Chiong Case

                                                                              REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
                                                                                        REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
                                                                              7th Judicial Region
                                                                                     BRANCH 7
                                                                                      Cebu City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,

- versus - CRIM CASES NOS CBU-45303
and -45304

FRANCISCO JUAN LARRANAGA @ "PACO";                   FOR:   KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS
JOSMAN AZNAR, ROWEN ADLAWAN @ WESLEY;                           ILLEGAL DETENTION
ALBERTO CANO @ "PAHAK"; ARIEL
BALANSAG; DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA @
"DAVID FLORIDO" @ "TISOY TAGALOG";
JAMES ANTHONY UY @ "WANGWANG" UY
AND JAMS ANDREW UY @ "MM" UY,
                                           Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
                                                                                T R A N S C R I P T
                                                                                            of the
                                                                 stenographic notes taken during the
                                                                 hearing of the above-entitled case
                                                                 before HON. MARTIN A. OCAMPO, Presi-
                                                                 ding Judge of Branch 7, Regional Trial
                                                                 Court of Cebu City on August 12, 1998 at
                                                                 2:20 o'clock in the afternoon.

Present:
HON. MARTIN A. OCAMPO
Presiding Judge

ASSISTED BY:
MS. FARAH T. ABANGAN
Court Stenographer

MS. LUCIA C. BAJARIAS
Court Interpreter

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

                                                                   ATTY. HONORATO HERMOSISIMA
                                                                   ATTY. HILARIO DAVIDE III
                                                                   ATTY. JOSHUA DACUMOS
                                                                   ATTY. EDUARDO VALLENA (Legal counsel
                                                                   of PNP-CIID
                                                                   (Appearing as private prosecutors)

PAGE 2
                                                                   ATTY. RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT
                                                                   ATTY. RAMON TELERON
                                                                   (Counsel for accused Larranaga)

                                                                    ATTY. EDGAR GICA
                                                                    ATTY. FIDEL GONZALES
                                                                    (Counsel for accused Aznar)

                                                                     ATTY. ALFONSO DELA CERNA
                                                                     (Counsel for accused Adlawan, Cano
                                                                      and Balansag)

ATTY. LORENZO PAYLADO
(Counsel for accused Uy brothers)

COURT: (TO COURT INTERPRETER)
Call the cases.

COURT INTERPRETER: (CALLING THE CASES)
CRIMINAL CASES NOS. CBU-45303 AND 45304 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PLAINTIFF VERSUS FRANCISCO JUAN LARRANAGA "PACO"; JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN @ "WESLEY"; ALBERTO CANO @ "PAHAK"; ARIEL BALANSAG; DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA @ "DAVID FLORIDO"@ "TISOY TAGALOG"; JAMES ANTHONY UY @ "WANGWANG"; AND JAMES ANDREW UY @ "MM" UY, ACCUSED FOR KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION.

PROS. MIRO:
We appear for the state, Your Honor.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
Respectfully appearing as private prosecutions, Your Honor, in collaboration with Atty. Hilario Davide III, Joshua Dacumos and Edwardo Vallena.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Appearing as counsel for accused Larranaga, Your Honor, in collaboration with Atty. Ramon Teleron.

ATTY. GICA:
For accused Aznar, Your Honor, in collaboration with Atty. Fidel Gonzales.

PAGE 3
ATTY. DELA CERNA:
Appearing for accused Adlawan, Cano and Balansag, Your Honor.

ATTY. PAYLADO:
Respectfully appearing for accused Uy brothers, Your Honor.

ATTY. GUBALENE:
For accused Rusia, Your Honor.

COURT:
Before we open these proceedings, the Court wishes to issue a statement, it's a pre-trial statement and the Legal Researcher of this Court will read it. This is really merely a call for sobriety to cool down the passion generated by this Heinous Crimes Court. So, bear with us.

