PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
                                           Plaintiff,

                 - versus -                                                                                                      CRIM. CASES NOS. CBU-45303
                                                                                                                                                                    and CBU-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-titled case before HON. 
                                                                 MARTIN A. OCAMPO, Presiding Judge of
                                                                 Branch 7, Regional Trial Court of Cebu 
                                                                 City on September 15, 1998 at 2:35 o'clock 
                                                                 in the afternoon.
                                                                 

Present:
                                                                 HON. MARTIN A. OCAMPO
                                                                 Presiding Judge

ASSISTED BY:
                                                                  MS. FARAH T. ABANGAN
                                                                  Court Stenographer

                                                                   MS. LUCILA C. BAJARIAS
                                                                   Court Interpreter

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

                                                                   ATTY. HONORATO HERMOSISIMA 
                                                                   ATTY. BIENVENIDO SANIEL
                                                                   ATTY. VERONICO SARDONCILLO
                                                                   (Appearing as private prosecutors)

PAGE 2
                                                                   ATTY. FERDINAND SAORNIDO
                                                                   (Counsel for accused Rusia)

                                                                   PAO LAWYERS:

                                                                   ATTY. ANACLETO DEBALOCUS
                                                                   ATTY. JOHN DE JESUS 
                                                                   (Appearing as counsel de oficio
                                                                   for rest of the accused)

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 prosecutor, Your Honor, in collaboration with Attys. Saniel and Sardoncillo.

ATTY. SAORNIDO:
          Appearing as counsel for accused Rusia, your Honor.

ATTY. DEBALOCUS:
          Appearing as counsel de oficio for the rest of the accused, Your honor, in collaboration with Atty. John de Jesus.

COURT:    (addressing to the Court Interpreter)
          Give them copies of the Order. We are just formalizing the Order we said yesterday that

PAGE 3
COURT:    (CONTINUATION)
in the event that the accused fails to appoint counsels of their choice by next week September 24- now, these accused filed Motions requesting the Court for three (3) weeks that is from September 3 to appoint counsels of their choice. The Court readily granted their request giving them three (3) weeks or up to September 24 so that they could conduct cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and present evidence through their de parte counsels or counsels of their own choice. Now, why did the court receive the direct testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in the meantime? Because we cannot suspend the trial of these heinous crimes cases for three (3) weeks because of the provisions of Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 104-96 which provides that the trial of heinous crimes, this must undergo mandatory, continuous trial and must be terminated within sixty (60) days. Hindi lang ako nagsabi noon kasi (I am not the only one who says that because) Supreme Court Alfredo Benipayo last Saturday during the seminar here in ISP said that himself kung hindi kayo maniniwala sa akin maniniwala kayo ke (If you do not want to believe me, you believe) Benipayo, that was what he said, that these heinous crimes cases must undergo, continuous trial and must be terminated within sixty (60) days. That is why we could not suspend for three (3) weeks the trial of these cases as the accused wanted to give them time to look for new lawyers. But the court came them time to look for new lawyers three weeks to conduct cross-examination and present their defense evidence through their de parte counsels. Sasabihin ninyo (You are saying) trial by publicity, anong (what) trial by publicity? This trial is going on before this court. Pina-publish lang nang diyaryo yan (But the newspapers are publishing it) but this is trial before a Court and besides alam naman nang tao ang sasabihin nang mga witnesses ngayon. (the people knows already what the witnesses will testify now) They have submitted Affidavits to the Fiscal's Office and they are just affirming their Affidavits.  As it is yong mga (those) testimonies nitong (of these) prosecution witnesses is still incomplete, hearsay pa yan­hearsay. (that is still hearsay.) Why hearsay? Because wala pang (there's no) cross-examination. That is why the Court is giving the accused up to September 24 to cross-examine these prosecution witnesses including accused Davidson Rusia. But if they do not cross-examine by the time they should that is by accused Davidson Rusia. But if they do not cross-examine by the time they should that is by

