|
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 18, 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 CESAR ESTRERA
PROSECUTOR RAMON JOSE DUYONGCO
PROSECUTOR TERESITA GALANIDA
PROSECUTOR REYNALDO ACOSTA
(Appearing for the State)
ATTY. HONORATO HERMOSISIMA
ATTY. BIENVENIDO SANIEL
(Appearing as private prosecutors)
PAGE
2
ATTY. RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT
ATTY. RAFAEL ARMOVIT
ATTY. RAMON TELERON
(Appearing for accused Larranaga)
ATTY. EDGAR GICA
ATTY. FIDEL GONZALES
(Appearing for accused Aznar)
ATTY. ALFONSO DELA CERNA
(Appearing for accused Adlawan, Cano
and Balansag)
ATTY. LORENZO PAYLADO
(Appearing for accused Uy brothers)
ATTY. VERONICO SAORDINO
(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 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 for the
private prosecution, Your Honor, in collaboration with Atty. Saniel.
ATTY.
RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT:
For accused Larranaga,
Your Honor, in collaboration with Attys. Ramon Teleron and Rafael Armovit.
ATTY.
GICA:
Appearing for accused
Aznar, Your Honor, in collaboration with Atty. Fidel Gonzales.
PAGE
3
ATTY. DELA CERNA:
For accused Adlawan,
Cano and Balansag, Your Honor.
ATTY.
PAYLADO:
Appearing for accused
Uy brothers, Your Honor.
COURT:
It seems that our
star witness is unable to come, so the prosecution will present another
witness, preserving for the defense the right to further cross-examine the
said witness. Now, before we begin today's hearing, I would like to clarify
first a point of law. you have a copy of the Rules of Court with you,
Fiscal?
ATTY.
GICA:
I have, Your Honor.
COURT:
Please give it to
Fiscal Galanida. Will you turn to Rule 116, Section 3 because the defense
was proposing yesterday that this Court should now convict the accused
witness Davidson Rusia. Will you read that? (Court ordering Fiscal Galanida).
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Yes, You Honor.
Section 3---
COURT:
Read it in front of
them because they do not know. You read it in front of them.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Well, for the
gentlemen of the defense- Section 3 of Rule 116 reads as follows: Plea of
guilty to capital offense, reception of evidence- When the accused pleads
guilty to a capital offense, the Court shall conduct a searching inquiry
into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his
plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree
of culpability. The accused may also present evidence in
his
PAGE
4
PROS. GALANIDA: (continuation)
behalf."
(Prosecutor Galanida reading Rule 166, Sec. 3)
COURT:
So, it is clear from
that Rule even if the accused pleads guilty or makes a judicial confession,
the prosecution still has to prove his guilt and the exact degree of his
culpability. Iyan ang sinasabi nang batas. (That's what the
law says.) Pero kahapon you were insisting
na e-convict ko na itong si Rusia. (But yesterday you were insisting that I should convict
already Rusia.) E, kung sumunod ako sa inyo, e , paano mabubukol ako,
di ba? (Therefore, if I agreed with you, therefore I
would had been hit, wouldn't I?) Mahirap yon. (That's
hard.) Hindi ba ninyo binabasa ang batas before you recommend to the
Court? (Don't you read the law before you recommend to
the court?) You are misleading the Court, telling the Court to
convict him already because he executed a judicial confession dapat na
e-convict. (that he should be convicted already.)
Hindi ba sinasabi nang batas kahit na nag-judicial confession, (Doesn't
the law say that even he executed a judicial confession ) the
prosecution still has to prove his guilt? O, hindi natin puedeng e-convict (So,
we cannot convict) and the exact degree of his culpability. O, paano
natin eko-convict? (So how will I convict him?)
Hindi ba malaking pagkakamali yon? (Isn't that a big
mistake?) Basahin muna ninyo ang batas (Read
first the law) before you recommend to the Court.
/to
the Court Interpreter:
Distribute this and
let them sign the original.
ATTY.
RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT:
May we say something,
You Honor.
COURT:
Yes, Panero (my
fellow lawyer) Armovit.
ATTY.
RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT:
From what I recall it
was Atty. Teleron who reads a case law, Your Honor. And I think his doubt
was this, Rusia pleaded not guilty when arraigned and then it turns out
later on that he made his Affidavit of Confession as to his guilt. So, I
think the doubt of Atty. Teleron was this, how should we straighten this
out? Is this not now a case of a change plea, etc., etc.
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
5
COURT:
No, he is insisting
that I convict him already because according to him he pleaded guilty
already. So, the next step is to convict him. Baka akala nang tao bakit ba
ayaw e-convict ni Judge si Rusia, e , umamin na nang kasalanan, e, dapat
hatulan nang ano, nang conviction. Aba, di ba labag sa batas yon? (The
people may wonder why the Judge doesn't want to convict Rusia, since he
admitted already his guilt, so he should already be sentenced, a
conviction. But then, that's against the law?) We cannot
do that. Because according to the law kahit na merong (even
though there is a) judicial admission or
he is admitting, the prosecution still has to prove his guilt and the exact
degree of his culpability. Iyan ang sinasabi nang batas. (That's
what the law says.) O, paano ang
gagawin natin? (So, what shall we do?) Kailangan nating sumunod sa batas.
(We have to follow the law.)
ATTY.
RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT:
Like any other lawyer
he was making a proposal to His Honor,
and His Honor heard---
COURT:
Before you make a
proposal pag-aralan ninyo munang maigi ang batas baka naman labag sa batas
ang pino-propose ninyo sa husgado, di ba? (study well
first the law, it might be against the law what you are proposing in
Court, isn't it?) Okey, let us hear from the
Fiscals.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Your Honor please,
may I say something?
COURT:
Yes.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Yesterday, Your
Honor, Atty. Teleron as this Honorable Court has stressed insisted in the
outright conviction of Rusia citing the case of Mangubat vs. Sandiganbayan,
August 29, 1986. I have here a copy of the Decision. We would like also to
make it of record that in this case of Mangubat vs. Sandiganbayn, one Delia
Pregiado who was one of those accused or respondent was discharged as a
state witness over the protestation and the opposition of the other accused
or respondent. And one of the opposition grounds was that Delia Pregiado was
convicted for 126 counts of a crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public
and Commercial Documents. Nevertheless, Your Honor,
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
6
PROS. GALANIDA: (CONTINUATION)
she was discharged as
a state witness and that is why the other accused in that case went up to the
Supreme Court and also pointed out that because of that conviction of 126
counts of Estafa thru Falsification of Public and Commercial Documents which
has been tagged as one of the crimes involving moral torpitude, it rendered
the testimony of state witness Delia Pregiado as untrustworthy. However,
Your Honor, may I also be allowed to read and quote a portion of the
Decision for the record and the Supreme Court has said, and I quote:
"Before her discharge (or even without being discharge) as a state
witness pursuant to Sec. 9 Rule 119, Delia Pregiado was not incompetent to
testify in the criminal cases and which she is one of the accused.
Theoretically, she had the option to testify either for the prosecution or
the defense or refuse to take the stand altogether invoking the latter case,
the provisions of Sec. 1 (e) and (f) of Rule 115 and this would be true
regardless of whether or not she had been convicted of a crime involving
moral torpitude. As regards the untrustworthiness of state witness Delia
Pregiado as a witness, Your Honor, the Supreme Court had said and I quote:
"In fine, the correctness of a trial court's determination of the
existence or non-existence of the grounds prescribed by the Rules for
discharge of one or some of several defendants or the propriety of the order
issued on the basis thereof affects only the criminal liability of the
persons proposed for the discharge or actually discharged, but not in any
sense their competency as witness or the admissibility of their testimony.
And, also, Your Honor, may I take also this opportunity to say that last
August 13, 1997 Atty. Gica also mentioned to this Honorable Court these (2)
cases of People vs Baesa July 11, 1958 and the case of In re Juan Isada
November 16, 1934 and he cited these two (2) cases in open court and
mentioned that in these two (2) cases the Supreme Court has ruled that theft
is one of the crime involving moral torpitude. I have here also, Your Honor,
the photo-copies of these two (2) decided cases but no matter how you read
and re-read these two (2) cases there is no mentioned that theft
PAGE
7
PROS. GALANIDA: (CONTINUATION)
is one of the
crimes involving moral torpitude. In fact, in the case of In re Juan C.
Isada, the Supreme Court mentioned only Concubinage as a crime involving
moral torpitude. We are citing this, Your Honor, for the record because
the prosecution panel believes that citing rulings from decided cases allegedly
which do not exist is an act of misleading this Honorable Court. Thank
you, Your Honor.
ATTY.
GICA:
Your Honor please,
I think I have to say something, Your Honor.
COURT:
Go ahead.
ATTY.
GICA:
Your Honor, it is
an invitation coming from the Fiscal Your Honor, first of all before
touching on Rule 116, Sec. 3, I would like to make some comments on the
manifestations of the Honorable City Prosecutor Galanida, Your Honor. Your
Honor please, regarding the crimes involving moral torpitude, we have the
case of Pendon vs. Diasnes---
COURT:
No, let us not deal
into these cases decided by the Supreme Court at this time because we have
to proceed with the trial. That involves careful study and verification.
So let us proceed with the trial now and the prosecution may present
another witness since witness Rusia is unable physically to come to court
today.
ATTY.
GICA:
There was an
invitation, Your Honor, that I made a wrong citation. I made a correct
citation only that the prosecution panel, Your Honor, did not make an
exhaustive research on the matter.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
It is on
record.
PAGE
8
COURT:
Alright, we will
consider it but we cannot go into this lengthy discussions now.
ATTY.
GICA:
That's right, Your
Honor. I was just wondering why Fiscal Galanida was mentioning about it.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Because you are
misleading this Court.
ATTY.
GICA:
Of course not I
cannot mislead this Court. I have so much respect for the Presiding Judge.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
If you are not
misleading you are reading something ---
ATTY.
GICA:
That's why I am
reading ---
COURT:
Every lawyer is
presumed innocent. We have to presume innocent.
ATTY.
RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT:
Even for lawyers,
Your Honor?
COURT:
Yes. We have to
presume that in good faith.
ATTY.
GICA:
We will reserve our
right, Your Honor---
COURT:
That is why I asked
her to read the Rule to you because well, that is the best evidence. Now,
let us hear from Fiscal Miro.
PAGE
9
ATTY. GICA:
Can we talk on Rule
116, Your Honor----
COURT:
Your Honor please,
for the record, yesterday afternoon during the cross-examination of our
witness we presented Davidson Rusia, he was not feeling well. So, the
cross-examination was postponed and today we expected that he should come
for the continuation of his cross-examination. However, the head of the
CIG made a request to the government physician to have Rusia examine. Your
Honor, and here is the Medical Certification to show that Davidson Rusia
is really sick and he is not available for cross-examination. It requires
3 to 5 days rest. Your Honor please.
COURT:
Of course the
defense reserves the right to cross-examine him. They are not waving
anything.
PROS.
MIRO:
Yes, Your Honor.
COURT:
Please show it to
the gentlemen for the defense.
PROS.
MIRO:
So as not to delay
the proceedings, Your Honor, we are constrained to present another vital
witness.
COURT:
Yes, the Court
expects that because we have to proceed with the trial. We cannot suspend
the trial because Rusia cannot appear. Later when he is ready he will be
cross-examined by the gentlemen for the defense.
PAGE
10
ATTY. ARMOVIT:
May I say-----
COURT:
Yes.
ATTY.
RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT:
But before we are
going to that, Your Honor, yesterday I was about to mark as our exhibit
the other conviction of witness-accused Rusia, Your Honor, but because the
hearing was suddenly aborted the marking was not done. Before I forget,
may I now at this time, Your Honor, that this document on the offering of
a forged check stolen from a mentally, crazy lady be marked as Exh.