LEGAL RESEARCHER: (Reading the Pre-trial Statement by the Court)
"As we begin the trial of these cases, let us bear in mind that the purpose of every criminal trial is not only to punish the guilty but also to clear the innocent. As a classic author had justly observed, "I hear much of people calling out to punish the guilty, but only very few are concerned to clear the innocent." We must also bear in mind that a court proceeding (like all human pursuits) is not a perfect method of ascertaining the truth - which is why guilty persons are sometimes acquitted and innocent ones unjustly convicted - because all we can really ascertain in court is only judicial truth. "Evidence" is in fact defined by our law as "the means, sanctioned by these rules of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth representing a matter of fact". Nevertheless our rules of evidence rest upon reason and experience and are constantly being readjusted/reconstrued to meet the demands of justice and human progress. But why can we not ascertain here the actual, real or whole truth? Because, as observed by our distinguished Prof. Jovito Salonga, "Only an all-knowing God, just and merciful, knows the whole truth." The ancient sages warned that "Truth lies at the bottom of a well" and that we need to exert much time/effort finding it. But there is also a saying that "Truth is only falsehood well disguised" or as Byron put it in "Don Juan", "The truth in masquerade". The criterion prescribed by our Rules of Court for determining innocence or guilt of the

PAGE 4
accused is a judicial proceeding in: "Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - in a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind." (Rule 133) In his "Commentaries on the Laws of England," Sir William Blackstone posited that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". We stress this now- lest we be carried away with passion or bias or the heinousness of the crimes we are about to try. Let us remember that no crime is ever founded on reason and that there is no such thing as a crime without precedent, as the philosopher Seneca pointed out. Indeed, what could be more heinous than the Nazis did in their concentration camps to the Six Million Jews during World War II? And what could be more atrocious than the Hiroshima/Nagasaki nuclear bombings? "Mankind rushes on through every crime", as the poet Horace had observed. Finally- and even as we administer justice as mandated by our laws for these public crimes- as avowed Christians we have to reject what Aristotle said that "not to resent offenses in the mark of a base and slavish man" - but instead reaffirm our commitment to the new commandment which Jesus had given unto us "that ye love one another as I have loved you" (John 13:34, 35), vis-à-vis even our enemies and wrongdoers (Sermon on the Mount). It is in this context that the Court commences the trial of these cases."

COURT:
There are two (2) Motions set for hearing today aside from the pre-trial and trial. First Motion is the one filed by Atty. Raymundo Armovit on behalf of the accused Francisco Juan Larranaga, entitled "Motion for Leave to file Omnibus Motion for Larranaga's Liberty which is actually a Motion to Conduct Hearing on the accused Larranaga's application for bail?

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Basically, yes, Your Honor. But before I say I just got a copy of the Order, the Pre-trial Statement of the Court dated August 12, 1998. Our comment- amen.

PAGE 5
COURT:
Thank you, thank you.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
May we say a bit of clarification in respect to our Motion? Actually----

COURT:
I just want to announce it first- I will ask you later, with respect to that. But now I just want to review the pending Motion.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
So, this is your pending motion to file Omnibus Motion for Larranaga's Liberty. The second pending Motion is one filed by the prosecution, entitled "Motion to Discharge" which prays for the discharge of the accused Davidson Rusia as an accused so that he can be utilized as a state witness for the prosecution. The Court will resolve, will hear- these cases these pending Motions. But first the Court wishes to dispose of the pre-trial. Because this is also been set for today for pre-trial. Now is there anything that we have to take up for pre-trial purposes? Do the accused wish to propose any plea bargaining or what? I am sure your clients -are they proposing to plead guilty to a lesser offense? So, if there is nothing to take up for pre-trial, then let us declare the pre-trial as terminated and I will proceed to consider your (2) pending Motions.

ATTY. GICA:
Your Honor, may I say a few words in behalf of accused Josman Aznar?

COURT:
Yes.

ATTY. GICA:
We have a pending Motion to Admit Bail, Your Honor, we filed that sometime----

PAGE 6
COURT:
Yes, I ruled on that. There was a ruling and there is now a Motion of Atty. Armovit along the same line. So, we will deal on that but first let us consider the pre-trial terminated.

ATTY. GICA:
May I be allowed to clarify---

COURT:
One at a time.

ATTY. GICA;
Just one (1) point, Your Honor.

COURT:
Alright.

