|
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 13, 1998 at
2:15 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. BIENVENIDO SANIEL
(Appearing as private prosecutors)
PAGE
2
ATTY. RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT
ATTY. RAMON TELERON
(Counsel for accused Larranaga)
ATTY. EDGAR GICA
ATTY. FIDEL GONZALES, JR.
(Counsel for accused Aznar)
ATTY. ALFONSO DELA CERNA
(Counsel for accused Adlawan, Cano
and Balansag)
ATTY. LORENZO PAYLADO
(Counsel for accused Uy brothers)
ATTY. FERNANDO GUBALANE
ATTY. CORNELIUS GONZALEZ
(Counsel for accused Rusia)
COURT:
(TO COURT INTERPRETER)
Call the cases.
COURT
INTERPRETER: (CALLING THE CASES)
CRIMINAL
CASES NOS. CBU-45303 AND 45304 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PLAINTIFF 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, and Bievenido Saniel.
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:
For accused
Uy brothers, Your Honor.
ATTY.
GUBALENE:
For accused Rusia,
Your Honor.
COURT:
Are you ready to
proceed with he cross-examination of the witness?
PROS.
MIRO:
Ready, Your
Honor.
COURT:
This is the Order
on the hearing yesterday.
/to Court
Interpreter:
Give them a copy. That matter about the probable cause is included there
already which you requested in the first paragraph.
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
Thank you, Your
Honor.
COURT:
Let us agree on
cross-examination time because the prosecution will be allowed to
cross-examine each defense witness for only one (1) hour. only one (1)
Fiscal will conduct cross-examination of each
defense witness. Now, you are five (5) lawyers or six (6)?
PROS.
ESTRERA:
Six (6)- -
COURT:
Six (6).lawyers for
the defense -
now, to give you one (1) hour each for cross-examination
PAGE
4
COURT: (CONTINUATION)
would be bothering the witness too much. Six (6) hours for cross-examination-
that is unfair while the prosecution has only one (1) hour and only one
(1) Fiscal will cross-examine. So, we will have to limit your cross-examination
time. Maybe we should limit to 1 1/2 hour each but if a defense counsel
wants to waive in favor of the lead
counsel or another counsel, he may do so.
Suppose Atty. Paylado if you want to
waive your half hour to
Atty. Armovit, alright then Atty. Armovit will have one (1) hour. So. of
course, the defense can cross-examine the witness
for only three
(3) hours. Now, if everybody wants to cross-examine then you will .have
only half an
hour each. What do you think? Is that not fair enough?
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
With all due
respect, Your Honor.
COURT:
Yes.
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
We are trying here
non-bailable death penalty offenses and nothing less than the life of each
is at stake. We respectfully would request
this Honorable
Court to allow us on our own few of
the needed time and effort to cross-examine. To go on with our cross-examination
and if His Honor finds that we are wondering repeating questions then that
is the time for His Honor, to stop us. Allow
us, Your
Honor please, because of the gravity of the offense to be able to exhaust
our right to cross-examine because that is the only test of truth in the
adversary system in our country.
COURT:
Yes, the test of
cross-examination is the highest and most indispensable known to the law for
the discovery of truth. You are quite correct there. But as I said if we
give you One (1) hour each and with extension that would be unfair because
the prosecution is given only
PAGE
5
COURT:
(CONTINUATION)
one (1) hour and only one (1) Fiscal will cross-examine. But you can agree
among yourselves to give the right to cross-examine to only one of you of
a particular witness. But we will allow you to waive in favor of your
colleague. Is that not fair enough? Because if you cross-examine a witness
for six (6) hours as what our Panero said he may request for extension,
that is too much.
ATTY.
GICA:
Your Honor please,
in behalf of accused Josman Aznar, we adopt the manifestation of Atty.
Armovit, Your Honor, with the additional
manifestation that this is the only chance that we have, Your
Honor, in order to effectively protect the interest of our clients by
testing the credibility of a witness who had imputed something which we
believe are untrue and full of falsity and falsehood. Without that
cross-examination, the right to cross-examine the witness, Your Honor,
where are we?