"4", "4-A" to "4E", Larranaga, Your Honor.
COURT:
Mark it.
/to prosecution:
So, you have
another witness ready?
PROS.
MIRO:
Yes, Your Honor. We
will be presenting this time, Mrs. Thelma Chiong and the
direct-examination will be conducted by Asst. Prosecutor Teresita
Galanida.
ATTY.
GICA:
Your Honor please,
I remember very well during the inception of the proceedings before this
Honorable Court that this Honorable Court instructed the prosecution to
present eyewitnesses.
COURT:
Eyewitnesses to the
crime.
ATTY.
GICA:
Mrs. Thelma Chiong
is not an eyewitness, Your Honor.
PAGE
11
COURT:
Alright according
to the prosecution their evidence is circumstantial. The only eyewitness
is Rusia. O, papano ngayon? (So, what now?) They
are all circumstantial evidence. Wala namang nakakita exactly, meron ba?
(No one else exactly saw, is there any?) The actual taking and the
commission of the crime?
PROS.
DUYONGCO:
We have one (1)
eyewitness to be presented, Your Honor, to testify on the actual taking of
Jacqueline Chiong and that is witness Dacillo.
COURT:
Is she available today?
PROS.
DUYONGCO:
No, Your Honor,
because we were thinking that Rusia will be coming---
ATTY.
GICA:
With due respect to
the Honorable Court, with due respect to Mrs. Chiong, we understand your
feelings on that but we should also follow procedure and of course the
restrictions made by this Honorable Court in the inception of the
proceedings in all these criminal cases that are now pending before this
Honorable Court. Mrs. Chiong, Your Honor, with due respect is not an
eyewitness.
COURT:
Wala nang
eyewitness. e. (There is no more eyewitness.)
ATTY.
GICA:
And
besides, Your Honor, what is being heard now is the Motion to Discharge.
This is not yet---
COURT:
No, you are
mistaken, we are not hearing the Motion to Discharge. The Motion to
Discharge is deferred---
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
12
ATTY. GICA:
Yes,
precisely.
COURT:
We will considering
anytime during the trial and before judgment. We are not bound to resolve
the question of discharge of the accused because the Court said if the
Court finds the circumstances so warrant, it may discharge the accused or
he may not discharge him at all. He may convict him as I said together
with his co-accused. Why are we insisting again that I rule now on the
discharge?
ATTY.
GICA:
No, no, we are not
insisting on that. The proceedings, Your Honor, is to that effect and
whatever evidence that we will present and able to establish during our
proceedings would be automatically adopted. Your Honor, in the evidence in
chief, if and when.
COURT:
Well, you are
mistaken in taking that this is the hearing of the discharge. No. This is
the regular trial and then there is substantial compliance with the
requirement of this court that the prosecution will present first its most
vital eyewitness. Well, the prosecution's evidence is circumstantial
except for Rusia. He is the only eyewitness. And he is unable to come
today but they are presented it already. So, now we will hear another
prosecution witness because we are mandated by the Speedy Trial Act of
1998 to expedite this trial and also by Supreme Court Administrative
Circular No. 104-96. We have to finish within 60 days and that
Administrative Order says that heinous crimes cases like these cases shall
undergo mandatory, continuous trial until terminated and must be
terminated within 60 days. So, how are we going to comply with those legal
requirements if we do not ask the other prosecution witnesses to testify
considering that Rusia cannot come. Paano e-sususpend ba natin ang trial? (So
what, shall we suspend the trial?)
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
13
ATTY. GICA:
No. we are just
proposing ourselves on the order of this Honorable Court and the directive
of this Honorable Court that in the inception of the proceedings.
COURT:
Well. I am telling
you - - - -
ATTY.
GICA:
Let
us limit ourselves to eyewitnesses.
COURT:
Yes.
ATTY.
GICA:
Mrs.