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

PAGE 4
COURT:    (CONTINUATION)
September 24 then they will be deemed to have waived cross-examination of these witnesses. O, papano? (So, how?) In that case the testimonies of the witnesses will no longer be hearsay, they will be complete. O,  papano? (So, how?) They do not want to cross-examine. Binigyan na sila nang (They were given already) enough opportunity  three (3) weeks and if they do not want to present defense evidence, what can we do? Kahit saang husgado, (Even in any Court,) kahit saang hukuman kayo magpunta sa buong mundo, (even in any Court in the world that you may go,) kayo ang akusado ayaw magkros-eksamin, (you are accused and you refuse to cross-examine,) ayaw kumuha nang abogado binigyan mo naman nang de oficio counsel ayaw namang kilalanin, (they do not want to get a lawyer, we gave them de oficio counsels but they refuse to recognize them,) o papano? (So, how?) Ayaw mag-present nang (They do not want to present) defense evidence. What can the Court do? Anywhere in the world, kahit siguro sa China, (even maybe in China,) kahit na sa Canbodia, (even in Cambodia,) habit pa sa (even yet in) Tembatul, the ruling of the Court will be the same- waive, di ba? (wouldn't it be?) You waive your cross-examination, you waive your presentation of defense evidence. Wala nang ibang ruling na makuha ninyo sa huskado (There will be no other ruling that you can get from the court) ) if that is the case. Meron pa ba? (Is there any another?) Ayaw. (None.) They were given enough time three (3) weeks. Ayaw magkros-eksamin, (they do not want to cross-examine,) ayaw mag-present nang evidence. (They do not want to present evidence.)  What can the Court do? Any court? Even the Court of last resort, the Court of Outer Space, the
tribunal of Outer Space, di ba? (Isn't it so?) Yong (That) mankind was on trial. Kahit pa sa Outer Space magpe-present nang evidence, di ba at kung wala, e, convicted na.  (Even in Outer Space you will have to present evidence, wouldn't you, and if you don't have any, then you will be convicted already.) Alright, you want to say anything?

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
          Your Honor please, it is quite clear from the Order of this Honorable Court that if on the 24th the accused will still have no counsels de parte and they will not recognize the PAO lawyers as their own to conduct the cross-examination then they are deemed to have waived their right to cross-examination - - -

COURT:
          No - - on the 24th the court will ask them first, do you want the PAO lawyers to conduct cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses for you? Pag sabihin nilang ayaw nila, e, papano? (If they say they do not want, then what?) di, waive ang (then, they waive their) cross-examination but it they say "yes" they are agreeable then the Court will order the PAO lawyers to cross-

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

PAGE 5
COURT:    (CONTINUATION)
examine the prosecution witnesses. 

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
          In the event, Your Honor, that the. accused will say "No", after all, Your Honor, the PAO lawyers are here, are they not duty bound to, as officers of the law, of the court to conduct cross-examination, after all they were all here or they were all be here during the direct-examination of prosecution witnesses?

COURT:
          What would be the sense of that when the accused refuse to recognize or to honor those cross-examinations to be conducted by the PAO counsels? That is why we will ask them- will you recognize? Are you consenting that the PAO lawyers will conduct cross-examination pag sabihin nila ayaw nila, o, (if they say they do not want, so) what can we do? What's the use of the PAO lawyers cross-examining the prosecution witnesses if the accused will not honor those cross-examinations anyway? We are just wasting time, di ba? (Wouldn't we?) 

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          Your Honor please, may I have something to say? 

COURT:
          Yes.

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          I think, Your Honor, the duties of the PAO lawyers to conduct the cross-examination, to represent the accused in these cases from the time they started representing the accused to the time of the final determination of these cases should not be dependent on the Will or caprices of these accused who refuse to recognize them because under the Law, Your Honor, a lawyer whether he be a private lawyer or a public lawyer such as the PAO lawyer, they are duty bound under the law as officers of the Court to represent  the accused to protect the rights and interest whether they are recognized by the accused or not they are duty bound to

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

PAGE 6
PROS. DUYONGCO:    (CONTINUATION)
protect the interest of the accused.

COURT: 
          Just remember that cross-examination has two (2) fold purposes and the PAO lawyer in cross-examining the witnesses might only make their testimonies more damaging the accused. So, e, mahirap yon. (that will be hard.) If the accused do not want the PAO lawyer to cross-examine the witnesses, I think we should not require them to do so because they might only make the testimonies damaging to the accused. In which case, the accused will say, Ayaw namin, sabi nga namin ayaw naming magkros-eksamin bakit ninyo pinilit sila. (We didn't want, we already said we didn't want them to cross-examine, why did you force them.) Tingnan mo yong witness sinabi niya nang ganoon, e, di dapat sabihin yon, e, pinilit ninyong magkros-eksamin, ayaw namin. (Look at the witness he said it like that, but, he shouldn't have said it, so, you insistent to cross-examine, we did not agree.) So, that is the trouble.