COURT:
What are you asking
for then? How long a time do
you want to cross-examine the witness each one of you- - -
ATTY.
GIGA:
The limit that is
provided for under the Rules. If our
cross-examination would go out of way. Your Honor, out of hand, no longer
on matters which were testified to
on direct and no longer on matters which are
relevant
of the issues presented before this
Honorable Court, then this
Honorable Court
can
stop our cross-examination.
COURT:
You mean there is
no limit?
ATTY.
GICA:
We
are not limiting our cross, Your Honor.
PAGE
6
COURT:
As to the time?
ATTY.
GICA:
Your Honor please,
w e are not limiting the prosecution to present their case and I hope that
the prosecution also would understand the position of the defense and
should not limit also the defense in exercising its right.
COURT:
We are speaking up
of the cross-examination time it has to be limited, because there are six
(6) defense counsels, e, papano ito? (So, how is
this?) If we will limit to only one (1) hour, each counsel maybe
subjected to six (6) hours of cross-examination and Atty. Armovit does not
seems to be satisfied with just one (1) hour - 0, papano na ngayon yan? (So,
how will that be now?) The responsibility of the Court is to
control the trial, the presentation of evidence including the
cross-examination- - - -
ATTY.
GICA:
You Honor please- -
COURT:
We have to impose
the examination.
ATTY.
GICA:
Maybe, Your Honor,
this much we can actually accept at this point in time. Like for example,
if Atty. Armovit had already cross-examine a witness of the prosecution
and one (1) defense counsel, the other defense counsel would adopt the
cross-examination questions on those matters already touched by
Atty. Armovit, then we should do so and limit ourselves to other
matters not been touched.
COURT:
We agree then that
the defense should not ask the same question?
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
7
ATTY. GICA:
Yes,
Your Honor.
COURT:
No repetition of
the question.
ATTY.
GICA:
Yes. Your Honor.
COURT:
But for the moment
we will not make any time limitation.
ATTY.
GICA:
Yes. Your Honor.
COURT:
/to prosecutors:
What do you have to say?
PROS.
ESTRERA:
We request, Your
Honor, that
in the case of accused
Larranaga and Aznar who are represented by two (2) counsels, only one (1) should
cross-examine.
ATTY.
GICA:
It depends.
PROS.
ESTRERA:
Only, one (1)
should cross-examine, Your Honor.
COURT:
Tama
naman yon. (I think that's right.)
ATTY.
GICA:
Because as I said,
Your Honor, there might be- -
COURT:
Dalawang
abogado, dalawa pa ang magkrokroseksamin
- (Two lawyers, two would still cross-examine -)
But you have to decide which
one
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
8
COURT:
(CONTINUATION)
will cross-examine, bakit dala-dalawa pa ang magkokroseksamin? (Why
will two lawyers have to cross-examine?)
ATTY.
GICA:
As I said, Your
Honor, even if there are two (2) counsels but if the first counsel, the
lead counsel
of a certain client or accused appropriating to ask
cross-examination questions, the same cross-examination questions cannot
be covered anymore by the other counsel.
COURT:
No, that does not
apply when the accused is represented by two (2) lawyers. The two (2)
lawyers can agree who will cross-examine and what are the questions to be
asked. Kailangan pagsunduan ninyong dalawa iyon. (What's
needed, the two lawyers should agree among each other).
You are representing the same person. So, who is representing- Larranaga
and who else?
PROS.
ESTRERA:
Aznar, Your
Honor.
COURT:
Is being
represented by two (2) lawyers?
PROS.
ESTRERA:
Yes. two (2)
lawyers, Your Honor.
COURT:
So, who is
representing them?
PROS.
ESTRERA:
Attys. Gonzales and
Gica, Your Honor.
COURT:
So, either one- if
you cross-examine then Atty. Gonzales will no longer cross-examine or - -
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
9
ATTY. GICA:
Or Atty. Gonzales,
can say, Your Honor, that Atty. Gica
can proceed or can continue the cross-examination.
In other words, can beat
me.