Chiong is not - - - -
COURT:
But Rusia is the only
eyewitness. Wala naman ibanq eyewitness kung hindi si Rusia. e. (There
is no
other eyewitness except Rusia.)
PROS.
GALANIDA:
May I say
something. Your Honor?
COURT:
Yes.
PROS. GALANIDA:
I think Asst.
Prosecutor Duyongco had already explained it to Atty. Gica the reason why
that witness who saw Jacqueline Chiong being grabbed by Josman Aznar could
not be presented now because we did not expect Rusia not to be able to
come this afternoon.
COURT:
Alright. what do
you want me to do? Cancel this hearing again?
ATTY.
GICA:
There are other
witnesses. 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:
There is no other
witness.
ATTY.
GICA:
We
submit, Your Honor.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Besides.
Your Honor - - - -
COURT:
We cannot cancel the
hearing.
ATTY.
GICA:
So,
it is now clear, Your Honor, and patent
before this
Honorable Court
, that Rusia is
the only
eyewitness?
COURT:
You ang sabi
sa Motion nila.
(That's what their Motion stated.)
PROS.
DUYONGCO:
Not necessarily,
Your Honor, because - - -
COURT:
Although there are
some aspects - - -
PROS.
DUYONGCO:
Not necessarily that Rusia
is the only eyewitness because Rusia is the eyewitness to the whole
incident.
COURT:
To the whole incident
- - - -
PROS.
DUYONGCO:
But there is an
eyewitness to the actual taking of Jacqueline by Josman
Aznar. Because our examination - - -
COURT:
Let us not waste
time. We have to continue with the trial anyway and we will have to hear
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
15
COURT:
(CONTINUATION)
Mrs. Chiong anyway she is the mother. Alright swear the
witness. (Court addressing to the Court Interpreter)
ATTY.
GICA:
May we ask for the
exclusion of other non-eyewitnesses for the prosecution, Your Honor?
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Eyewitnesses on hand we
have none. Your Honor.
ATTY.
ARMOVIT:
Your Honor?
COURT:
Yes.
ATTY.
RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT:
Considering
that it is only
Mrs. Chiong and known not to be an eyewitness to the case who is going to
testify.
I beg leave to withdraw of this afternoon's hearing and my son will take
over.
COURT:
So, your client will
be represented by your son?
ATTY.
RAYMUNDO ARMOVIT:
Yes,
Your
Honor, my son.
ATTY.
RAFAEL ARMOVIT:
Atty. Rafael Armovit,
Your Honor.
COURT:
Alright,
your Motion for leave is granted. Atty. Rafael Armovit will take over.
COURT
INTERPRETER: (SWEARING-IN THE WITNESS)
Do you swear to tell the
truth, the whole truth and noting but the truth in this hearing?
PAGE
16
WITNESS:
A Yes, I do.
COURT
INTERPRETER: (To the
witness)
Will
you
please state your name, address and other personal circumstances?
A
Thelma Jimenea Chiong, 45 years old, married, housewife
and a resident of
Cebu
City.
COURT:
State the purpose of her testimony
for the record.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Yes, Your Honor. This
witness, Thelma Chiong
is
presented in order to testify that
she is the mother of the two (2) victims, Marijoy Chiong and Jacqueline
Chiong. She will also testify that even before July 16, 1997 she already
knew accused
Rowen Adlawan, Juan Francisco Larranaga, alias
Paco Larranaga and Josman Aznar. She will also testify under what
circumstances she came to know them. This witness will also identify, Your
Honor, some pictures of both Jacqueline and
Marijoy while they were still alive. She will also identify the
pictures of the dead body of Marijoy Chiong when this was found at the foot of the very
deep ravine at Tan-awan,
Carcar, as well as the pictures of the dead body of Marijoy Chiong when she
was brought to
the funeral parlor at Carcar. Cebu. She will also testify, Your Honor,
regarding the physical, moral and mental suffering she, her family had, her relatives
have undergone because of the heinous offenses committed
on Mari joy and Jacqueline Chiong. She will
also testif y on some preliminary matters and
other relevant matters, to the purposes already cited.