PROS. DUYONGCO: 
          Your Honor please, but it is my humble contention that the duties of these counsels, PAO lawyers should not be dependent to the Will and caprices of the accused who in the event that on the 24th of this month would still would not come up with their chosen lawyers, I believe, Your Honor, they are duty bound to cross-examine all the witnesses that had been presented by the prosecution - - -

COURT:
          Well, anyway - - - -

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          It would be a different thing, Your Honor, that after they shall have cross-examined all these witnesses are these accused who are suppose to testify or their witnesses to testify in their behalf would not refuse to testify despite the willingness of these PAO lawyers, that would be a different story.

COURT:
          Anyway they still have until the 24th. Let us study that point if the PAO lawyers should

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

PAGE 7
COURT: (CONTINUATION)
cross-examine at the event they do not come up with lawyers of their choice.

          What. I am saying, Your Honor, is that - - -

COURT:
          Will you submit a Memorandum?

PROS. DUYONGCO:
          Yes, Your Honor. What I am saying, Your Honor, is that as far as their duty to cross-examine, I think they are duty bound but as far as presentation of these witnesses for the defense that would be a different story if the accused would still refuse to take the witness stand.

ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
         At this point also, Your Honor, we can even ask the PAO lawyers now whether they are willing to conduct the cross-examination to the best of their ability.

COURT/to PAO lawyers:
          Are you willing?

ATTY. DE JESUS:
          Your Honor, before we answer to the query of the prosecution, Your Honor, we also would like to make it of record that the reason of this Honorable Court, with due respect to this Court, Your Honor, of the insistence of continuous trial, Your Honor, is in view of the Circular mandated by the Supreme Court Speedy Trial. However, as counsels de oficio, we believe that the provisions in the Speedy Trial Act, I think is not yet applicable in this stage of these cases because the fact that there are still three (3) pending Motions waiting for the Resolutions of this Honorable Court and under Sec. 9, par. 1 of the Circular that that is one reason that the period of 180 days may be stayed, Your Honor, if there      

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

PAGE 8
ATTY. DE JESUS: (CONTINUATION)
are pending. Motions or actions concerning the - - -

COURT:
          Not 180 days, 60 days lang, (only,) as Justice Benipayo said and besides as he said once the trial begun, tuloy-tuloy na yan (it will be continuously already) and this pending Motions are being held synchronously or simultaneously with the trial. So, there is no problem there. Once the trial has already begun, so, according to Justice Benipayo, hindi lang ako, (not only me,) Benipayo, tuloy-tuloy na yan, (should be continuously,) sabi niya hindi na maaring e-stop-stop yan. (he said it cannot be stopping anymore.) Alright what we can do? E, sabi niya pag hindi tuloy-tuloy yong Judge ang mapaparusahan. (So, he said if it is not held continuously the Judge will be punished.)  Ako, hindi naman kayo ang mapaparusahan, ako. (Me, not any of you will be punished, but me.) The Judge will have an administrative case. E, papano? (So, how?) Hindi naman kayo ang maparusahan, kung hindi ako. (You guys will not be punished, but me.) That is why I am insisting we finish as much as possible within the period provided by law.

PROS. GALANIDA:
          May I be allowed to say something, Your Honor?

COURT: 
          Yes.

PROS. GALANIDA: 
          In answer to what the defense PAO lawyer has said may be this defense counsel does not know that the trial of these cases was supposed to start last year yet but because of the several Motions and pleadings filed by the defense to the Supreme Court that is why these cases has long been delayed for one (1) year. So, I think he must have not known about it, I am volunteering that information, Your Honor. And, secondly, Your Honor, we would like to put it on record that at about 1:45 just this afternoon when the accused were on their way up, I personally saw these accused most particularly Francisco Juan Larranaga conferring with Atty. Ramon Teleron there at the entrance of this building. We are putting it on record, Your Honor, because the prosecution panel is simply perplexed why Atty. Teleron is conferring with         

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

PAGE 9
PROS. GALANIDA: (CONTINUATION)
then when he has already withdrawn from these cases. That is only for purposes of record, Your Honor.