COURT:
Yes, but not both
of you will cross-examine - -
ATTY.
GICA:
Not both of us- -
-
COURT:
Not both of you
will cross-examine the same witness.
ATTY.
GICA:
Yes, Your Honor. If
the other counsel like Atty. Gonzales would say that I may continue my
cross-examination-
COURT:
That is fair
enough. The only condition I want to impose is there must also be a time
limit. Now. you may ask for extension. That is what
we did
in the Abiabi Murder case. One (1) hour but reasonable extension period if
the circumstances
warrants. I am very liberal with respect to cross-examination because as I
said that is the highest and most indispensable test known to the law for
the discovery of truth. It is more important even than direct-examination
because it is broader in scope than direct-examination because in
cross-examination you
can
test the credibility of the witness,
you can
elicit all important facts bearing on the issue and test
the
sincerity of the witnesses, as well. So. it is a must broader right
than
direct-examination and the Court is very liberal
when it comes to cross-examination because our policy here is to ascertain
the truth- we want to know the truth.
ATTY.
GICA:
Thank you, Your
Honor.
PAGE
10
ATTY. GUBALANE:
May I be allowed to
make manifestation, Your
Honor?
COURT:
Yes.
ATTY.
GUBALANE:
As counsel an record
for Davidson Rusia, Your Honor, I most respectfully ask this Honorable
Court to relieve me as his counsel on the following grounds: First,
he withheld vital
information
in yesterday's direct-examination; Secondly, the Public Attorney's office
represents clients who has no counsel. But yesterday's hearing Atty.
Hermosisima represented him during the direct-examination. On the above
grounds, Your Honor, I most
urgently
and respectfully ask this Honorable
Court to relieve me as counsel for accused Rusia, Your Honor.
COURT:
He withheld valuable
informations? You mean he did not tell the truth?
ATTY.
GUBALANE:
No, Your Honor. When
I talked to him, yesterday he did not inform
me that he raped Jacqueline
Chiang and
nowhere in his Affidavit did I read about such incident.
Your Honor please- - -
COURT:
An eyewitness is not
limited to the matters he stated in his affidavit.
ATTY.
GUBALANE:
But he did not tell
me before he testified, Your Honor please-
COURT:
Well. an Affidavit is
an ex-parte and by its very nature it is limited. That is why the
PAGE
11
COURT:
(CONTINUATION)
Supreme Court has always held that affidavits has superseded by the
testimony in open court of the witness.
ATTY.
GUBALANE:
And secondly. Your
Honor please, our office will represent an accused who has no counsel but
in yesterday's hearing he was actively represented by Atty.
Hermosisima. In which case, I believe that I have no business at all in
today's hearing.
COURT:
We have to ask Atty.
Hermosisima about that.
/to Atty. Hermosisima:
Is it true that you
are acting as a counsel for the witness-accused?
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
No, Your Honor. I
am acting as private prosecutor. But since we are
proposing, the Prosecutors are proposing Mr. Rusia to be
a state
witness, then it is incumbent upon the Prosecutors to present him as our
witness, as our evidence.
COURT:
You have to conduct
the direct-examination of this witness because he was being asked to
testify for the prosecution.
ATTY.
GUBALANE:
In
my honest belief, Your Honor, the actuations of good counsel
Atty. Hermosisima in effect represent my supposed client Davidson Rusia,
Your Honor.
COURT:
By conducting the
direct-examination?
ATTY.
GUBALANE:
Yes, Your Honor.
PAGE
12
COURT:
But you cannot
conduct the direct-examination. How can the Court allow you to conduct the
direct-examination of a prosecution witness being a defense counsel? Only
the private prosecutor or the prosecutor himself, public prosecutor
may conduct direct-examination of a prosecution witness- -
ATTY.
GUBALANE:
In my honest
belief, Your
Honor, as to yesterday Davidson Rusia is still an accused
in this case, Your Honor, please. That is what I believe.
COURT:
But an accused can always testify if he
wants to for the Prosecution.
ATTY.