ATTY. GICA:
Your
Honor please, may we interpose objection
regarding the
suffering - in other words, the personal sufferings of the relatives
and other relatives of
the deceased on
the ground that this witness is incompetent
to
testify on the condition or state of mind
PAGE
17
ATTY. GICA: (CONTINUATION)
of other persons unless there is established. Your Honor, that she has
undergone special study on mental telephathy. Thank you, Your Honor.
COURT;
(to the Fiscal)
What do you
say?
PROS.
GALANIDA:
That is uncalled for,
Your Honor, because he does not even know yet how Mrs. Chiong is going to
testify, how the relatives also feel. That is premature - - -
ATTY.
GICA:
As a matter
of fact - - -
PROS.
GALANIDA:
She is going to
testify later, Your Honor, that after the
disappearance - because you are asking and I am answering you -
may
I continue, Your Honor?
COURT:
Yes.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
When
Jacqueline and Marijoy did not already come home in the evening of July 16,
1997, Mrs. Chiong is going to tell this Honorable Court that her relatives
had stepped in their house.
COURT:
I understand that it
is only for purposes of civil liberty.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Yes, precisely she is
also presented to established civil liberty. Your Honor.
PAGE
18
ATTY. GICA:
That's why, Your
Honor, the competency of Mrs. Chiong
is being questioned now insofar as the sufferings of the other relatives
are concerned because that calls for a state of mind on the condition of
the mind of a person.
COURT:
But she - - -
ATTY.
GICA:
But insofar as Mrs.
Chiong's sufferings, Your Honor - - -
COURT:
Well, she could observe the sufferings of her
relatives. That is personal knowledge to her.
ATTY.
GICA:
I don't think that the other
relatives are complainants in
these cases, Your Honor.
COURT:
When we assess the
damages that will be the time to consider your objection.
ATTY.
GICA:
Well,
at least, Your Honor, our objection should be considered by this
Honorable Court.
COURT:
It is
made of record.
PROS.
DUYONGCO:
Your Honor please, the
objection is still
premature because no questions have been made yet by this - - - -
ATTY.
GICA:
It's
the purpose that we are objecting, Your Honor.
PAGE
19
PROS. GALANIDA:
The purpose cannot be
objected - - -
PROS.
DUY0NGCO:
The purpose cannot be
objected yet unless and until the questions are being asked.
COURT:
We are allowing this
objection to be placed on the record. There is nothing wrong on that.
/to
prosecution:
So,
you may commence your direct.
PROS. GALANIDA:
May
i t please this Honorable Court.
COURT:
Proceed.
DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS
BY PROSECUTOR T. GALANIDA
Q Madam Witness, you mentioned
in your personal circumstances that you are married. May we know who is your
husband?
A My husband is Dionisio Chiong, Jr.
Q When and where were you married?
A February 14, 1973, Cebu City.
Q Can you tell this Honorable Court if your marriage is
blessed with children?
A Yes, mam.
Q How many?
A Five (5).
Q Will you please state for the record their names in
their respective order of births?
PAGE
20
COURT:
Names and ages.
WITNESS:
A Bruce, 25 years
old; Jackie, who is now 23
years
old; Marijoy, who is now 21 years old; Dennis, who is 20 years old
and Debbie Jane,
11
years old.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Q These
five (5) children whom you are mentioning now, are
they all living at present?
A
No, mam.
Q
How many are living?
A
Three (3), mam.
Q Can you name for the record who
are these three
(3)
children of yours who are living at present?
A
My eldest son, Bruce; my one son, Dennis and
my youngest daughter Debbie Jane.
Q
What about Marijoy Chiong, your third child, where is she?
A We found
her dead at the deep ravine at Tan-awan, Carcar.
Q
When
was her dead body found at the
foot of the deep ravine
in
Carcar?
A
July 17, 1997, mam.
Q
How old was she when she
was found dead?