ATTY. DE JESUS:
          Your Honor please, we would like to comment on that observation, Your Honor. That is, I  believe, Your Honor, the observation of the good prosecutor is not relevant in issue in these cases. Although admittedly Atty. Teleron was his previous counsel but I don't think there any are other motives that Atty. Teleron conferred with accused Larranaga and therefore the manifestation of this good prosecutor, I believe, Your Honor, should not be included in the record of these cases. That is very extensive already, Your Honor. 

COURT:
          Anyway the Court is aware of these activities of the former defense lawyers. Dito, (Here,) in this Court they are saying that they are no longer the lawyers of the accused because on August 27 the accused filed a written consent for their withdrawal. So, officially in this Court they are no longer the lawyers. Bakit? (Why?) Because if they are still the lawyers they will still be in contempt because they refused to proceed to trial when they are still the lawyers. So, we are going to avoid that sabihin nila (let them say) we are no longer the lawyers. In that case, then the Court can the Court can appoint counsels de oficio, kayo na. (that's you already.) But before the Court of Appeals these same lawyers are saying, No, kami pa rin ang lawyers nila.  (No, we are still their lawyers.) That is why they filed this Petition for Certiorari because claiming that they are still the lawyers then they still have the right to represent the accused. Bakit hindi papayag doon sa (Why will they not agree with the) Court of Appeals September 3? That is one (1) week after they allegedly withdrew, di ba? (Isn't it so?) So, sa (in the) Court of Appeals sinasabi nila (they are saying) we are still the lawyers, that is why we are asking for disqualification of Judge Ocampo because we are still the lawyers of the accused there. Pero pagnandito sila (But when they are here)  we are not the lawyers anymore. You know there is a Greek Methology, di ba, (Isn't it there,) Janus, dalawang mukha. (doubled faced.) What do you say "dalawang mukha" ("doubled faced") in Tagalog? How do you say that in Tagalog? Ayon, "doble cara". (There, doubled face.)

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

PAGE 10
COURT: (CONTINUATION)
Dito (Here) they are not the lawyers of the accused, sa (in the) Court of Appeals they are the lawyers. That is why  they filed that Petition for Certiorari e, "doble cara", di ba? (so, "doubled face", aren't they?) )You report that I said it. They are "doble cara", ("double faced",) okey, report it to the press. Judge Ocampo said those former lawyers are "doble cara". ("doubled face.) Alright, You have anything to say?

PROS DUYONGCO:
          Your Honor please, we still have a pending query for the PAO lawyers if they are willing to cross-examine all prosecution witnesses who had just testified because in the event they are not willing. Your Honor, we will ask an Order from this Court that the Presidents of two (2) IBP Chapters, Cebu City and Cebu Province should be directed right now to be ready on the 24th to represent the accused to cross-examine, all the prosecution witnesses and to get ready for the presentation of the defense.

ATTY. DE JESUS:
          Your Honor please, with due respect to the good Prosecutor, we are always ready, anytime we are always ready. 

COURT:
          That is not yet decided. I want to study that first whether it is necessary for the PAO lawyers to cross-examine despite of the opposition of the accused. Kung ayaw nila (If they don't want) off-hand I think it is not necessary, ayaw nila mag-conduct nang cross-examination ang PAO lawyers, (they don't want the PAO lawyers to conduct the cross-examination,) why should we insist? E, di waiver na. (So, that already will be a waiver.) They were given three (3) weeks, they asked for three weeks to hire their lawyers ayaw. (they didn't.) There were assigned PAO lawyers and they were asked to cross-examine na, ayaw, e, di waive na. (to cross-examine already, but they didn't want, so they waived already.) I think we should consider that waive already. Useless. They will not honor the cross-examination anyway to be conducted by the PAO lawyers. So, what's the use? Unless they consent. Pagsabihin nila, o, sige payag kami na magkros-eksamin ang PAO lawyers, (If they would say, ok we agree for the PAO lawyers to cross-examine)  again, we will order the PAO lawyers to cross-

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