GUBALANE:
But in my belief. Your Honor, an accused as his counsel on
record should have been the one who represents him. However, I am asking
this Honorable Court to once and for all simplify this issue, I be
relieved as his counsel on record.
COURT:
Well, if you are
reluctant to act as his counsel, the Court will designate another
Public Attorney
to represent him.
Then who is present
now, Public Attorney? Where is Atty. Gonzalez? Is he here? He is the head
of the PAO. (Addressing to Atty. Gubalane). You call Atty. Gonzales to
replace you.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
May I be allowed to
say something, Your Honor?
COURT:
Yes.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Davidson Rusia was
represented yesterday, Your Honor,
in support of our Motion to Discharge
PAGE
13
PROS. GALANIDA: (CONTINUATION)
because we are going to show to this Honorable Court that he possess all
the qualifications to become a state witness. So, naturally- - -
COURT:
Let us understand
this clearly- Rusia is still an accused.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Yes
COURT:
And the
Court has merely allowed the prosecution to present him as a prosecution
witness. The Court has not yet
ordered
his discharge as an accused. The Court will do that only if it is
satisfied that he is telling the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth. So, he remains as accused.
However, as I said there is
nothing in the law or in the rules which prohibits an accused from
testifying against himself and against his co-accused. Bakit meron bang
bawal doon? (Why is there a prohibition
on that?) If accused Larranaga wants to testify here
against
himself and against his- co-accused, why will I prevent him? Why
will anybody
prevent him? E, kung gusto niyai baki't ba? (So, If
he wants to, why not?) Rusia wanted to testify against himself and
against his co-accused. E, ano ang reklaso niny'o? (So,
what is your complaint?) Ano ang reklamo nitong Public
Attorney natin? (What's the complaint of this Public
Attorney of ours?) He wanted to do that. Alright, we will ask
Atty. Gonzalez to replace you - -
/to
Atty. Gonzales:
Atty.
Gonzales please- - will you please replace your subordinate Public
Attorney Gubalane because he
does not want to act as defense
counsel for Rusia anymore. So, the Court hereby relieved Atty. Gubalane of
his duties as defense counsel and hereby appoints Public Attorney Gonzales
as the defense counsel for Rusia. Alright, you may
ATTY.
GONZALEZ:
May I say
something, Your Honor?
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
14
COURT:
Yes.
ATTY.
C. GONZALEZ:
I have discussed
this matter with Atty. Gubalane, Your Honor,
and I feel, Your Honor,
as I felt then that the failure of accused
Rusia to inform Atty. Gubalane of a
very material fact
is very serious, Your Honor, and if I were in his shoes yesterday
and I will deny these material information
certainly
if I was given this information, Your Honor,
this could have guided we what to do,
I
could have advice Rusia so many things.
COURT:
The point is, we
have to proceed with the trial
today. We can ask Mr. Rusia
if he is agreeable to
designate another lawyer, his
own lawyer aside from the PAO, he may be
agreeable to do that.
/to
Atty. C. Gonzalez:
Alright,
you will just represent him temporarily for purposes of this hearing. The
Court is ordering you to do that because he is without
counsel and we cannot proceed without him having a counsel.
ATTY.
PAYLADO:
For
the record, Your Honor please, we therefore
understand the situation yesterday that when
Mr. Rusia was called to the witness stand there
was no proper advice from his counsel?
ATTY.
C. GONZALEZ:
No,
I will not agree with that, Your Honor.
There was no advice along that line because some
material information was withheld from the lawyers.
How can we properly guide or advice the lawyers? I disagree with
that statement.
COURT:
Whether
or not he followed the advice of his lawyer
is material, that an accused or a
PAGE
15
COURT:
(CONTINUATION)
witness may or may not follow the advice of his lawyer so that doesn't
make a difference. But the point is, since he is still an accused he
has to be
represented by a counsel and the Court is at a loss who to appoint as his
de oficio
counsel. Well,
since you are the only one available, I have to appoint one of you as the
defense counsel for purposes of this hearing
only. Now, we will ask Mr. Rusia to get his own lawyer if he can designate
his
own lawyer. We will ask the prosecution to help him find a lawyer
because he is now a witness
for the prosecution.
