NEWSPAPER REPORTS:
   1. EXHUMING MARIJOY'S BODY NOT REQUIRED, SAYS OCAMPO

   2. CORPSE NOT MATERIAL TO CRIME, SAYS OCAMPO

   3. OCAMPO REJECTS EXHUMATION; TO LET EXPERTS SEE EXHIBITS 

   4. FORENSIC EXPERTS TO DISPUTE RECOVERY OF MARIJOY'S BODY 

   5. JUDGE CUTS TIME FOR DEFENSE, SAYS RIGHT ALREADY WAIVED

   6. BAILEN MAY LOSE CHANCE TO TESTIFY FOR DEFENSE

   7. EXPERTS: FINGERPRINTS RAISE DOUBTS ON CORPSE'S IDENTITY

   8. BAILEN LOSES CHANCE TO TESTIFY

   9. NO COMPREHENSIVE EVIDENCE BODY THAT OF MARIJOY, EXPERTS CLAIM

 10. BAILEN'S PRESSCON TAGGED 'OUTRAGEOUS' BY JUDGE OCAMPO

Comments from Josman Aznar's Appellant's brief :
PAGE 117
Appellant's additional evidence not considered by the trial court

142. To further bolster appellant Aznar's defense, he manifested to the trial court that he will present additional defense witnesses but this was denied. The testimonies of these additional witnesses, especially Prof. Jerome Bailen on the identity of the corpse found in Carcar, assumes significance as it would have demolished the theory of the prosecution. Likewise, it would have negated the testimonies of the prosecution's expert witness and would have discredited the testimony of state witness Rusia. Had the lower court allowed Prof. Jerome Bailen to testify, he would have proved among other things that:

          a.  the expert witnesses presented by the prosecution as far as the identity of the dead woman found in Carcar, Cebu were wrong, in identifying the same as Marijoy Chiong's;

          b. The right thumbprint of the voters record of Marijoy Chiong issued by the Commission on Election is not the ideal standard fingerprint to compare with skin specimen of the cadaver;

          c. No cadaveric height measures were recorded and no basis was offered to support the claim that the cadaver was in her early 20's; 

          d. There was no frontal photograph of the face of the alleged body of Marijoy Chiong which showed that the prosecution's witness must have hidden the true identity of the cadaver as also observed by the Honorable Court; 

          e. The dental records of Marijoy Chiong could not have been matched with that of cadaver found in Carcar considering that at least there were six (6)

PAGE 118
upper front teeth that can be used to match similarity pose in the facial photo of the cadaver and again the prosecution tried to hide the true identity of the cadaver; 

          f. The findings of the expert witnesses of the prosecution and the recovery of the cadaver and the items found at the crime scene were conducted in a sloppy and crude manner and lacked sophistication; 

          g. The PNP Forensic team miserably failed to locate the obvious and easy spot to identify Marijoy Chiong; 

          h. The true identity of the cadaver affects the credibility of Rusia and other expert witnesses presented by the prosecution, most especially Mrs. Thelma Chiong.

          143. Appellant could have also presented Ret. Lt. Col. Reynaldo Marcelo, an independent fingerprint expert practitioner to prove that the procedure followed in the fingerprint examination of the corpse found in Carcar was defective. Thus, his supposed testimony, like that of Prof. Bailen would have proved that the corpse was not that of Marijoy's thereby destroying the prosecution's theory of the case. It would have also helped unmask the falsehoods and inconsistencies in Rusia's testimony.

          144. Another expert witness for appellant Aznar, Mrs. Paz Abis, a chemist, also failed to take the witness stand because of the order declaring the appellant to have waived their right to present additional witness. In the main, she would have exposed the testimony of prosecution witness Jude Mendoza on the blood specimen to be inaccurate. Dr. Anastacio Rosete, a forensic odonthologist, would have also testified for appellant Aznar to show that the prosecution's expert witnesses miserably failed to compare

PAGE 119
Maryjoy's dental records to the set of teeth of the cadaver Thus, it would have weakened the prosecution's version.

          145. Likewise, Dr. Benito Molina, a forensics doctor who had trained in forensic work with the American Association for Advancement of Science, would have also testified for appellant that, among others:          

          a. The handling of the evidence was highly irregular and the examination, documentation and safekeeping of the evidence were deficient and improper, thus, creating several improbabilities. 

          b. It would be difficult for the body thrown down a cliff to reach 20 meters from the base of the cliff and 16.5 meters from the most accessible river bank instead of being caught or anchored nearer the base of the cliff and the pair of handcuffs fastened securely on the branch of a tree. 

          c. It would be difficult to conclude from the physical evidence alone that the woman was raped as no other injuries were noted in the areas near or around the female genitalia or in the medial (inner) surface of both thighs and no tearing of the panty and brasier, 

          d. The testimonies of Rusia are a pack of lies and falsehoods. 

          146. Prof. Erdulfo M. Crimares, a registered criminologist who had been with NBI for 17 years, would have testified that the swivel of the handcuff was clamped to one of the branches of a fallen tree located behind the dead body, which is intentional, not accidental. Again, his testimony would have depreciated Rusia's and the experts' testimonies. Since the lower court disallowed the presentation of additional witnesses for the accused, their testimonies are being proffered as evidence, pursuant to Section 40, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence.