|
ciminal
case nos cbu-45303 & 45304
pp vs larraņaga et al
hearing jan 18, 1999
PAGE 24
ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
The request was for
Boro or Dominado. So, it's when I said for Dominado, it's for Atty. Boro.
PROS.
GALANIDA:
Not the persons
that you named?
ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
A representative if
there is any.
COURT:
State the purpose.
ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
The purpose, Your
Honor, is to establish that in their Manila-Cebu flight on July 15, 16 the
name Francisco Juan Larraņaga or Paco Larraņaga has not been in the
records...
COURT:
July 15 ba? (Is
it July 15?)
ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
I am referring to
July 15 and 16, Your Honor, and I think July 17....
COURT:
July 15 and 16 from
Manila to Cebu?
ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
From Manila to Cebu,
Your Honor.
COURT:
The record of PAL?
ATTY.
VILLARMIA
The record of Pal
does not show that . . .
COURT:
Does not show . . .
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from English to Tagalog (Philippine language). ....the webmaster)
PAGE
25
ATTY. VILLARMIA
. . . . .
that Francisco Juan Larraņaga . . . .
COURT:
. . . . that the
accused Francisco Juan Larraņaga took a flight in any of the plane,
PAL plane?
ATTY. VILLARMIA:
Yes, Your Honor
COURT:
Put Pal is not the
only airline?
ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
Yes, Your Honor. May
we know also those airlines are here because they are scheduled for
other days Your Honor.
COURT:
What will that prove
if none of the regular Airlines had Paco Larraņaga as passenger on July 15
and 16?
ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
We are ... one of our
defense. Your Honor, is that Paco Larraņaga did not return to Cebu when he
went to study at the Center for Culinary Arts and that none of these
airlines.
COURT:
Will that prove that
it was impossible for Larraņaga to be at the Ayala Center at 10:30 P.M., on
July 16?
ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
Yes, Your Honor.
COURT:
You will prove
that?
ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
Yes, Your Honor,
there were flights, last flights to . . . . . .
PAGE
26
COURT:
If none of the
commercial airlines records show that Larraņaga took a flight from Manila
to Cebu on July 15 and 16, will that prove that Larraņaga, it was
impossible for Larraņaga to be at the Ayala Center at 10:30 P.M., of July
16? What do you say?
PROS. DUYONGO:
If this witness will
testify that Paco was not on board in any flights from Manila on the 15th
and the 16th of the Philippine Airlines it would not follow that Paco was
not in Cebu because Paco could have been in Cebu because Paco could have
been in Cebu before the 15th and 16th. Before the day in-- the 10th, 11th,
12th. . .
COURT:
Iyon na nga (That's
what I mean) he can take a private plane.
PROS.
DUYONGCO:
And besides, Your
Honor, it is our contention that all the time Paco was in Cebu. How could he
fly from Manila to Cebu when he was in Cebu? It would have followed.
COURT:
That is improper,
Panero (my fellow lawyer), Your Honor. I'm only
laying the contention.
ATTY.
VILLARMIA;
We understand, Your
Honor.
COURT:
Because your witness.
. . . the testimonies may not prove anything at all. It will not prove
(NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from English to Tagalog (Philippine language). ....the webmaster)
PAGE
27
COURT: (continuation)
that it was
impossible for Paco to have been at the Ayala Center at 10:30 P.M., of July
16. The fact that the records of the PAL now do not show. If it is true, we
are assuming it is true that the records have been tampered with, that it is
true that he did not take any flight in this date because he could have used
another name in coming back to Cebu, di ba? (isn't it
possible?) E, papano? (So, how now?) The
record do not show there was one Paco Larraņaga who took the flight. But
suppose he was using Juan dela Cruz, o, papano yan? (So,
how now?) So, are we sure that Paco was not or could not have taken a
flight from Manila to Cebu on July 15 with the use of the name Juan dela
Cruz? That's the problem, Panero. (My fellow lawyer). ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
There is still
presumption of innocence, Your Honor. COURT:
Because there is a
rule for Alibi to be valid it must be impossible for the accused to have
been at the scene of the crime. PROS.
GALANIDA:
Especially that there
are witnesses. ATTY.
CARIN:
I think, Your Honor
please, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of Paco
Larraņaga beyond reasonable doubt. COURT:
Yes. PROS.
GALANIDA:
Yes, the
prosecution panel believes . . . . ATTY.
CARIN:
And second, Your
Honor, the prosecution should not rely if ever they believe that our defense
is weak. They should not rely on the weakness of our evidence. They should
rely on their own evidence. (NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from English to Tagalog (Philippine language). ....the webmaster)
PAGE
28
COURT:
Why? They have
witnesses that they saw Paco and there is the testimony of Rusia, there the
testimonies of the three (3) or four (4) prosecution witnesses that they saw
Paco. That is both direct and circumstantial evidence, di ba? (Aren't
they?) And it is also not for the defense to prove the
innocence of the accused. It is for the prosecution to prove the guilt.
Alright, you are trying to prove the innocence. So what? ATTY.