ATTY.
C. GONZALEZ:
May I say
something, Your Honor?
COURT:
Yes.
ATTY.
GONZALEZ:
With due respect.
Your Honor please. may I suggest that with this statement of the Honorable
Court that Rusia can look for his own lawyer, may I suggest that he will
look for his lawyer right now- - -
COURT:
The Court is
ordering you to act as his lawyer today. You want me to send you to jail
right now for Contempt of Court?
ATTY.
C. GONZALEZ:
May I be allowed
to- - -
COURT:
Sit down. You are
hereby appointed defense counsel for purposes of this hearing alone for
Rusia. Atty. Gubalane may leave the Courtroom.
ATTY.
GUBALANE:
Thank you, Your
Honor.
PART
16
COURT:
So, the Court has
appointed Atty. Gonzalez as de oficio counsel for accused Rusia only for
purposes of this hearing, unless Rusia now designate or appoint his own
lawyer. Alright call the witness.
ATTY.
GICA:
Your Honor please,
may I say something?
COURT: Yes.
ATTY.
GICA:
Well, I think, Your
Honor, before we start with the cross-examination of Mr. Rusia as a
witness this matter would be faced down first. Why?
Because the voluntariness of the actuations of Mr. Rusia is already
put in issue by the manifestation of counsels. That there were some vital
informations that were withheld and- - -
COURT:
Look, I already
made a ruling on that that the witness or the accused is not bound by his
affidavit. Neither is he bound to tell his lawyer everything.
ATTY.
GICA:
If
the purpose of Mr. Rusia's assistance of counsel, Your Honor, is for Mr.
Rusia to understand his rights and the import of his confession so that he
will know the consequences, Your Honor. Perhaps Mr. Rusia was misled by
some members of the prosecution, Your Honor, about these things- - -
COURT:
Why
are we going to take up that now? We cannot take up that now.
We are in the process of cross-examination of the witness. Why
don't you ask him?
ATTY.
GICA:
The testimony, Your
Honor- - -
PAGE
17
COURT:
We are going to ask
him- were you coerced? Who is going to decide that? Me? Shall I decide
that he was coerced? Ask
him when he is in the witness
stand.
ATTY.
GICA:
But, he is not.
represented with counsel, Your Honor.
COURT:
Sit down, call the
witness for cross-examination.
ATTY.
GONZALEZ:
May I
say something, Your Honor?
COURT:
No, sit down. Stop
this dilatory tactics. We will continue with the cross-examination.
Alright, the ruling of this Court is that the the
prosecution- - since he is now a prosecution witness, may interpose
objections
to the questions to be asked of this witness by the defense. Of
course
Atty. Gonzalez may also object if he wants to. Proceed with the cross-examination
otherwise you should be deemed to have waived cross-examination of
this witness.
So, who will cross-examine first?
ATTY.
C. GONZALEZ:
May I say
something. Your Honor?
COURT:
No more, sit
down.
ATTY.
C. GONZALEZ:
I just want this
clarified, Your Honor. Is my appointment as counsel for witness Rusia is
for his testimony only?
PAGE
18
COURT:
You are appointed as
counsel for the defense, as counsel for the accused. He is still an accused
but if he is openly discharge, you are
also discharge as counsel when he is no longer an accused. Since he still an
accused you
are
acting or appointed as counsel for him as an accused although not
as a
witness because the prosecution has called him as a witness. Alright, you
don't want
to cross-examine this person? Sit down.
ATTY.
C. GONZALEZ:
May we ask Mr. Rusia,
Your Honor- - -
COURT:
Sit down.
I don't want to hear anything from you. Sit down. You are disturbing the
proceedings.
We want to start the cross-examination and you kept
talking. You are the defense
counsel, why are you interrupting?
Commence the cross-examination.
(WITNESS TO THE STAND)
COURT
INTERPRETER: (To the witness)
You are reminded that
you will be testifying under the same oath.
WITNESS:
Yes,
I am.