A
She was twenty (20) years old.
Q
What about your other child Jacqueline, where is she now?
A She is still missing until now.
Q You mentioned that she is still missing until now. Since
when has she been missing?
PAGE
21
WITNESS:
A Since July 16, 1997, mam.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Q Can you tell this Honorable
Court how old was she at that time
she was missing?
A
She was twenty-two (22)
years old, mam.
Q
Do you have a birth certificate of Marijoy?
A
Yes, mam.
Q
Will You please show it to the Honorable Court?
COURT
INTERPRETER:
(Witness showing the birth
certificate of
Marijoy J. Chiong to
Prosecutor Galanida).
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Q Are you willing to have this original
mark before this
Honorable Court?
WITNESS:
A No. I would like my xerox copy
only, mam.
Q
If You have the xerox copy, will you kindly show it to this
Honorable Court?
A
Here. (Witness showing the machine copy of the birth certificate of Marijoy
J. Chiong to Prosecutor Galanida).
PROS.
GALANIDA:
May we request the distinguish
defense, Your Honor, to make a comparison between these machine
copy and the original copy of this birth certificate
and to manifest for the record their observation thereof. I don't know who
of them who will manifest.
ATTY. GONZALES:
We manifest for the
record, Your Honor, that the photostatic copy of this birth certificate is a faithful reproduction
from the original birth certificate.
PAGE
22
PROS. GALANIDA:
May
we request, Your Honor, that this birth certificate of Marijoy Chiong
be marked as Exh.
"A" for the prosecution.
COURT:
Mark it.
PROS. GALANIDA:
Q
What about the birth certificate of Jacqueline Chiong?
Do you have with you the birth certificate of Jacqueline Chiong?
WITNESS:
A Yes, mam.
(Witness producing the original copy of the birth certificate of Jacqueline Chiong).
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Your
Honor please, may I make a
correction to my markings because previously
there were
already
two
(2) exhibits marked. So, this
birth
certificate of Marijoy Chiong, may we request that it be marked instead, as Exh.
"C", Your Honor.
COURT:
Mark it.
PROS. GALANIDA:
May we also
request, Your Honor, the defense to compare this original copy of the birth
certificate of
Marijoy Chiong in our machine copy. I
wonder if Atty. Gonzales will favor our request.
ATTY.
GONZALES:
The
same manifestation, Your Honor, that the photostatic copy is
a
faithful reproduction from the true copy.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
May we request, Your
Honor, that this machine
copy
of the birth certificate of Jacqueline
PAGE
23
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Chiong be marked as Exh.
"D"
for the prosecution.
COURT:
Mark it. PROS, GALANIDA:
Q
You said your daughter Marijoy was found
dead at that foot of that deep ravine in Carcar, Cebu. Do you have her death
certificate?
A Yes, sir.
Q
Will
you kindly show her death certificate?
A Here.
(Witness showing the, original copy of the death certificate of Marijoy
Chiong).
PROS.
GALANIDA:
May we,
request, Your Honor, that the certificate of
death of Marijoy Chiong
be marked as Exh. "E" for the prosecution.
COURT:
Mark it.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Q
Mrs. Chiong, while Marijoy
and Jacqueline
were still alive, may we know if you have a picture of all the members of
your
family, meaning your children including Marijoy and Jacqueline? Do you have a picture to show?
WITNESS:
A
yes mam. This was the picture that we had last
Christmas of 1996. (Witness showing the picture to Fiscal Galanida).
Q
Are you willing to have this original picture be submitted as exhibit?
A
No, mam, for sentimental reason and it is very costly to make another
picture
PAGE
24
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Q So,
do you have a photo-copy?
WITNESS:
A Yes, mam. (Witness showing a photo-copy of the family
picture).
PROS.
GALANIDA:
May we request the defense, Your Honor, to
compare this
enlarged photo-copy of this original picture and manifest for the
record
their observation thereof in view of the manifestation of
Mrs. Chiong that she would rather keep the original picture |