ATTY. GICA:
Since there is a pending Motion to Admit Bail, Your Honor in behalf of Josman Aznar and there is also an Order by this Honorable Court which deferred the consideration of that Motion, we would like to move, Your Honor, that the Motion which is deferred will be taken together with the Motion of Atty. Armovit in behalf of accused Larranaga.

COURT:
Of course whatever we decide for----

ATTY. GICA:
In other words, it will not be tabled anymore but considered by this Honorable Court.

COURT:
Whatever we decided for one (1) accused will have to be the same for all the accused. Because under the Constitution there should be no discrimination among the accused. That is the equal protection of laws clause in our Constitution and we are not supposed to discriminate against anybody.

PAGE 7
ATTY. GICA:
Thank you, Your Honor.

COURT:
Your client is just good as the client of Atty. Armovit. But I want to take things first - Pre-trial muna. (Pre-trial first.) Shall we terminate it now? Do we agree that the pre-trial is hereby terminated?

PROS. GALANIDA:
Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. GICA:
No, not yet, Your Honor.

COURT:
What do you want to take up for pre-trial? Let us take it up kung meron pang (if there is yet) pre-trial matter to take up.

COURT:
Suggestion, Your Honor.

COURT:
Yes.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
May we at this time ask or request the prosecution if they have already a schedule of witnesses that they are going to present so that we can accordingly prepare our cross-examination without having to ask for postponement?

COURT:
Is that not listed in the Informations and the Resolution? I think that is listed in the prosecution's list of witnesses.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
They scheduled, Your Honor, No.1, No. 2, No. 3 - - -

COURT:
Well, that is discretionary on the part of - - -

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

PAGE 8
ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Yes, we are asking them if they are ready, Your Honor, to - - -

COURT / to prosecution:
You want to furnish them with the schedule?

PROS. DUYONGCO:
We would not divulge, Your Honor, our strategy.

COURT:
Yes, that is discretionary - the schedule.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Transparency - the prosecution is supposed to come out with us openly. Our understanding of our Criminal Justice System is the prosecution will present its evidence. Now, if they will as I say open enough to tell us their witnesses so that we can schedule also our preparation - - -

COURT:
But the list of witnesses appears in the Resolution of the Fiscal's office. They are not confined to that list. As we know, the Rule is that the prosecution is not bound to disclose all its witnesses nor the order in which they will be presented. So, let us not belabor that point since it is within the discretion of the prosecution.

ARMOVIT:
For instance, Your Honor, we received bunch of Orders from the Honorable Court stating that firstly, eyewitnesses should be presented.

COURT:
That is the rule established by this court for all heinous crimes because the witness might be pressured, bribed or kidnapped or killed.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Yes, Your Honor. For purposes of specificity, may we ask the prosecution who are these eyewitnesses that they are going to present first if that is not too much.

PAGE 9
PROS. MIRO:
That is asking too much because the eyewitnesses are mentioned in the Informations we filed. So, it's open for their scrutiny and as a matter of fact each of these witnesses executed an affidavit.

COURT:
Well, the prosecution is insisting on its right not to disclose all its witnesses or the order of presentation. Now, is there any other pre-trial matter we have to take up? Otherwise let us declare the pre-trial as terminated and I will take up your two (2) pending Motions before the trial, if we will go to trial.

ATTY. GICA:
One (1) point, Your Honor.

COURT:
Yes.

ATTY. GICA:
We would like to manifest into the records, Your Honor, and request this Honorable Court in turn with that manifestation of ours that there will be never any amendment anymore on the Information. In other words, this Honorable Court would be limited to consider the cases as filed under the Fourth Amended Information.

COURT:
Let us ask the prosecution if they are amenable to that-

ATTY. GICA:
Because we observed, Your Honor, that since September they have been amending the Information four times so, there are five (5) Informations actually, Your Honor, changing the accused----

COURT/ to prosecution:
Will you still amend or no more?

PROS. MIRO:
That would depend upon some contingencies, Your Honor. But if the Informations already contained all our alle-

PAGE 10
PROS. MIRO: (CONTINUATION)
gations and then we will prove what we allowed in our Informations.

