|
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 17, 1998 at
2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.
Present:
HON. MARTIN A. OCAMPO
Presiding Judge
ASSISTED
BY:
MS. FARAH T. ABANGAN
Court Stenographer
MS. LUCIA C. BAJARIAS
Court Interpreter
APPEARANCE:
PROSECUTOR PRIMO C. MIRO
PROSECUTOR RAMON JOSE DUYONGCO
PROSECUTOR TERESITA GALANIDA
PROSECUTOR CESAR ESTRERA
PROSECUTOR REYNALDO ACOSTA
(Appearing for the State)
ATTY. HONORATO HERMOSISIMA
ATTY. BIENVENIDO SANIEL
ATTY. HILARIO DAVIDE III
ATTY. JOSHUA DACUMOS
(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. ERIC CARIN
(Special appearance for Atty. Paylado Counsel for
accused Uy brothers)
ATTY. FERDINAND SAORNIDO
(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 respectfully appear for the state, Your Honor.
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
Appearing as private prosecutions, Your Honor, in collaboration with
Attys. Saniel, Davide III, and Dacumos.
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
Respectfully
appearing as for accused Larranaga,
Your Honor, in collaboration with Atty. Teleron.
ATTY.
GONZALES:
For accused
Aznar, Your Honor, in collaboration with Atty. Edgar Gica.
PAGE
3
COURT:
Are you
ready to continue with your cross-examination of the witness?
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
Yes, Your
Honor.
ATTY.
TELERON:
Your
Honor please, we would like to raise one (1) Point, Your Honor, Davidson
Rusia when he was arraigned under the Fourth Amended information for
Kidnapping, Rape and Murder pleaded not guilty. But when he testified
before this Honorable Court he categorically admitted that he raped
Jacqueline. So that, Your Honor, in consonance with the case of "Mangubat
vs. Sandiganbayan", August 29, 1986, the Court said
that
"of course, her act of giving credence for the prosecution
without first being
discharged as a state witness would not operate as an acquittal or
otherwise affect her contingent
criminal liability and her testimony thus given would have been admissible
against herself and her co-accused". On this
account, Your Honor, we move that on account of such judicial admission.
this Honorable Court should render judgment against Davidson Rusia for his
conviction of Rape, Your Honor, and to impose the appropriate
penalty.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
The prosecution panel believes, Your Honor, that it is too premature
of this Honorable Court to do that because we are still in
this proceedings which is in support of the Motion to Discharge
filed by the prosecution. So, until and unless his testimony will
be through and until and unless we will be able to finish then that's the
time the Court will render judgment of our Motion to Discharge Rusia.
COURT:
Precisely,
the Court has not discharge Rusia as an accused and the Court said that it
may discharge him he
give his testimony to the Court if in the discretion and judgment of the
Court the circumstances so warrant. And so, where is Rusia,
by the way?
PAGE
4
PROS.
ESTRERA:
He is there, Your Honor.
COURT:
Call
him. Because I want him also to
hear this order.
Precisely I have prepared and
will now issue
a written order concerning admissibility of his testimony. It will simply
confirm the verbal
ruling previously made by this
Court that the
testimony of this witness-accused
is admissible in evidence
against his co-accused. So. please sit down.
ATTY. TELERON:
May
I
say something, Your Honor?
COURT:
Yes.
ATTY.
TELERON:
Actually,
Your Honor. we are not refuting the admissibility or the evaluation of the
competency and quality of his testimony. We are just saying that because he
admitted having committed rape against Jacqueline Chiong then on account of this
jurisprudence, Your Honor, that without first being discharged his criminal
liability has attached
already. And we are also raising this point,
Your Honor- - - -
COURT:
Has his testimony been terminated?
ATTY. TELERON:
Not
Yet, Your Honor.
COURT:
What are you talking about? Sit down. We are
terminating his testimony and you want me to convict him? Sit down. You are
delaying the trial. Alright, you want me to call the guard to cite you in
contempt? Sit down I told you. You are delaying the trial. He
has not yet finish his testimony, you want me to convict him?
PAGE
5
ATTY.
TELERON:
Can we explain,
Your Honor?
COURT:
No more. Do not
waste the time of this Court. We
will continue with his cross-examination forthwith
but receive that order first.
ATTY. GICA:
Your Honor, please- -
-
COURT:
Yes.
ATTY. GICA:
In connection with
the Orders
distributed to the defense as well as the prosecutors, Your Honor, in
connection with these cases, may we ask for time after reading the Order to
raise some points if there are necessary points to
be raised, Your Honor- - -
COURT:
Well, you may raise
that later on but the cross-examination will continue.
