|
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 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 entitled case before HON.
MARTIN A. OCAMPO, Presiding Judge of
Branch 7, Regional Trial Court of Cebu
City on September 21, 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. 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
(Appearing, as private prosecutor)
PAGE
2
ATTY. FERDINAND SAORNIDO
(Appearing accused Rusia)
PAO
LAWYERS;
ATTY.
VENUSTIANO YPIL
ATTY.
JOHN DE JESUS
ATTY. ANACLETO DEBALOCUS
PAO Lawyers
(Appearing as counsels de oficio for the
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 JAMS ANDREW Uy @ "MM", ACCUSED FOR KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS
ILLEGAL DETENTION.
PROS.
MIRO:
We respectfully appear
for the state, Your Honor.
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
Appearing as private
prosecutor,
Your Honor.
ATTY.
SAORNIDO:
For accused Rusia, your Honor.
ATTY.
DEBALUCOS:
PAO lawyers, Your
Honor, appearing as counsels de oficio for the rest of the accused.
COURT:
Well,
Atty. Gica, former defense counsel has submitted his Manifestation to the
effect that this court should not hear that matter concerning the Violation of
the Code of Judicial Conduct by the Presiding Judge, myself, in connection
with their Petition for Inhibition
PAGE
3
COURT:
(CONTINUATION)
or Disqualification. According to them it is the Court of Appeals that should
hear their accusations that I violated one of the Canons of Judicial Conduct
which is seeking publicity for personal vainglory, violation of the two (2)
articles written by Editor Ivan Suansing which appeared in the Inquirer and
Daily News. But that is not the law. This is a new ground for disqualification
or inhibition that is being relied upon by them and the law says that should
be directed to and considered by the Judge whose inhibition is being sought
because I should decide in the first instance whether the ground is valid or
not, di ba? (Isn't it so?) It is just a valid
ground. It should be the Court, the Judge himself whose inhibition or
disqualification is being sought who should consider and passed upon
this ground. This is a ground for inhibition they are citing, this violation
of one of the Canons of Judicial Conduct. Will you read 137, Sec. 2, Fiscal,
for the benefit of everybody.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Yes, Your Honor.
COURT:
Rule 137, Sec. 2-
PROS.
GALANIDA:
"Rule 137, Sec. 2-
Objection that Judge disqualified, how made and effect. If it be claimed that
an official is disqualified from sitting as above provided, the party
objecting to his competency say, in writing, file with the official his
objection, stating the grounds therefor, and the official shall thereupon
proceed with the trial or withdraw therefrom, in accordance with his
determination of the questions of his disqualification. His decision shall be
forthwith made in writing and filed with the other papers in the case, but no
appeal or stay shall be allowed from, or by reason of, his Decision in favor
of his own competency, until after final judgment in the case."
(Prosecutor Galanida reading Rule 137, Sec. 2).
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from
Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
4
COURT:
It is only proper that
this Court should hear and determine, pass upon that ground cited by the
former defense counsels in these cases for my disqualification or inhibition
which is Violation of one of the Canons of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2.02, that
is seeking publicity for personal vainglory. That is why we are asking Editor
Suansing to testify today because we want to know or we want to make a
determination as to that accusations being made by these former counsels. Call
Mr. Suansing to the witness stand.
(Mr. Ivan Suansing to the witness stand)
COURT:
Please take a seat. You
are Mr. Evan or Ivan?
MR.
SUANSING:
Ivan, Your Honor.
COURT:
Well, I am pleased to
meet you, Mr. Suansing-
MR.
SUANSING:
Same with me, Your
Honor.
COURT:
We never met before. We
never even talked before. So, I am grateful nevertheless, thankful for your
complementary article although we never met before. So, as you see, I am being
accused of violating one of the Canons of Judicial Conduct because of your
article in which I have nothing to do in the first place. So, swear the
witness.
COURT
INTERPRETER: (SWEARING-IN THE WITNESS)
Do you swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this hearing?