ATTY. GICA:
In other words, Your Honor, is the defense - - -

COURT:
Anyway if they will amend you can oppose by leave of court if it is a matter of substance. So, what are you objecting to in advance? You are objecting in advance.

ATTY. GICA:
We are not actually objecting, Your Honor, we just want to straighten up the records. We just would like the prosecution to make up its mind at this point in time.

COURT:
There might be subsequent incidents that we cannot foresee.

ATTY. GICA:
Now, if that would occur, Your Honor, there will be another---

COURT:
For instance if the body of the other Chiong sister is finally found then the Information will have to be amended to include Homicide of Jacqueline Chiong.

ATTY, GICA:
That's why, Your Honor, at this point in time - - -

COURT:
How can we tie up the hands of the prosecution and tell them huwag na ninyong ipadami. O, papano lumitaw yong katawan? (do not increase the charges. So, what if the body is found?) So they have to change the - - -

ATTY. GICA:
Your Honor please, we will cross the bridge when we come to it, as of this moment we have only these

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

PAGE 11
ATTY. GICA: (CONTINUATION)
Informations now on hand.

COURT:
We cannot bind the hands of the prosecution beforehand. That is useless because anyway the defense will anyway the defense will be asked to comment and/or oppose those Amended Informations if it is a matter of substance. So, you cannot object - - -

ATTY. GICA:
We are just trying to manifest on record that prosecution has to make up their minds.

COURT:
We cannot allow it.

PROS. MIRO:
Your Honor please. that is based on some contingencies In fact Jacqueline Chiong up to this point in time Is still nowhere to be found, she is still missing, Your Honor. So, by the time when we will discover Jacqueline Chiong that if he is alive then perhaps we can make some amendments because that will be another development in the case.

COURT:
Alright can we now terminate the pre-trial as ended and we will take up pending motions of yours? Okey? It is agreed?

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Yes, your honor.

COURT:
It was agreed at today's hearing that the pre-trial shall now be considered as terminated. Whereupon, this court proceeded to hear the two (2) pending Motions before it. First Motion is, to conduct hearing on the Application for Bail of the accused Larranaga. It is not clear whether you want summary hearing or special hearing or what, Panero? (My fellow lawyer?)

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

PAGE 12
ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Your Honor, unlike we have stated at the end of our Motion - - - we are asking the Court either one - - - first, that His Honor, requires the prosecution to produce for His Honor's examination the entire records of Preliminary investigation. So that His Honor, himself may be able to help the material, to determine probable cause for purposes of detention. That is what Roberts versus Court of Appeals has authorized the Honorable Prosecutor.

COURT:
Well, it is part of the record. Is it not part of the records? The Preliminary investigation record?

PROS. GALANIDA:
Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
All the affidavits that the prosecution - - -

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Yes, that is why Your Honor please. Since there has been no order from this Court specifically making a finding of probable cause after the reindictment of Larranaga. We are requesting His Honor, to take time out consistently from Roberts Jr., vs. Court of Appeals to in himself, dishonor himself reading and appreciating the affidavits and evidence for the prosecution; the affidavits or counter-affidavits and evidence for the defense of Larranaga which is now before the Court in order to determine whether or not there is probable cause for his defense, Your Honor

COURT:
Well, if I remember correctly that is for the purpose of determining whether the accused could be arrested. That is probable cause for arresting the accused under the Constitution.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Continuing detention - -

PAGE 13
COURT:
Now, the Supreme Court in its resolution held that the accused Larranaga was legally - - - or the Warrant of Arrest was legal issued by Judge Agana. I was not the one who determined probable cause, it was Judge Agana and the Court of Appeals held it was legally issued and therefore he should remained in prison or detention. O, papano? (So, how?)

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
With all due respect, Your Honor - - - -

COURT:
Why do I have to make another determination of probable cause when the Supreme Court has already held that he was validly arrested and there was probable cause.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Actually, Your Honor, we beg to disagree - -

COURT:
Only the Supreme Court ordered the regular investigation which was accomplished. So, I arraigned the accused - ordered him arraigned. What else should I do? Well, that implies that I find probable cause otherwise why will I ordered him arraigned?

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
There are two - - - may we expand this, Your Honor?

