Supreme Court in their decision to upgrade the sentences of the seven
accused from double life sentences to death by lethal
injection, seem to have
given much importance to
the testimony of PNP fingerprint expert Lenizo.
if one reads his testimony, there are glaring facts that shows some
discrepancies in it.
The letter was also dated July 20, 1997, meaning that this letter must have been written before 8:30 of that same morning. A Sunday at that!
this transcript, when asked by the Fiscal if he had any idea who the body
found at the ravine was and he replied in the negative.
Had his superior predetermined that the unidentified dead body found two days earlier in the ravine in Carcar would turn out to be that of Marijoy and that's why he did not include anymore the other sister’s voter’s I,D.?
Lenizo testified that in the letter-request of his superior only Marijoy’s Voters Registration Card was attached. Since the body was found on a Friday morning, when did they get the Voter’s I.D. from the Comission On Elections (COMELEC)? The next day was a Saturday and the COMELEC is closed. Did they have enough time that Friday afternoon to get back to Cebu City and get her voter's I.D.?
However, the Sun Star issue of July 23, 1997 completely contradicts Lenizo's testimony as it reported that the father of the missing girls, Dionisio Chiong submitted the fingerprints and dental records of his two children to the PNP crime laboratory through Cebu PNP Director Mario Potot only on the 22nd of July, or two days after Lenizo's allegedly made his fingerprint comparisons in the funeral morgue in Carcar. Where then did Lenizo's voter's I.D. come from?
The same Sun Star report contradicts Fiscal Galanida's "testimony" that they could not make a dental examination of the body in the ravine because "it needed the dental records of the victim."
HOME INDEX NEXT PART