WITNESS:
A Yes, I do.
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from
Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
5
COURT
INTERPRETER:
Will you please state
your name, address, and other personal circumstances.
WITNESS:
A Ivan Suansing, 36 years
old, married, Profession - Journalist and a resident of Labangon, Cebu City.
COURT:
The private prosecutor
will conduct the direct-examination of Editor Suansing.
ATTY.
DEBALUCOS:
Your Honor please, may
I say something before the direct-examination?
COURT:
Yes.
ATTY.
DEBALUCOS:
We do agree, Your
Honor, with the observation of that former counsel of the accused, Atty. Gica,
that we believe that this Honorable Court has really no jurisdiction to hear
this Motion or we call it per se which was filed earlier before the Court of
Appeals. In the first place, Your Honor, this per se or a sort of Motion filed
by the former counsels of the accused is now pending before the Court of
Appeals and we believe that this hearing now to be conducted by this Honorable
Court is out of place considering that the testimony of this witness has no
bearing to the issues in this instant cases that we are hearing
now.
COURT:
No, disqualification or
inhibition. They want me to inhibit myself from further sitting as Judge in
these cases. What do you mean it has no bearing? If I decide to inhibit
myself, tapos na ito. (it's all finish.) I'll go
back to my Chamber, bahala na kayo. (it's all up to
you.) Let us re-shuffle this to another Branch. How can you say it has
no bearing? They are asking for my inhibition and who is suppose to
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from
Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
6
COURT:
(CONTINUATION)
hear the ground for
inhibition in the first instance, di ba yong Judge mismo? (isn't
it the Judge himself?) Sinasabi nang (The Rule
says) Rule 137, Sec. 2, the Judge himself must - - or that ground
for inhibition must be addressed to the Judge himself and who will determine
for himself, by himself whether he is disqualified or not and he will make
that in writing which I did but the trial must go on. There is no appeal,
there is no stay or you cannot suspend the proceedings, the trial must be
finished if the Judge decides that he is qualified and he should not inhibit
himself. That is precisely, that is a vital issue in these cases whether the
Judge, that is me, I should continue hearing these cases or not. How can you
say it is not a vital issue. It is very vital issue, di ba? (isn't
it so?) And who will hear the ground for disqualification or inhibition
if not me in the first instance? Bakit iwanan mo sa ibang Judge yon, (Why
will you leave that to another Judge,) when the law says I should be
the one to hear it and if I think I should be disqualified, that I should
disqualify myself, if not, then I should go on and try the case. That is why
we want to determine, should I be disqualified,
should I inhibit myself? I know walang basis. (there is
no basis.) There has to be a hearing. He was the one who wrote this
article that the former lawyers claimed is a Violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct. He is the author. Then let us hear his explanation. Paano sinulat ang
mga articles na ito? (How were these articles
written?) Who made you write these? How did you come to write
these? Where did you get the information? E, papano? (So,
how?) Basta (Whatever) I will disqualify
myself or I will just say I am qualified without any hearing? That is why we
are hearing it now. He was the author or is the author of those two (2)
articles that appeared in the Inquirer and Daily News. Who else can verify
that - about those articles if we do not hear the author himself, di ba?
(isn't it?) Alright- -
ATTY.
DEBALUCOS:
May I continue, Your
Honor?
COURT:
Yes.
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from
Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
7
ATTY.
DEBALUCOS:
But the problem, Your
Honor, is this Motion is now pending in the Court of Appeals.
COURT:
Yes, but nevertheless
under the law I have the power, I am suppose to determine whether I should
inhibit myself or not. The law says- - because this is the first time they
alleged this ground- ngayon lang nila ina-alleged ito, e.(
- only now did they alleged this.) So, I have the right to hear it in
the first instance, to determine whether it is true or not.
ATTY.
