness showing the crime scene search data form dated October 3, 1997)

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May we request, Your Honor, that this Crime Scene Search Data dated October 3, 1997 wherein here appears a developed and lifted latent print found at the middle portion and covered with a – Mr. Witness, what is this material that you used to cover this?  

      A    Covered with a developing lifting tape.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
Covered with a developing lifting tape, which we request to be marked as Exh. “HHH”.

COURT:       Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
And this portion, Your Honor, showing the lifted latent print and covered by a developing lifting tape, be marked as Exh. “HHH-1”, just an arrowhead to be drawn from the tape towards the right, to be marked as
Exh. “HHH-1”.

COURT:
          Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    Now, at the bottom portion of this Crime Scene Search Data, here is a signature appearing on top of the printed words Finger Print Technician, Police Inspector, Edgardo Lenizo, and on the other side, Crime Photographer, Police Inspector, Edgardo Lenizo, and also the signatures appearing on top thereof. Will you kindly examine and tell this Honorable Court if you can recognize whose signatures are those?

      A    This is my customary signature, ma’am. (Witness identified the signature appearing on Exh. “HHH”)

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May we request, Your Honor, that this signature appearing on top of the handwritten printed name Police Inspector Edgardo Lenizo, Crime Photographer, be marked as Exh. “HHH-2”and the signature also appearing on the printed handwritten name Police Inspector Edgardo Lenizo above the words Finger Print Technician, be marked as Exh. “HHH-3”.

COURT:
         
Mark them.  

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    Now, below the printed words Fingerprint Technician, here is also a signature below the words Witness SPO3 Visitacion Jabutay. Do you know whose signature is this on top of this Witness SPO3 Visitacion Jabutay?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

      Q    Whose signature is that?

      A    The signature belongs to SPO3 Visitacion Jabutay.

      Q    Who is this SPO3 Visitacion Jabutay?

      A    SPO3 Jabutay is the messenger clerk in our office.

      Q    So, after you had already lifted the latent print from the computer diskette submitted to you as in fact you mounted it here on this Crime Scene Search Data already marked as Exh. “HHH”, what was the next thing that you did?

      A    I took photographs on the latent prints developed and lifted from the diskette and have them compared with the thumbprints or rather fingerprints of all the accused.

      Q    Alright. Do you have now that photograph which you said you took of this latent print as well as those fingerprints of the 5 accused?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

      Q    Will you kindly show it to this Honorable Court?

      A    I have here only the enlarged photograph of the fingerprint chart of Josman Aznar.

      Q    Can you tell this Honorable Court why you only have with you that enlarged photograph of the latent print lifted from the diskette and the enlarged photograph of the fingerprints of accused Josman Aznar?

      A    Yes, ma’am, because in my examinations of the 5 accused, only the left thumbprint of Josman Aznar is identical with the latent prints which I have developed and lifted from the diskette.

      Q    What was your basis in saying that only the left thumbprint of accused Josman Aznar was identical to that latent print which you lifted from the diskette?

      A    Why, because there was no other left thumbprint appearing on Josman Aznar except the left thumbprint of Josman Aznar itself.

COURT:
      Q    Now, on the diskette itself, were there no other prints?

      A    There was no other print, Your Honor. It was only one latent print found.

      Q    There was only one latent print that was visible?

      A    That was visible but I could not discount the possibility that if ever the diskette whose surface is not smooth or the surface is rough then there could have been a fingerprint on it. 

PROS GALANIDA:
          May I proceed, Your Honor? 

COURT:
          Yes.  

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    What was your basis in concluding or saying that the thumbprint, the left thumbprint of Josman Aznar from the booking sheet is identical with the latent print which you lifted from the diskette?

      A    The same procedure which I have been explaining an hour ago regarding the investigation of Marijoy Chiong and has been also the same application that has been explained to me that along this enlarged photograph of the latent prints and the---

      Q    Excuse me. Will you kindly identify to this Honorable which of these 2 enlarged photographs represents the photograph of the latent print taken or lifted from the computer diskette?