COURT:
Well, if you wish I will make - - -

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Robert vs. Court of Appeals - - - -

COURT:
I will make a declaration now that I find probable cause, that is why I ordered him arraigned. If that is all you want. I find that there is probable cause and I agree the Fiscals after examining the records that there is probable cause that is why I ordered him arraigned. That is just a formality but

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

PAGE 14
COURT: (CONTINUATION)
that is implied.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
May we have a formal Order on this, Your Honor, so that we can follow the guidelines as stated in our Memorandum of Authorities particularly - - - -

COURT:
We will do that today in the Order, I will state that in compliance with your request, the Court hereby declares it finds probable cause for holding your client for trial and the Court after examination - - - -

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
For his continuing detention, Your Honor.

COURT:
So, that is what we want to consider now your Motion for Bail. Do you want separate hearing, summary hearing, special hearing? What kind of hearing are you asking for?

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
In few of the nature of our defense, Your Honor. We would request the Court for a separate hearing to determine whether or not accused Larranaga is entitled to bail considering our contention with all due respect that the evidence as to the guilt of accused Larranaga is not strong. As a matter of fact it is as incompetent as it is weak.

COURT:
Alright by separate hearing, you mean the Court will not proceed with the trial today but first conduct a hearing on your client's application for bail? So, again the trial of these cases will be deferred or postponed. Is that what you mean?

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
What we are saying, Your Honor, is that since we have filed our Motion and His Honor has decided that there should be a hearing conducted to determine whether or not evidence of guilt is strong

PAGE 15
ATTY. ARMOVIT: (CONTINUATION)
then evidence against Larranaga to prove his guilt maybe be introduced and it may also be part of the evidence on trial if that is what the prosecution - - -

COURT:
What I am asking you is, by separate hearing you mean we will not commence the regular trial today?

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
No, Your Honor. What we are saying is that all evidence not bearing on Larranaga should not at this time when we are considering whether or not he is bail able be introduced. We are asking His Honor - - -

COURT:
You want separate hearing for Larranaga alone - you want the prosecution to present evidence for Larranaga alone?

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
And then you will present defense evidence for your client Larranaga - - - -

ATTY. ARMOVIT;
Yes, your Honor.

COURT:
So, a special hearing excluding the other accused. In other words, wala pang (none yet) regular trial, only special hearing for your client?

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
We will stipulate that whatever evidence is introduced by the prosecution insofar as Larranaga is concerned, will not only be evidenced for purposes of bail but will also form part of the evidence-in-chief in the trial.

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

PART 16
COURT:
But the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses will not only apply to the other accused because they cannot cross-examine the witnesses. Only your client can cross-examine them. In other words, there will be two (2) trials- special trial for your client and the regular trial for the accused which you want by implication to be deferred or postponed again.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
To be specific, Your Honor, I have gone over the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses-affiants submitted during preliminary investigation there are only four (4) affiants - - -

COURT:
The Court is asking you- if you want the regular trial deferred or postponed again as regards the seven (7) other accused because you want a special hearing for your client alone. There is a provision in the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 to the effect that the trial must commence within thirty (30) days after arraignment and your client was arraigned on July 16 of this year, last month and it is almost thirty (30) days now. So, the trial must commence today by mandate of the law.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Yes, Your Honor, as far as our client - -

COURT:
That is as far as your client only is concerned. But the other accused were arraigned last year in October. So, anong pakialam nila doon sa Motion mo that you filed? (So what do they have to do with your motion?) Why should they be prejudiced by your client's insistent postponement and deferment of the trial. Bakit pati sila makakaksama? (Why should they also be badly affected?) Why did they not have a speedy trial? Almost one (1) year na, walang trial, (Almost one year already and still no trial,) they were arraigned last year and the laws says after arraignment thirty (30) days trial na. (trial already.) Why can we not try these people in accordance with the mandate of the law because you persist in deferring the trial for all these people and we cannot have a separate trial for your client because they are jointly charge. We are to try all of them together.

ATTY. ARMOVIT;
Not even for purposes of bail, Your Honor?