DE JESUS:
With due respect to
this Honorable Court, Your Honor, may we just know, Your Honor, whether this
Honorable Court would consider the matter now pending, the Petition filed by
the previous counsels for the accused, the testimony of Mr. Suansing, may we
know, Your Honor, whether the testimony of this witness be used as a defense
or explanation addressed to the Court of Appeals?
COURT:
It is in connection
with the inhibition or disqualification of the Presiding Judge. You see, they
are alleging this ground for the first time that I violated one of the Court
of Judicial Conduct which is seeking publicity for personal vainglory. Now,
the Court wants to determine whether there is basis for this or not, o,
papano? (so, how now?) How are we going to
determine if not through the testimony of the author of these articles that
they are citing. Sila ang nagsa-cite nitong articles, e. (They
were the ones who cited these articles.) You see- - did you see
their Motion? They are citing these articles written by Mr. Suansing. O, is it
not proper to ask Mr. Suansing to testify?
ATTY.
DE JESUS:
Your Honor, as much as
we understand the reason of this Honorable Court, Your Honor, of calling
Suansing to the witness stand but we believe, Your Honor, it is our humble
belief that since the previous counsels do not have anymore personality before
this court as accord-
(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)
ing to this Honorable Court they have withdrawn as counsels for the accused,
it is therefore our humble belief, Your Honor, that this matter may even be
naturally treated by this Honorable Court since the previous counsels of these
accused now, Your Honor, do not have any personality- -
COURT:
You are correct there,
you are probably correct they have no personality but they are insisting that
they have that is why they filed that case in the Court of Appeals for
Certiorari. What personality do they have in filling that? But they are
insisting and they furnished a copy of their disqualification Motion to this
Court.
ATTY.
DE JESUS:
We just would like to
be qualified- - -
COURT:
Never mind, objection
overruled.
ATTY.
DE JESUS:
- - - that we are not
supposed to conduct the cross-examination, Your Honor- -
COURT:
Alright if you do not
want to cross-examine it's up to you.
ATTY.
DE JESUS:
- - because we are not
the private counsels, Your Honor.
COURT:
We will ask you to
cross-examine him if you want to cross-examine him.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Your Honor- -
PAGE
9
COURT:
Yes, Fiscal.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
May the
prosecution also be given a chance to make a counter manifestation, Your
Honor? I think I have just read earlier into the record the content of Rule
137, Sec. 2, wherein it is clearly explicitly stated there that any party who
is objecting of a Judge must file in writing the Petition before the Judge
whose competency is being questioned and because of that, Your Honor, it is
also the firm stand of the prosecution panel that the former counsels of the
accused made a very untimely or premature Petition before the Court of Appeals
seeking the inhibition of this Judge and this time alleging a new ground that
allegedly this Honorable Court is seeking vainglory through media reports when
it should have filed first that Petition for Inhibition of the Judge on this
ground before this Honorable Court. That's why we believe, Your Honor, that it
is really the right and the prerogative of this Honorable Court to ask
questions to the persons who made such an articles in the newspaper as that is
the only way for the Judge to determine where in the World did he get that
information.
COURT:
Yes, we want to
establish the truth. That is why we will ask Mr. Suansing to testify.
/to
the private prosecutor:
Please conduct the
direct.
MR.
SUANSING:
Your Honor, may I just
know whether I am here as a witness or just a - - - -
COURT:
Yes, you are a witness
in connection with the Petition for Disqualification or Inhibition of the
Presiding Judge in these two (2) Chiong Kidnap cases.
PAGE
10
COURT/to Atty. Saornido:
You want to say
something?
ATTY.