ATTY.
GICA:
To
protect the interest of our clients- - -
COURT:
(addressing to the Court Interpreter)
Will you give the
media copies?
/to
counsels:
We will
continue with the cross while you read it.
ATTY.
GICA:
We would like- - -
-
COURT:
I don't want
to waste time anymore, please -
PAGE
6
ATTY. GICA:
Yes, Your Honor but
we- - -
COURT:
We
are mandated by the Supreme Court to finish the trial of these cases within sixty
(60) days whether or not that is humanly possible, I do
not
know.
But certainly we will try.
ATTY. GICA:
We are aware of
that, Your
Honor. As a matter of fact, we took note of
the Pre-Trial Statement of this Honorable Court and we are glad,
Your Honor, that that is actually the trust of this Honorable Court
to dispense justice to everyone. When we say everyone, Your Honor, it
is not only the prosecution but as well as the defense- - -
COURT:
We will read the Order
first for the benefit of everybody here in Court.
ATTY. GICA:
Thank you, Your
Honor.
COURT:
Our legal
researcher Mrs. Mijares will read the Order so
that
everybody will understand it. Will you give the accused also himself a
copy? (Court addressing to the Court Interpreter)
LEGAL
RESEARCHER: (Reading the Order)
The Court reiterates its
verbal ruling that the rights of the accused in these cases are not violated
by
the Court's admission of the testimony or confession
of their co-accused Davidson Valiente Rusia. Credibility of said accused testimony are
distinguished from its admissibility, however, is
a different matter. Credibility refers to the
importance
or significance attached to the evidence
by the Court himself. Credibility of his testimony will thus depend in part upon Rusia's
further
cross-examination by the defense counsel
and
the other evidences that may be presented by
the prosecution before this Court. Although said
PAGE
7
LEGAL
RESEARCHER: (CONTINUATION- Reading the order)
accused had admitted in open court that he was indeed
convicted or imprisoned for burglary in
the State of Minnesota, U.S.A.,
this Court has not yet discharged him
as an accused anyway, hence, there is
nothing
for anyone to complain about. In its Order of August 12,1998, this Court
clearly stated that it may order Rusia's discharge after his testimony shall
have been given before it, if in the discretion and judgment of this
Court the circumstances so warrant. Necessarily implied all these is that
Rusia must not be disqualified by law because this Court certainly will not
knowingly violate any law. The Court is determined to cross that bridge when it comes to it,
when the time comes for it to resolve the prosecution's Motion for
Rusia's discharge. But whether or not said accused
qualifies under the law to be discharged as an accused and testify as a state
witness
is beside the point because there is nothing
in the law or rules which provides that when undischarge accused may not voluntarily
testify against himself
and his co-accused
and/or that his testimony which is really a judicial confession may not be admitted in
evidence against his co-accused especially since they may cross-examine him
about it. In fact, the undersigned Judge
had pointedly asked Rusia if he was being coerced or was
testifying involuntarily and his answer was a resolute
"No". Certainly the defense counsels may and the
Court strongly urges them to
intensively cross-examine said accused-witness as
to the voluntariness of his testimony. Our Constitution merely prohibits a
person from being
compelled to be a witness against himself. It does not prohibit
a person from voluntarily testifying against himself and against his co-accused if wants to and the Rule is
well settled both Philippine and American law that testimony
or confession of an accused is admissible
as evidence against his co-accused especially when
said co-accused are given the right
to freely cross-examine the witness in open
court as in these cases. In Steim vs. New
York, the United States Supreme Court categorically
held that no federal rights of a defendant are
violated by a state courts
admission of confession of codefendant implicating a defendant who never
PAGE
8
LEGAL
RESEARCHER:
(CONTINUATION- Reading the Order)
confess the respective of whether
the confession are coerced or voluntary. Now, according
to said
accused Rusia himself in his testimony he decided to voluntarily
confess to this
Court because he was having bad dreams and his conscience kept bothering him. Kung ganoon na
nga
bakit naman hindi tatanggapin ito ang judicial confession niya? Bakit natin siya pipigilan (If
that is the case, why shouldn't we accept his judicial confession? Why
should we stop him) if he wants to unburden his soul in this open court.
Conscience is
suppose to be so the voice of the
soul. There is
no heal like a troubled conscience or soul as the saying goes. Now,
according to Cicero "Confession is medicine for the erring". Gamot
daw para sa mga nagkasala at mangumpisal. (They say it
is medicine for those who erred and confesses.) And accordingly
Miguel de Cervantes in his classic Don Quixote "who sins and repents
commends himself to God". Wherefore, the testimony confession of the said
accused Davidson Valiente Rusia is hereby declared admissible in
evidence against all his co-accused in
these two (2) cases for whatever credibility or
probative value
it way be worth.