COURT
INTERPRETER:
(Davidson Valiente
Rusia testify under the same oath on cross-examination).
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
Your
Honor, for accused
Larranaga.
COURT:
Proceed.
PAGE
19
ATTY. ARMOVIT:
Your Honor, in
consistent with our stand in these cases that we still have remedies with
the Department of Justice and Supreme Court, we will cross-examine the
witness subject to whatever resolutions will come out from remedies- - -
-
COURT:
Agreed.
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
And
also our cross-examination is
not a Waiver of our objection to the inadmissibility of his testimony.
COURT:
Yes, that is
understood, you are not waiving anything.
Proceed.
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
May I now?
COURT:
Yes.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS
BY ATTY. R. ARMOVIT
Q
Your testimony Yesterday was that while your group
was driving along Archbishop Reyes Avenue, you
came upon two (2) women at around 10:30
in the evening of July, 16, 1997? Correct?
A Yes.
sir.
COURT:
/to the
witness:
Q Before
you proceed, let us ask him first- do
you wish to designate another defense counsel
for you instead of the Public Attorney's Office? You wish to designate
another defense counsel? And who are you designating as
your defense counsel? Because the Public
PAGE
20
COURT:
(CONTINUATION)
Attorney's Office is reluctant to defend you or to act as your defense
counsel. We do not want a reluctant defense counsel. If you want to
appoint or designate a defense counsel, please do
so. Who are you calling
or designating?
If he is here I will appoint him immediately as your de oficio counsel.
WITNESS:
A
No, Your Honor.
COURT:
So, for purposes of
this hearing, the Public Attorney's office must continue to act as his counsel.
But next time, tomorrow, will you designate another counsel?
WITNESS:
A
Yes, Your Honor.
COURT:
In lieu of the
Public Attorney's Office which is
reluctant to represent you. Alright, will the prosecution assist him in
finding a new
defense lawyer. He will act as
defense lawyer only
as long as the Court has not discharge him as an accused.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
We will do that,
Your Honor.
COURT/to
defense counsel:
Proceed.
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
Archbishop Reyes
Avenue is west of Ayala Center. Correct?
WITNESS:
A
Yes, sir.
Q
In between Ayala Center and Archbishop Reyes Avenue
are the Ayala Center access road, a
PAGE
21
ATTY.
ARMOVIT: (CONTINUATION)
parking space with water fountain. Am I correct?
WITNESS:
A
Yes, sir.
Q
I would like you to make a sketch so that we can
fully understand, this is very
important thing.
I give you a legal size bond, please draw two (2) parallel lines to
indicate as Archbishop
Reyes Avenue- - - -
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
May we request,
Your Honor, that this paper be
placed here? (Counsel handling over to the witness a record book so
that the witness can comfortably draw).
COURT
INTERPRETER:
(Witness is
preparing/drawing a sketch indicating two (2) parallel lines as Archbishop
Reyes Avenue - - - -
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
May I make a
manifestation, Your Honor? The witness has saved a lot of time and effort,
Your,
Honor. Actually what he has done in this sketch is to draw two (2)
Parallel lines and marked it as Archbishop Reyes and then another
parallel line opposite Archbishop Reyes and
labelled it Ayala road and there is a circle
in between Archbishop Reyes Avenue and Ayala
road. What does this circle
indicate?
WITNESS:
A
That is the Ayala fountain.
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
Please label
it.
Q Likewise there are two
(2) small rectangular figures adjoining
Archbishop Reyes Avenue. What are these?
A Waiting
shed.
PAGE
22
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
Q Where specifically in
this sketch did your group come upon the two (2) women? Where? Please
indicate by two (2) small circles.
WITNESS:
A This is an island- -
PROS.
GALANIDA:
May I request, Your
Honor, that what the witness had said while making the drawing there be
also recorded.
COURT
INTERPRETER:
(Witness indicating
in the drawing by writing
the word "island" and then showing the location where
Marijoy and
Jacqueline were and placed two
(2) circles which he drew
and then labelled these two (2) circles and marked Marijoy and
Jacqueline).
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
|