SAORNIDO:
Yes, Your Honor. It
appears that from the previous manifestations there was an accused side and
the prosecution side, we would like to dig deeper to accused Rusia considering
that Rusia is still an accused, that it is our opinion that the Court has
jurisdiction contrary to the earlier manifestation by the distinguished
counsels, Rule 137, Sec. 2, is very explicit, Your Honor, that it only says if
it is claimed not necessarily there is another case filed- if it is
claimed, the word "claimed" be underlined, if somebody would claim
that the Judge is bias, the Judge is free to establish whether he would
inhibit himself- -
COURT:
Yes, in fact I don't
have to wait for any claim I just inhibit myself for just and valid reason
without anybody asking me too. I just inhibit myself. That is what the other
Judge did, Arriesgado, that is what he did, Wala namang naghihingi nang
inhibition niya. (Nobody asked for his inhibition) He
decided to inhibit himself. O, papano yon? (So, how is
that?) I want to know if there is a just and valid reason for
their accusations or claim.
/to
private prosecutor:
Please proceed, Panero. (my
fellow lawyer.)
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
May I state the
purpose, Your Honor?
COURT:
Yes.
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
The purpose of the
testimony of this witness- - -
COURT:
Did you bring the
articles or the copies of the articles?
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from
Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
11
ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
Yes, Your Honor.
COURT:
Proceed.
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
Mr. Ivan P. Suansing
will explain to this Honorable Court how or why he came to write, published
the articles found on the front page of the Philippine Daily Inquirer August
31, 1998 issue. May I proceed, Your Honor?
COURT:
Yes.
DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS
BY ATTY. HONORATO HERMOSISIMA, JR.
Q Mr. Suansing, you mentioned you are a Journalist.
Are you in anyway connected with a newspaper company?
A I am the News Editor of Cebu Daily News and at the same
time a Correspondent of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Q Since when have you been connected with the Cebu Daily
News as a News Editor?
A Officially since December of 1997.
Q And you also mentioned that you are a Correspondent of
the Philippine Daily Inquirer?
A Correct.
Q Since when, Mr. Suansing?
A Since 1992, sir.
Q As News Correspondent of the Philippine Daily Inquirer,
what do you do?
A Now, you mean now?
PAGE
12
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
Q Yes.
WITNESS:
A I have a regular column
which appears every first Thursday of the month and I submit news articles
now and then for big stories.
Q You mean you contribute news articles?
A Yes, sir.
Q Can you recall having contributed an article to the
Philippine Daily Inquirer that was published on August 31, 1998?
A Yes, sir.
Q I show you this article caption and I quote:
"OCAMPO, THE JUDGE WHO FEARS NO ONE". Is this the article which
you said you have contributed to the Philippine Daily Inquirer?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Mr. Suansing, have you interviewed the Honorable Judge
Martin A. Ocampo before August 31, 1998, the date the article you
contributed to the Philippine Daily Inquirer was published?
A No, for two (2) reasons. No. (1) I already had
sufficient materials about the Judge; and No. (2), I was told by a personnel
of this Court, when I asked for an interview I was told that the Judge
didn't usually grant interviews in the pendency of important cases such as
this.
Q So that not having interviewed Judge Ocampo prior to the
publication of the article you contributed to the Philippine Daily Inquirer,
where then did you get the source of your write-ups which appeared on the
August 31, 1998 issue?
A First, from my own personal observation. The Judge first
caught my attention when he was handling the Abiabi case. So more or less
had a pretty good picture of what the Judge is. No. 20, a feedback we got
from
PAGE
13
WITNESS:
(CONTINUATION)
the field; 3)
published reports; 4) a Libel Complaint which the Judge filed against a
Local newspaper which contained narrations of his personal circumstances,
his insights as well as his sentiments. And, lastly, a book titled
"Cabbages and Kings" which contains collections of his articles
published in the Philippine Press.
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
Q Have you at any time been
formally introduced to the Honorable Martin A. Ocampo before August 31,
1998?
A We had never been formally introduced.
Q Before August 31, 1998, have you ever personally met and
got acquainted with the Honorable Judge Ocampo?
A No, sir.
Q Before August 31, 1998, was there any occasion that the
Honorable Judge Ocampo approached or called on you for anything?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know the Honorable Judge Martin Ocampo now?
A All I know he is the Judge in this case.