SO ORDERED."
COURT/to
defense counsels:
You may not
proceed with your cross- examination.
ATTY. GICA:
Your Honor, please-
-
COURT:
Yes.
ATTY. GICA:
Just one (1) point that we want to make it of
record, Your Honor, this is without
prejudice, whatever cross-examination questions that the defense would
propound in a little while, Your Honor, this is without prejudice to our
right to question the ruling of this Honorable Court dated 17th of August 1998, the
copies of the Order of which, have just been distributed us this afternoon because we believe,
Your Honor,
that the testimony of Rusia will only be
(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: (CONTINUATION)
admissible as he insofar as he is concerned and not against his co-accused
because there is as yet an independent, complete as well as well-established
proof of conspiracy under Sec. 30, Rule130, Your Honor- the act of
declaration of the conspirator cannot be admitted unless the evidence of
conspiracy is established other than the act of declaration of the
conspirator himself.
COURT:
Yes,
of course you can question the order of this
Court. That is understood. This
is just trial
court. You can always go to a higher
court- -
ATTY. GICA:
I
know, Your Honor.
COURT:
As soon as you show me
a Restraining Order from the higher court, we stop everything. That is
understood. I have a limited jurisdiction. If the Court of Appeals
or Supreme Court orders me to stop, what can I do? I do not want to be
jailed for contempt of a higher court. Like you, you do not want to be jailed for contempt of this
Court. Please be seated.
ATTY.
GICA:
That's alright, Your
Honor. We
just would like to have it on record.
COURT:
Yes. it is on
record.
ATTY. GICA:
Thank you, Your Honor.
COURT:
Atty. Armovit will now proceed with his cross examination.
PAGE
10
(Witness
to the witness stand)
COURT
INTERPRETER: (To the witness)
You are reminded that
you will be testifying under the same oath for continuation of the
cross-examination.
WITNESS:
A
Yes, I am.
COURT
INTERPRETER:
(Davidson Valiente Rusia
testifying under the same oath).
ATTY.
GICA: May we move for the exclusion of other prosecution witnesses,
Your Honor?
PROS.
GALANIDA:
We have no other
witnesses except Mrs. Chiong, Your Honor.
ATTY.
GICA:
Especially now that we are confused
whether Rusia is testifying as a state witness or an ordinary witness.
PR0S.
GALANIDA:
May we request, your Honor, that there will be no embellishment in
ones manifestation.
COURT:
It
is very clear he has not yet been discharged.
He is still an accused. Because if
I discharge him now, well,
that would raise a lot of
questions. But I have not discharge
him and the court
really said that it
may discharge him if in
the judgment of the Court
the circumstances so warrant. That includes the condition
that he might not
be disqualified by law.
This Court will not knowingly do something
that is against the
law. Why will I do that? We don't
have to
cross that bridge now because I am not
re
PAGE
11
COURT: (CONTINUATION)
solving that question of discharge. He is merely testifying as the
prosecution witness. He wants to confess. Why are we going to prevent him?
Is there any law that says a person cannot make a judicial confession of
his crime if he wants to? Bakit natin siya pipigilan? (Why
should we stop him?) of his admission?
ATTY.
GICA:
I
Just want to clarify matters, Your Honor, that for fear of being
established later on- - -
COURT:
That is why you are
allowed to cross-examine him to determine if he is being forced or coerced or
intimidated by
anybody. Certainly
not by this Court. Maybe
he is being coerced by somebody else.
You have to
establish that
through your cross-examination. Kaya nga kokros-eksaminin ninyo.
(That
is why you will cross-examine him.) In other words,
how will
you going to prove that?
ATTY.
GICA:
We are just guarding
the interest of our clients. Because there is a saying, Your Honor,
that he who remains silent when
he ought
to speak will not be allowed to speak when
he ought to be silent.
COURT:
Well, if you
believe he is being coerced, then it is up for you to show that. Kaya nga (That's
why) you
are being
allowed
to
cross-examine him lengthily, intensively.
E,
ano pa ang gusto ninyo? (So, what else do you
want?) What else can
I do?
Pipilitin ba natin yang umamin na he killed- - - - - (Will
we force him to admit already that he killed- - - - -)
ATTY.
GICA:
No, actually. Your
Honor, the defense just want that equal parts of justice and fairness be
given to
them especially now, Your Honor, the accused
are bound in
handcuffs. The other accused, Your Honor, is in long
sleeves and they are
in orange uniforms- - -
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
12
COURT:
because
he is testifying
ATTY.