      A    The red arrow appearing on this fingerprint chart which goes below are the enlarged latent print found on the diskette.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
At this juncture, Your Honor, may we request that the portion here just pointed to by the witness be marked, but before that, Your Honor, may we request that the whole chart showing here Fingerprint Identification Report No. F-36-97, be marked as Exh. “III”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
And this photograph of the Crime Scene Search Data containing that latent print in the middle portion thereof, be marked as Exh. “III-1”.

COURT:
          Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
And the enlarged photograph of the latent print lifted from the diskette marked here as "Q“, be marked as Exh. “III-2” for the prosecution.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    Mr. Witness, will you kindly tell this Honorable Court what is this photograph on the right side of Exh. “III-1” wherein you placed here a marking, a square marking on this photograph?

      A    This is the enlarged photograph of the entire fingerprint chart itself of Josman Aznar.

      Q    Are you referring to the photograph of this Exh. “CCC-1”?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May we request, Your Honor, that this photographs, Exh. “CCC-1” and pasted on this chart, be marked as Exh. “III-3” for the prosecution, showing the fingerprint of accused Josman Aznar.  

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    Mr. Witness, what is the significance of this print which you placed inside this square red box on Exh. “III-3”?

      A    The significance of which is that this left thumbprint that has been encircled in a box refers to the enlarged left thumbprint of Josman Aznar which was pasted just below the fingerprint chart.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
And may we request, Your Honor, that this left thumbprint placed in the square red box, be marked as Exh. “III-3-A”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    And the enlarged photograph of that left thumbprint marked as Exh. “III-3-A” and found below and which was marked as S-2, be marked as Exh. “III-4”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    Now, what was your basis in concluding that the latent print which you lifted from the diskette submitted to your office and the left thumbprint of accused Josman Aznar found in his booking sheet are identical?

      A    The basis of which is that the individual ridge characteristics found on the questioned latent print and the standard thumbprint of Josman Aznar has a relative position, a relative location and the same number of intervening ridges in which case, they are similarly situated.

      Q    Now, at the bottom portion of this chart, here are some markings reading as follows: prepared by Edgardo Delostrico Lenizo, Police Inspector, Head, Fingerprint Identification Branch and here is also a signature appearing on top of this printed name. Will you kindly tell this Honorable Court if you recognize whose markings are those?

      A    This is my same customary signature.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May we request, Your Honor, that this entire thing here including the signature, be bracketed and marked as Exh. “III-5” for the prosecution.

COURT: 
        
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    Earlier, in your testimony, you mentioned to this Honorable Court that the impression on the thumbprint taken from the dead body found at the cliff at Sitio Tan-awan was identical or perfectly matched with the impression on the right thumbprint found on the Voter’s Registration Record of Marijoy Jimenea Chiong. Now, my question is, did you prepare a written report of your findings?

      A    Yes, ma’am.

      Q    Will you kindly show to this Honorable Court that written report?

      A    Now, I believe your question is – this is not the fingerprint identification report you have seen mentioning about Marijoy Chiong.

      Q    So, where is it now?

      A    But this is the identical portion of Josman Aznar.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May we just have this marked first? This fingerprint identification report F-36-97 which contained his findings relative to the fingerprint found in the latent print lifted from the diskette and the left thumbprint of Josman Aznar, be marked as our Exh. “JJJ” for the prosecution.

COURT:
           Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
          And also, this portion, Your Honor, here in the findings particularly stating, Fingerprint marked “Q” referring to that latent print from the diskette is identical with the left thumbprint on the specimen marked S-2 referring to the left thumbprint of accused Josman Aznar from his booking sheet, that the same be bracketed and marked as
Exh. “JJJ-1”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    At the bottom portion of this Fingerprint Identification Report No. F-36-97, here is a signature appearing on the top of the printed name Edgardo Delostrico Lenizo, Police Inspector, Head, Fingerprint Identification Branch. Will you kindly tell this Honorable Court if you can recognize whose signature is that?

      A    This is also my signature, ma’am.  