Q And as you mentioned a while ago also because of the
Abiabi case. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Not having interviewed Judge Ocampo, not having been
formally introduced to him neither have you personally met and got
acquainted with the good Judge nor had he approached or called on you
anything, then, please explain what made you write or published the article
captioned I quote: "OCAMPO, THE JUDGE WHO FEARS NO ONE" which
appears on the August 31, 1998 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer?
A What made me write the article?
PAGE
14
ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
Q
Yes.
WITNESS:
A First, that's an
editorial decision. This is supposed to be the trial of the decade, bruited
to be the trial of the decade. I figured readers not only in Cebu but
elsewhere the country, we would like to know what kind of a Judge is
handling these cases. Secondly, it is the policy of the Inquirer also Cebu
Daily News that whenever there is a big story like this, we give the story a
face by focusing individuals involved in the case. We have already written
about the Judge and some star witness Davidson Rusia, some future time we
plan to write about another personalities in this case and some of the
accused with their consent and some of the lawyers.
Q So that it would be correct then to say that Judge
Ocampo had absolutely nothing to do with your article that appeared on the
August 31, 1998 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer?
A He had nothing to do with the article, he had not asked
for the article, I wrote it on my own initiative.
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
No further questions,
Your Honor.
COURT/
to PAO lawyers:
Who wish to
cross-examine the witness from the Public Attorney's Office?
ATTY.
DE JESUS:
With due respect to
this Honorable Court, Your Honor, the Public Attorney's Office has no
participation in the inhibition filed by the previous counsels. So, we
therefore respectfully refuse to cross-examine him, Your Honor.
PAGE
15
COURT:
So we can now
discharge Mr. Suansing. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Suansing. Here is
a copy of the Order of this Court today. Will you distribute this? (Court
addressing to the Court Interpreter)
Mr.
Suansing:
May I now be allowed
to resume my normal duties, Your Honor.
COURT:
Yes. Thank you for
your testimony and for your article. Having disposed of this matter we shall
now proceed with the trial of the main case. Fiscal, you may now continue
presentation of your evidence.
PROS.
MIRO:
We will continue with
the presentation of our 14th witness. His testimony will be part of the
evidence-in-chief in support of our allegations in the Informations filed
against them. We will call upon Mr. Manuel Rodriguez, our 14th witness. He
will be presented by private prosecutor Atty. Honorato Hermosisima, Jr.,
subject to our direction and control.
COURT:
Call the witness. And
state the purpose of his testimony for the record.
(Witness to the stand)
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
That this witness,
Your Honor, will testify to the fact that as a part-time job he is a
photographer; that he worked as a photographer in Carcar and that on July
18, 1997 at about 12:00 noon somebody approached him and told him that SPO4
Arturo Unabia, Acting Chief of Police of Carcar called on him because there
was found at the bottom of the ravine in Tan-awan, Carcar, a woman whom the
Acting Chief of Police wanted to be photoed and that upon reaching
PAGE
16
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA: (CONTINUATION)
Tan-awan, he saw that dead woman and upon instructions of Acting Chief of
Police Unabia he took pictures front side and back side and thereafter he
had the film developed. And that he will identify the picture that have
already been marked and that he will testify on related matters that will be
in support of the foregoing purposes, Your Honor.
COURT:
Swear the witness.
COURT
INTERPRETER: (SWEARING-IN THE WITNESS)
Do you swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this hearing?
WITNESS:
Yes, I do.
COURT
INTERPRETER:
Will you please state
your name, address and other personal circumstances?
WITNESS;
A Manuel Rodriguez, 44
years old, married, driver and a photographer and a resident of Sangi,
Guadalupe, Carcar, Cebu.
ATT.
DE JESUS:
Your Honor please,
may we move for the exclusion of other witnesses.
COURT:
You have other
witnesses?
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Yes, but they are in
the staff room, Your Honor.
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
May it please this
Honorable Court.
PAGE
17
COURT:
Proceed.
DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS
BY ATTY. HONORATO HERMOSISIMA
Q Mr. Witness, you mentioned that by occupation you
are a jeepney driver and that you have a sideline as a photographer. Can you
tell us for how long you have been a photographer?
A For two (2) years until at present.
Q So that would be from 1996 up to now. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q On July 18, 1997 at about 12:00 o'clock noon, can you
recall of any unusual incident that happened?
A Yes, sir, there was.
Q Can you please tell this Honorable Court?
A While I was taking my lunch a person approached me and
told me that somebody wanted to have a photograph at Tan-awan, Carcar and
that a person was thrown into a deep ravine.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Your Honor, may I
request the translation -
COURT
INTERPRETER: (READING THE ANSWER)
While I was taking my
lunch a person approached me and told me that somebody wanted to have a
photograph at Tan-awan, Carcar and that a person was thrown into a deep
ravine.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Your Honor please,
because I heard he mentioned something "nagka-on ko ug may tawo nga
miadto sa mo" (I was eating and there was a man
who went to us) which was not included in the translation.
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from
Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
18
COURT INTERPRETER:
While I was eating my
lunch, a person approached me to have a photograph - - -
PROS.
GALANIDA:
So "went to the
house" was not earlier mentioned, Your Honor.
COURT:
Proceed.
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
Q After having been told
so, what did you do?
WITNESS:
A I told him by saying
after eating my lunch we will go there.
Q After taking your lunch, did you in effect go to
Tan-awan.
A After taking my lunch we boarded a "habal-habal"
(motorcycle unlicensed to pick up paying passengers) motorcycle
and went to Tan-awan, Carcar.
Q What time did you reach Tan-awan, Carcar?
A It took us about thirty (30) minutes.
Q You reached Tan-awan, Carcar on top about 12:30. Is that
correct.
A Yes, sir.
Q Upon reaching Tan-awan, Carcar, you are referring to
this cliff at Tan-awan, Carcar. Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q After reaching there, what did you do next?
A We went down to the foot of the ravine because the way
is really very difficult.
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from
Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster).
PAGE
19
ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
Q What made the way very
difficult?
WITNESS:
A Because the cliff is
really very stiff.
Q How was the condition of the soil at that time when you
went down?
A It was very slippery and muddy because of the heavy
rain.
Q What time did you reach the bottom of the cliff at
Tan-awan, Carcar?
A Past 1:00 o'clock.
Q Upon reaching there, what did you find?
A I saw a dead body of a woman.
Q Having seen that dead woman, can you describe to the
Court her position at that time you first saw the body?
A On her left hand there was a handcuff.
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
We make it of record,
Your Honor, that the witness demonstrating that his left hand is at his
back.
Q What did you observe on the face of that woman, if any?
A I observed that on the face of a woman there was a
masking tape.
Q Where was that masking tape located?
A It was placed on her eyes, also wrapped around her mouth
and there were also worms came out from her mouth and from her nose and
there were also flies.
Q What was that woman wearing, if you can recall?
A She was wearing an orange
t-shirt.
PAGE
20
ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
Q How about - - was she
wearing pants?
WITNESS:
A Yes, she was wearing a
maong pants.
Q And what have you observed on the t-shirt of that woman?
A Her t-shirt was raised up and her bra was lowered.
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
We make it of record,
Your Honor, that the witness indicated that the bra was somewhere around his
waist.
Q And what have you observed on the maong pants of that
woman?
A It was torn because she fell down from the cliff which
was very deep?
Q You mentioned that you went to that spot because you
were called upon to take photographs and those were upon the instructions of
SPO4 Arturo Unabia. Did you in fact take photographs of that woman?
A Yes, I took photographs.
Q On what angles of the body did you take photographs of
that woman, if you can recall?
A I took photographs on her front and at her back.
Q After you took that photographs, what did you do next?
A SPO4 Unabia ordered to take the dead body and brought to
the Funeral Parlor.
Q After SPO4 Unabia made that order, what did you do next?
A I went home.