GICA
It
is very degrading on the part of the accused even before their
convictions. Thank you, Your Honor.
COURT:
Because they
are confined
in the BBRC. He is not confined in the BBRC. Now, one (1)
thing we have to fully understand kung gustong mangumpisal ang isang
tao sa husgado (if a person wants to confess to the
Court) to make a judicial confession, it is a violation of its
right to prevent him from doing so. E, gusto nang magsabi ang tao nang
katotohanan, gusto na niya mangumpisal, (So, the
person already wants to come out with the truth, he already wants to
confess) make a judicial confession haharangin pa natin? (will
we prevent him from doing so?) Ito nga (So
that's it) he is already making a judicial confession, e, ano pa? (so
what else?) Ano pa ang gagawin natin ngavon? (What
else shall will do now?)
ATTY.
GICA:
We are not questioning
that, Your Honor, that he is making a confession- -
COURT:
That is all that
the Court is allowing. Let him make his
confession
and let him be cross-examined by you gentlemen. E, ano pa ba? (So,
what else yet?) I will also cross-examine him to determine if he is
really telling the truth. E, ano pa ba? (So,
what else yet?) What else can we do? Shall we call President
Estrada to cross-examine him or what? I don't understand.
/to
Atty. Armovit:
Alright, proceed,
Atty. Armovit.
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
May it please the
Honorable Court.
COURT:
Proceed.
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
13
CONTINUATION OF THE
CROSS-EXAMINATION
OF THE WITNESS BY ATTY. R. ARMOVIT
Q Is
it not a fact that aside from your three (3) Philippine names, Davidson
Valiente Rusia. Tisoy Tagalog and David Florido you also have additional
aliases?
A Yes, Sir.
Q
As a matter of fact even in
the
United States
where you have admitted to a conviction for burglary in the third
degree, you are
recorded as having used these alias names in your prison sheet that you had
admitted David
Rusia,
Ian Rusia and Mouse Rusia.
Is this correct?
A Your Honor, may I-
-
Q Is this correct?
COURT:
Answer
the question first. Is that correct or not?
A
Yes, Sir.
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
Q So, now you have six (6)
names - - -
COURT:
You have to clarify
six (6) aliases.
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
Six (6) aliases
COURT:
Not names.
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
I stand corrected,
Your Honor, six (6) aliases. I heard you invoke conscience the last time you
testified. Is it not a fact that you are a
PAGE
14
ATTY. ARMOVIT: (C0NTINUATI0N)
member of a gangster organization known as SATANAS (SATAN)
RELIGIOUS BROTHERHOOD?
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
Objection, Your
Honor, that would be immaterial.
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
No, Your Honor.
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
Any
matters relating
to his acts in the
United States
are totally not recognizable here in the
Philippines.
COURT:
No, he can answer yes
or no.
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
He can answer his
conscience- - -
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
Yes, we believe, Your
Honor, that the distinguish counsel is about to ask this witness
relating
to foreign judgments. Would I be correct-
- -
COURT:
He is asking whether
he is a member of an organization
which he named. The witness may answer if he wants to. If he does not
want to then let him explain.
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
Because we would just
to make it of record, Your Honor, that foreign judgments
of penal nature are not recognizable here by Philippine courts.
COURT:
He is not asking
about the foreign judgment but whether he is a member of
an organization.
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
15
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
We
submit, Your Honor.
ATTY.
GICA:
Your Honor please,
in order to disabuse the mind of everybody, Your Honor, to straighten the
records, foreign judgments are admissible. The only restrictions because
that is actually the
reason of international
committee and convenience
of nations, the only restrictions, Your Honor, is if that foreign
judgments is against public morals, against our law, the law of the forum,
against public order and against public policy. I don't think that
burglary, Your Honor, is against the policy of our Republic.
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
Your Honor, may I
be allowed- - -
COURT:
That
is
a legal question on which the Court would not
want to make a ruling now because that requires careful study. I do not
want to make an erroneous ruling.
ATTY.
GICA:
That's
right.
COURT:
So, please why do
we have to rule on that now? There is no need.
Wala namang- - (There is no- -) he is
simply being asked whether he
was a member
of an organization that is called, what? SATANAS? (SATAN?)
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
Yes, Your
Honor.
COURT:
Alright, let him answer.
We are overruling the objection, ano ba ang gusto mo? (What
else do you want?)
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PART
16
ATTY.
GICA:
I'm depending the
question, Your Honor.
COURT:
Alright we are
sustaining the question.
ATTY.
GICA:
There
was an unlawful aggression from the prosecution and I'm on self-defense-
-
COURT:
We are allowing the
question, the answer -
PROS.