PROS. GALANIDA:
          May we request, Your Honor, that this signature duly identified by this witness, be encircled and marked as Exh. “JJJ-2”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    Now, what about that written report which you said embodied your findings when you made a comparison between the thumbprint taken from the right thumb of the dead body in Tan-awan and the right thumbprint indicated in the Voter’s Registration Record of Marijoy Jimenea Chiong, will you show this Honorable Court that report?

      A    This is the report which I have made. (Witness showing the Fingerprint Identification Report No. F-25-97)

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May we request, Your Honor, that this Fingerprint Identification Report No. F-25-97, be marked as Exh. “KKK” for the prosecution and the findings, reading as follows: Fingerprint marked Q-R is identical with the right thumbprint on the specimen marked “S”, be bracketed and marked as our
Exh. “KKK-1”.

COURT:
         
Mark them.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
And the portion here, Your Honor, under the word Conclusion which I would like to read for the record, it says, Questioned fingerprint marked Q-R appearing on the glass slab and the right thumbprint of one Marijoy J. Chiong appearing on the specimen marked “S” are impressions made by one and the same finger, that the same be bracketed and marked as
Exh. “KKK-2”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
      Q    At the bottom right portion of Exh. “KKK”, Mr. Witness, here is a signature appearing on top of the printed name Edgardo D. Lenizo, Police Inspector, Head, Fingerprint Identification Branch. Will you kindly take a look at it and tell this Honorable Court if you can recognize whose signature is it?

      A    This is my signature, ma’am.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May I request, Your Honor, that this signature be encircled and marked as our Exh. “KKK-3”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
And finally, Your Honor, may we request for additional sub markings on our Exh. “JJJ”. This is the Fingerprint Identification Report No. F-36-97 relative to accused Josman Aznar. We would like to request to be marked, Your Honor, the dorsal side of this report because there is a dorsal side and that this dorsal side, be marked as
Exh. “JJJ-3” for the prosecution.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
          May we request, Your Honor, that this Conclusion reading as follows: Questioned Fingerprint marked “Q” is impressed by the left thumbprint of one Josman Fornolles Aznar whose standard finger and thumbprint chart appear – on the specimen marked “S-2”, that this Conclusion, be bracketed and marked as Exh. “JJJ-3-A”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
          And last sub marking, Your Honor, below this Conclusion her is a signature appearing on top of the printed name Police Inspector Edgardo Lenizo, Mr. Witness, will you please examine it and tell this Honorable Court if you can recognize whose signature is it?

      A    This is also my signature.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
May we request, Your Honor, that this signature found below the Conclusion on top of the printed name Police Inspector Edgardo Lenizo, be encircled and marked as Exh. “JJJ-3-B”.

COURT:
         
Mark it.

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
We have no further questions, Your Honor, but we would like to manifest for the record that we are returning these documents, these 5 booking charts of the accused and Exh. “KKK”, Exh. “JJJ”, Exh. “III”, the chart, all are returned to this witness, Your Honor, for his cross-examination later by the defense.

COURT:
      Q    In a word, Inspector, it is your expert opinion that the left thumbprint that you found on that computer diskette that was recovered by the scene of the crime is the left thumbprint of the accused Josman Aznar?

      A    Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
The cross-examination of this witness is likewise deferred for the same reason. Thank you, Inspector.

WITNESS:
         
Thank you, Your Honor.

PROS. MIRO:
         
Your Honor, please, for lack of material time, we ask for adjournment because we intended to present one more witness but it’s almost 5:00 o’clock.

COURT:
         
Is this Dr. Sator?

PROS. MIRO:
         
He is around.

COURT:
         
Let us ask him to sign the record to come back tomorrow. Where is Dr. Sator?

PROS. GALANIDA:
         
He is in the staffroom, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
We will just ask him to come back tomorrow at 2:00 o’clock. Where is Dr. Sator? Dr., can we ask you to come back tomorrow for your direct-examination for lack of material time. Please come back tomorrow at 2:00 o’clock.

DR. SATOR:
         
Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
         
Alright. So, we don’t have to issue a subpoena anymore. Please come back. So, we shall continue tomorrow at the same time. Session adjourned.

NOTE: Links to all red colored exhibits are not available at this time.

To edit below:

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:
          To follow............. 

 

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

           HOME     INDEX      Next Trial Date