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

PAGE 17
PROS. MIRO:
We object to such a move - - -

COURT:
It's alright, Fiscal, please sit down, we have to save time.
/to defense counsel:
The Court is denying your Motion. First ground is, it is in violation of the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 which requires that the regular trial must commence within thirty (30) days after arraignment. These people were arraigned last year although your client was arraigned only last July 16, they are entitled to speedy trial and we cannot accede your Motion that we will conduct a separate trial for your client alone. How long will that take? How long will that take when you will present forty (40) witnesses? How long, one year, two years, three years for your client alone? What about these people maghihintay na lang sila nakatunganga (will they just wait doing nothing) while waiting for the trial to go on? That is only the first reason. The second reason is, it is discretionary upon the Court which procedure to follow with respect to the hearing of the Application for Bail it maybe summary or otherwise or it maybe contemporaneous or simultaneous or synchronous with the trial as what happened in the case of Rosales vs. Court of Appeals- will you take this down, Panero? (My fellow lawyer?)215 SCRA, 102. There in that case the hearing for bail was conducted synchronously or simultaneously with the trial and the Supreme Court said that is alright that can be done. That is the second reason for denying your Motion. And the third reason, is, because of the constitutional provisions of equal protection of law - that there should be no discrimination among the accused. There should be one (1) trial or hearing for all of them. With respect to bail, there cannot be a special bail hearing for your client and another bail hearing for the other accused. They have to be given equal treatment. Alright your Motion is hereby denied.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
For separate hearing, Your Honor?

COURT:
Yes.

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

PAGE 18
ATTY. ARMOVIT:
In other words, we have joint hearing even on the bail?

COURT:
Synchronous- the trial will be the hearing for bail at the same time- synchronous.
/to Court Interpreter:
Give them a copy of the Order, the prosecution and the defense.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Your Honor, we just received a copy of an Order granting the Motion to Discharge--

COURT:
That is the Order granting the Motion to Discharge and this is the Order granting the Motion for Leave. (Court giving the said Order to the Court Interpreter). We are not granting the Motion to Discharge, although that is also for distribution. (Court referring to the other Order). We are not granting the Motion for Discharge. However, we are allowing the prosecution to present this Davidson Rusia as a state witness and I will not discharge him yet. I will discharge him after he has testified for the prosecution and if the circumstances so warrants in the judgment of the Court, what does it mean? It means that if the Court finds that he has told the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, the Court will discharge him and give him immunity for prosecution.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Your Honor, there are five (5) requirements - -

COURT:
Yes. Now, the prosecution has submitted in support of his Motion the Affidavit of Rusia; second, the Resolution of the Parole Investigator; and third, the Affidavits of all the prosecution witnesses and the hearing is conducted today. The Court believes that the prosecution's Motion is meritorious because the prosecution's evidence is sufficient to support its Motion to allow accused Rusia to testify as a

PAGE 19
COURT: (CONTINUATION)
a state witness. But the Court will not grant him discharge right away. The Court will first hear his testimony and determine if he is telling the whole truth and if so, the Court will grant him discharge. That is the ruling. You have received already the copy of the Order which I was supposed to distribute also today. Alright, we are allowing Davidson Rusia, accused to testify as state witness for the prosecution and if the Court finds that he is telling the whole truth, the Court may discharge him and grant him immunity from the prosecution. Now, the evidence submitted by the prosecution in support of this Motion are Affidavit of Rusia; Affidavit of prosecution witnesses and the third, the Resolution of the Parole Investigator. The Court hereby rules that there is no need for the defense lawyers to cross examine these affiants in these affidavits presented by the prosecution because if we will allow the defense to cross-examine these affiants, e, di regular trial na yon. (so then this would mean this is a regular trial already.) Anyway they will be subjected to cross-examination in the course of the regular trial. Rusia himself will be subjected to cross-examination after has given his direct testimony. So, the Court hereby rules that the prosecution is allowed to present as a witness for the prosecution, the accused Davidson Rusia.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
With all due respect, Your Honor - - -

COURT:
Yes, one at a time.

ATTY. GICA:
Your Honor please, we have observed that in Sec. 9, Rule 119, there is a phrase which talks of a hearing - -

COURT:
Yes, what are we conducting now? What is this?