GALANIDA:
The defense was
making that unlawful aggression but not the prosecution.
WITNESS:
A
Your Honor, may I volunteer about my past in the
United States - - -
COURT:
What is the
answer of the witness?
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
Q Are you a member?
WITNESS:
A May I volunteer about
my past in the United States to clarify everything?
Q Are
you a member?
COURT/
to the witness:
Q Are you are member of
that organization? In the United States?
PAGE
17
COURT:
With the name
SATANAS? (SATAN?)
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
Yes, Your Honor,
SATANAS (SATAN) RELIGIOUS BROTHERHOOD. I
don't know if we can have religious- - -
COURT/to
the witness:
Q The counsel is asking
you whether or not you are a member or were a member of that organization
while you were in the
United States
? Will you answer that question?
WITNESS:
A
I was an ex-member, Your Honor.
COURT:
Q You were what?
A
An ex-member.
COURT:
Ex-member,
alright.
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
Q
Is it not a fact that you treasure such membership so much you have
a tattoo on your back of SATANAS (SATAN) RELIGIOUS
BROTHERHOOD? You want to disprove this?
PROS.
DUYONGCO:
May we know what is
the materiality of this line of questioning, Your Honor?
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
The credibility of
this witness because he wants to send how many? One, two, three, four,
five, six,
seven accused to their legal death, Your Honor. Can we not test the
credibility of this witness? Come on let's not be crazy.
PROS.
DUYONGCO:
Your Honor please,
would the tattoo makes a person- - - -
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
18
COURT:
Please state your
objection- what is the ground?
PROS.
DUYONGCO:
Immaterial -
COURT:
Immaterial?
PROS.
DUYONGCO:
Very material, Your Honor.
COURT:
Well, he says they
are testing the credibility. In cross-examination the cross-examiner is
given a wide latitude in testing the truthfulness, accuracy of the witness
and also his freedom from interest or bias or reverse. The cross-examiner
has all sufficient freedom in testing the credibility of the witness because
cross-examination is the highest and most indispensable test known to the
law for the discovery of truth. So, I overruled the objection, witness may
answer.
WITNESS:
A
Will you repeat the question Sir?
Q
Do you have a tattoo in your back?
A
Yes, I have.
COURT:
The
answer is yes. Now, next question.
WITNESS:
May I volunteer - -
-
COURT:
You want to explain?
PAGE
19
WITNESS:
A Yes, Your Honor.
COURT:
Let him explain,
alright.
WITNESS:
A
Because you see, Your Honor, aside from taking money from a Computer store
- - -
COURT:
How was that?
WITNESS:
A
Aside from taking money from the Computer store, I also had a check, it
was a personal check, I got that, I wrote my name, made it for $200
dollars and I tried to cash that. But
then I realized that was wrong, I tore it. Then
one (1) time I was acquainted with this guy, he borrowed about $75.00
dollars from me, then I met him in another party, as I recalled it was
Tzakuzi party and then I confronted him with the money he owed me. He told
me he does not have any money. So, later on as the party go on, I went in
the bathroom and then I saw change, there was an envelope there and its
change and then I looked at it and there was a check, a pay check for
$250.00 dollars. So I took that and
I was able to cash that check. And it was more about my - you know, US
records that
they can show it to me and if I did I will mean it. But if, Your Honor, my
records in the United States and you know, as I said my tattoos here and
here, Your Honor, (witness showing his tattoos appearing an his left and
right hand).
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
Q What is the tattoo
there, a slit? There is a slit tattoo.
COURT:
He is showing his
tattoo in his left and right arm.
PAGE
20
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
Q How about the
back?
WITNESS:
A
May I continue, Your Honor.
COURT:
Yes, he has
tattoos, he has admitted. Why does
he has to show it?
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
The SATANAS, (SATAN,)
Your Honor
.
COURT:
He has already
admitted -
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
No, because he was
trying to expose, Your Honor.
COURT:
No, he has already
admitted it. Now he wants to explain why he has those tattoos. Let him
explain, that is his right.
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
We move to strike
out on the ground that it is not responsive. We were asking only about
this "SATANAS", (SATAN,) Your
Honor.
COURT/to
the witness:
Q
Yes. Will you explain that? Why do you have that
tattoo?
WITNESS:
A
That's why I'm explaining
to that- - -
COURT:
Q Will you explain?
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
21
WITNESS:
A You
see, Your Honor, if my US records and my tattoos, all these will
disqualify me as
a state witness, then so be it. But still I am willing to die for my testimony.
May I
continue?
COURT:
Please
do not clap. we have to observe the dignity and decorum of |