Q And what did you do with the films, if any?
PAGE
21
WITNESS:
A On July 19 at 8:00
o'clock in the morning I immediately went to Cebu City to have the films
developed.
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
Q And did you in fact have
the films developed?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where was that?
A At Fuji Colon.
Q If shown those photographs, Mr. Rodriguez, can you still
recognize them?
A Yes, sir.
Q I show you photographs already marked as Exh.
"Z" with submarkings and Exh.
"BB" and submarkings. Please take a look at these photographs
and tell the Court if these are the ones that you took on the dead woman at
Carcar, Cebu?
COURT
INTERPRETER:
Yes, these are the
pictures, Your Honor. (Witness examined Exh.
"Z" and series and Exh.
"BB" and series).
ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
No further, Your
Honor.
COURT:
Cross-examination of this witness is also deferred for the same reason like
the other prosecution witnesses.
/
to the witness:
Witness is excused.
/
to the prosecutor:
Please call your next
witness, Fiscal.
PAGE
22
PROS. MIRO:
For our 15th
witnesses, Your Honor, we will be calling upon Mr. Dionisio Enad, Jr.,
whose testimony will be part of our evidence-in-chief in support of our
allegations contained in the Informations. He will be presented by
Prosecutor Duyongco.
COURT:
Call the witness.
State the purpose of his testimony for the record.
PROS.
DUYONGCO:
Mr. Enad will
testify, Your Honor, that he is an Asst. Embalmer of the Tupaz Funeral Homes
based in Carcar, Cebu. His testimony is offered to prove that sometime on
the 18th of July 1997 between 2:00 o'clock to past 3:00 o'clock in the
afternoon of 18th of July 1997 he was the one who embalmed the body of
Marijoy Chiong; that before he embalmed Marijoy Chiong he removed the
masking tapes wrapped around her eyes, the masking tapes placed around
Marijoy's neck; that he was the one who removed the blouse or t-shirt
colored orange and the maong pants of Marijoy Chiong including Marijoy
Chiong's bra and panties; that he also removed the hair band of Marijoy
Chiong; that found on the left wrist of Marijoy Chiong was a handcuff; he
will testify on some very important and relevant matters and some
preliminary matters in amplification of the above-mentioned purposes, Your
Honor.
COURT:
Swear the witness.
COURT
INTERPRETER: (SWEARING-IN THE WITNESS)
Do you swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this hearing?
WITNESS:
Yes, I do.
PAGE
23
COURT
INTERPRETER:
Will
you please state your name, address and other personal circumstances?
WITNESS:
A Dionisio Enad, 39 years
old, married, Assistant Embalmer of Tupaz Funeral Parlor, Carcar, Cebu and a
resident of Sangat, San Fernando, Cebu.
PROS.
DUYONGCO:
With the kind
permission of this Honorable Court.
COURT:
Proceed.
DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS
BY PROSECUTOR RAMON DUYONGCO
Q Mr. Enad, you just told the Court that you are an
Assistant Embalmer of Tupaz Funeral Homes, would you please tell the Court
where is this Tupaz Funeral Homes located?
A It is located at Carcar, Cebu.
Q How long have you been connected with that funeral
parlor?
A Twenty (20) years.
Q With this span of twenty (20) years, are you telling the
Court that you have been an embalmer of this funeral parlor for about twenty
(20) years?
A I was working for about twenty (20) years but as an
embalmer only for about ten (10) years.
Q On July 18, 1997 about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon,
could you recall where were you?
A I was in the house.
Q About that time, could you recall if you met with
anybody or you talked with anyone?
A I was informed by my employer that there was a dead
body.
PAGE
24
PROS.
DUYONGCO:
Q What did you do after you
had informed that there was a dead body?
WITNESS:
A I went to the Funeral
Parlor and waited there.
Q And when you told the Court that you went to the Funeral
Parlor, are you referring to Tupaz Funeral Homes?
A Yes, sir.