ATTY. GICA:
And we understand, Your Honor, that this particular Section talks of the discharge of a witness to become a state witness.

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

PAGE 20
COURT:
Well, there is an exception that is the case of Rosales vs. Court of Appeals which I am citing here in my Order that the accused may testify even before he is discharge and his discharge maybe made later on after if the circumstances so warrant in the judgment of the Court.

ATTY. GICA:
We do not have any questions on that point, Your Honor. Our point is, the statement of the Honorable Court wherein we cannot cross-examine the affiants upon whose affidavits the particular Order was based, Your Honor, as well as Rusia--

COURT:
There is no need in my view to cross-examine these affiants at the hearing on the Application of Bail because that would tantamount to be a regular trial already. Kokros-eksamin naman ninyo sa bail yon, e, tapos pagnagtestify sa regular trial kokros-eksamin din ninyo, papano yan? You will cross-examine them during the bail trial and when they testify in the regular trial you will again cross-examine them, how is that?) As long as they are cross-examined once tama na yon (that's enough) whether during the trial or the main hearing. Now, I hope that there is no need to cross-examine at the bail hearing they will be cross-examined at the regular trial.

ATTY. GICA:
Yes, we are not talking on the bail hearing, Your Honor. We are talking of the discharge.

COURT:
Precisely we are talking of the discharge here.

ATTY. GICA:
Yes.

COURT:
The hearing of the discharge kokros-eksaminin ninyo sila (you will cross-examine them) on the hearing of the discharge-

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

PAGE 21
ATTY. GICA:
Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
Papana ang iba? (How about the others?) They will be cross-examined during the trial anyway.

ATTY. GICA:
Because the Rule itself says there should be a hearing on the Motion to Discharge.

COURT:
It does not say they must be cross-examined. What are we conducting now? Is it not a hearing? It's a hearing. Affidavits are also evidence.

ATTY. GICA:
Yes, that's right. But what I mean, Your Honor, is that in as much as the basis of the Order of the court in deferring the consideration of the Motion to Discharge and allowing the prosecution to present Mr. Rusia even before his dropping as a state witness on the basis of these affidavits, I think, Your Honor, that the defense especially accused Josman Aznar is entitled to cross-examine these affiants.

COURT:
That is the ruling of the court that accused Rusia maybe presented as a state witness on the basis of these affidavits of the other witnesses including Rusia and that they need not be cross-examined at the hearing on the discharge. That is the ruling of the Court and if you are not agreeable you can file a Petition before a higher court to nullify that Order which I just issue now- to nullify that Order and the proceedings conducted thereunder. But in the absence of a restraining order from a higher court, this court will proceed the trial today as mandated by the Speedy Trial Act of 1998. Is that clear? You can file a Petition before the Supreme Court. That is what you have been doing all along anyway. So, what more supplemental Petition more or less? You file another Supplemental Petition

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

PAGE 22
COURT: (CONTINUATION)
questioning my Order but that is my ruling and I will continue with the trial of these cases regardless of what you say.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
Your Honor, may the private prosecutor be allowed to say something?

COURT:
Let the private prosecutor say something.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
Your Honor please, the ruling of this Honorable court that Davidson Rusia be allowed to testify now and only after his testimony that this Honorable Court will rule whether he will be admitted as a state witness is more than correct because there is even a ruling by the Supreme Court that actual hearing is not even necessary to determine whether a propose witness will qualify to be discharge or not and that we are referring to the case People vs Court of Appeals Chief Inspector Jose T. Pring that's Vol. 223, June 17, 1993. No actual hearing is even necessary.

COURT:
What is the page number, Panero? (My fellow lawyer?)

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
It's 479, Your Honor.

ATTY. GICA:
Yes, Your Honor, But in that particular case, Your Honor, People vs. Court of Appeals, Volume 223 - -

COURT:
Look, I had issued a ruling and we have to save time. If you want to question the ruling before the Supreme Court you do so but will

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

PAGE 23
COURT: (CONTINUATION)
proceed with the trial today. Sit down. Proceed with the trial.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
May we also say something, Your Honor, for Larranaga?

COURT:
Yes. Put your objections for the record.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
But you must not interrupt.

ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Yes, we will not, Your Honor.

COURT:
Sit down. We will proceed with the trial. We will now commence the trial of these cases. The prosecution may now present its most vital eyewitness. Alright call your first vital eyewitness.

PROS. MIRO:
Your Honor please, the Task Force on Heinous Crimes composed of Prosecutors Duyongco, Galanida and Estrera and with the appearances of private prosecutors are ready now to present our first witness Davidson Rusia.

COURT:
Yes, please do so. Call the first witness.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
May we request, Your Honor, that the handcuff be removed?

COURT:
Yes, remove the handcuff.

PAGE 24
(Witness to the stand)

PROS. MIRO:
I hereby grant authority to Atty. Hermosisima to conduct the direct-examination of witness Davidson Rusia subject to our supervision and control, Your Honor.

COURT:
I just want to ask him question first before he testifies.

COURT/to defense counsels:
Please sit down, do not interrupt. We had already issued the ruling, go the the Supreme Court, you can question the ruling, not here.

/to Court Interpreter:
Swear the witness.

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

WITNESS:
A. I do.

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

WITNESS:
A. Davidson Valiente Rusia, 23 years old, single, goldsmith helper and a resident of Labangon, Cebu City.

ATTY. GICA:
May we ask for the exclusion of other witnesses, Your Honor?

COURT:
Do you have other witnesses?

PAGE 25
PROS. MIRO:
No other witnesses, Your Honor, for the prosecution inside the courtroom.

ATTY. GICA:
Although we know, Your Honor - -

COURT:
Well, we have to take their word for it.

/to prosecution:
State the purpose of his testimony for the record.

PROS. GALANIDA:
Before that, Your Honor, may we be allowed to manifest something for the record?

COURT:
Yes.

PROS. GALANIDA:
We are respectfully praying to this Honorable Court that the direct testimony of Rusia now in this proceedings for this Motion to Discharge be considered as his direct testimony during the bail trial and also in the regular trial.

COURT:
Yes, that is the ruling of this Court that the bail hearing will be held synchronously with the trial.

PROS. GALANIDA:
Yes, Your Honor, we just wanted to put it on record.

COURT:
Now, when the prosecution manifest that they have submitted all the evidence they want to present to show that the guilt of the accused is strong, then the Court will allow the defense to present rebuttal evidence and then we will issue the ruling on the Application for Bail.

PAGE 26
ATTY. GICA:
Your Honor please, can we ask the prosecution if they are presenting Mr. Dionisio Chiong and Mrs. Thelma Chiong? They are around. We know them because of the newspaper pictures that we have seen and they are inside the courtroom.

PROS. GALANIDA:
The mother Mrs. Chiong is here and she has the right to be here because she is the mother of the victims, Your Honor.

COURT:
They are the parents of the victims - -

ATTY. GICA:
Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
They have the right to be here.

ATTY. GICA:
But they are witnesses, Your Honor.

COURT:
Nevertheless they have the right to be here. They are the parents of the victims.

ATTY. GICA:
I submit to the discretion of the Honorable Court.

PROS. GALANIDA:
But for the information of Atty. Gica, Your Honor, we are not presenting Mr. Chiong, only Mrs. Chiong.

ATTY. GICA:
I see-

ATTY. PAYLADO:
Your Honor - - -

PAGE 27
COURT:
Yes.

ATTY. PAYLADO:
May I be clarified, Your Honor, is Mr. Rusia testifying as a state witness and at the same time the accused, Your Honor?

COURT:
Well, he is still an accused. The Court has not discharge of him. The Court wants to hear his testimony first. That is why I will ask him few questions before the prosecution starts but we want them to state first the purpose.

/to private prosecutor:
Will you state the purpose of his testimony?

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
The prosecution offers to prove by the testimony of this witness that his witness together with all the other accused in these cases kidnapped, detained, maltreated and raped both Jacqueline and Marijoy Chiong and later brutally murdered Marijoy Chiong by throwing her into a deep ravine while still alive and that Josman Aznar together with other accused brought Jacqueline Chiong to an undisclosed place; and to prove other related matters.