Q While you were there past 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon
of 18 July 1997, could you tell the Court what transpired?
A I waited for the dead body.
Q In effect, did the dead body arrive?
A Yes, sir, at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon.
Q When the dead body arrived, what did you do?
A I waited an instruction from my employer what to do.
Q By the way, what was that dead body? Was it a male
person or a female person?
A At first I did not know whether that was a female or a
male body.
Q Later, did you come to know whether it was a male or a
female?
A Yes, sir.
Q Tell the Court whether it was a male person or a female
person?
A I was informed by my companions that they saw a dead
body of a woman.
Q A while ago you told the Court that you were waiting for
the instruction of your employer, on what to do with the dead body. In
effect, did your employer tell you what to
do?
PAGE
25
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.
PROS.
DUYONGCO:
Q What did your employer
tell you?
A I was instructed by my employer that the dead body would
be embalmed.
Q Did you follow the instruction of your employer?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you telling the Court that in effect you embalmed
the dead body?
A When I was instructed by my employer to embalm the dead
body I first cut the masking tape.
(Witness pointing to his face)
Q By the way, why did you have to cut the masking tape?
A Because the masking tape was stuck to the face.
Q Aside from removing the masking tape by cutting it was
wrapped around the face of that dead person, what else did you do?
A There was another masking tape on the neck of the body.
(Witness pointing to his neck).
Q How did you remove that masking tapes?
A I also cut the masking tape.
Q And why did you have to cut it?
A Because it stuck to the neck.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
May I request that
the Interpreter also manifest for the record the hand demonstration of the
witness while testifying.
PAGE
26
COURT INTERPRETER;
(Witness pointing to
his neck with his two (2) fingers as if it represents the scissors by
cutting).
PROS.
DUYONGCO:
Q By the way, to make it
clear, what did you use in cutting those tapes?
WITNESS:
A Scissors.
Q After you have done it removing the two (2) tapes, what
else did you do?
A I also cut her t-shirt because the body was already
bloated and the t-shirt could not be taken off. (Witness while testifying
pointed to his right upper arm by demonstrating that he was cutting it then
his right hand to the left upper arm also demonstrating by cutting the shirt
and then from the tip near the waist cutting the shirt upwards towards the
neck).
Q After you have removed the t-shirt - - - by the way,
could you recall what was the color of the t-shirt?
A Orange t-shirt.
Q After you have removed the t-shirt by cutting it, what
else did you do?
A I cut also the pants because the legs of the dead body,
the thighs were already bloated.
Q Could you recall what was the color of the pants?
A Maong pants.
Q A while ago you told the Court that you already knew
that the dead body was that of a female because you were informed by your
co-employee. While you were already removing the tapes, the t-shirt and the
pants, did you already know by yourself whether it was a male person or a
female person?
PAGE
27
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir, it was a woman.
PROS.
DUYONGCO:
Q You told the Court a
while ago that you had to cut the t-shirt and the pants because the body of
the dead person had already bloated and that the removal of the same was
difficult. What did you use in cutting the t-shirt and the pants?
A Scissors. (Witness demonstrating by using his right hand
with two (2) fingers representing the scissors).
Q After you had removed the t-shirt and the
pants, what else did you do?
A I took off the bra. (Witness pointing to his breast by
cutting the bra).
Q Why did you have to cut off the bra?
A I have to cut the bra because it is very difficult to
take off so I have to cut it because the bra was already tight.
Q After you had removed the bra, what else did you do?
A I have to cut also her panty. (Witness pointing to his
left and right waist).
Q Why would you have to cut the panty?
A Because it was very dirty and I have to clean it.
Q By the way, aside from removing all those things, what
else did you do after that?
A I covered her private parts with a white blanket.
Q By the way, what was your purpose in removing the
t-shirt, the pants, the bra, the panty and the masking tapes around the
woman's eyes and the neck? Please tell the Court?
A I have to remove all these things in order to see
whether she suffered stab wounds,
injuries
|