CARIN
For third, Your
Honor, it is our respectful submission that the testimony of this witness,
Your Honor, is going to bolster our defense that Paco was indeed in Manila
and not in Cebu.... COURT:
Iyon ang doubt ko. (That's
my doubt) The testimony of your witnesses to the effect that Paco was
not in one of the flights, commercial flights on the 15th and 16th of July,
will that prove it was impossible for Paco to be in Cebu at 10:30 PM on July
16th ? No, because he could have used another name or he could have taken a
private plane or he could have taken a boat or he could have been in Cebu
July 15. That's the problem. So, your witnesses would not prove anyway or
that, will not substantiate your alibi anyway. So, what is the crime? Di ba?
(In't it?) Iyon lang ang hinala ko (that's
the only thing I can believe.) that you may not be proving anything
with all these witnesses from the airlines. Useless lang. (It
is just useless.) ATTY.
CARIN:
That is our point
right now, Your Honor. COURT:
Because it does not
make it impossible. That's the word of the Supreme Court. Impossible for him
to be there not improbable, ha, (ya) but
impossible. Does it make it impossible just because these airlines states he
was not or his name was not among the passenger list July 15 and July 16. O,
papano yan? (So, how is that?) Suppose he used
another name nga papano yan? (how is that?)
Can they identify him through his looks? Mahirap yata yon, di ba? (That
would be hard, wouldn't it?) (NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from English to Tagalog (Philippine language). ....the webmaster)
PAGE
29
ATTY. VILLARMIA:
May I, Your Honor? COURT:
Yes. ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
We were driven by the
fact, Your Honor, that we should be present all evidence available in our
favor . . . . COURT:
Yes, all material
evidence. ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
Subject to that
objection, Your Honor, materiality. ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
Your Honor please . .
. . COURT:
If it will make any
difference. In other words, it will not make any difference as regards the
issue involved whether Paco was in Cebu at 10:30 P.M. ATTY.
CARIN:
It remains our honest
submission, Your Honor, that the presentation of this witness will bolster
the defense of Paco Larraņaga in this case together with the . . . . COURT:
Yes, but will it be
material to the issue? Will it make a difference? ATTY.
HERMOSISIMA:
In the light of the .
. . . ATTY.
CARIN:
As far as the defense
panel . . . . PAGE
30
COURT:
Because the language
of the Supreme Court is it must be impossible for the accused to be there.
Maybe you can prove it was improbable. Alright, but it is not impossible.
So, papano? (So, what now?) That will not bolter your alibi for the defense. PROS.
GALANIDA:
May I be recognized,
Your Honor? ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
It may . . . . . COURT:
Yes, teka muna, (wait
a while) let's hear from the Fiscal. PROS.
GALANIDA:
May I be recognized,
Your Honor, I would just like to manifest for the record a
counter-manifestation to the manifestation of Atty. Carin that it is the
burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. We would like to inform Atty. Carin because he just came
late into the picture that that is precisely what he did. We presented
witnesses to show that they aw Paco as early as 7:30 in the evening of July
16, 1997 testified to by Sheila Singson then there was also Miss Analie
Konahap; there was also Security Guard Redobles who passed by very near to
Paco and Josman at that time. Then we had also witnesses from Carcar, Cebu,
Rio and there was also another one who saw them at 4:00 o'clock at Tan-awan,
Carcar, where the body of Marijoy was dumped in that deep ravine. So,
we are only trying to show to Atty. Carin, Your Honor, that we are not
relying on the weakness of the defense but we are relying on the strength of
our own evidence, Your Honor. COURT:
Teka muna- (Wait
a while-) what I'm going to ask now is this, will the testimony of
your witness prove that it was impossible for Paco to be at the scene of the
crime at 10:30 of July 16? (NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from English to Tagalog (Philippine language). ....the webmaster) PAGE
31
ATTY. VILLARMIA:
We believe it is,
Your Honor. His testimony and those presented after him, all airlines, all
private jets, all chartered planes operating in the island of Cebu, that
they have records to show that Paco Larraņaga was never in those
flights. COURT:
You are not answering my question. Will it prove it was impossible for Paco
because that is the rule. ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
We believe so, Your
Honor, because we have Airport Security and Airport ..... COURT:
To be of any value
your alibi must prove that it was impossible for the accused to be there at
10:30 P.M. of July 16. Now, could he had taken a private plane considering
that he belongs to a millionaire family. (Kaya) nya
mag-operate
nang helicopter or private
plane, di ba? (He
can even operate a helicopter or
private plane, can't he?)
To go there or take a seacraft, speedboat. So, it is not
impossible for him even if he did not take any of the commercial flights.
Also he could have used another name to go to Cebu. O, papano? (So, how is
that?) PROS.
GALANIDA:
May we be recognized,
Your Honor? COURT:
So his name will not
appear in the record but I know because I see how easy for anybody to use
another move and to buy a ticket, di ba? (Isn't it?) Hindi naman tinitingnan
yong identity mo. (They don't check your identity.)
If you buy a ticket sabihin mo, o, ako yan si Judge Ocampo. (you
don't say I am that, Judge Ocampo.) No, They will just give you a
ticket as long as you pay for it. di ba? (Isn't it?) ATTY.
CARIN:
Well, Your Honor
please, it remains the humble submission of the defense that with the
presentation of this witness and another witness after him it will prove the
possibility (NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from English to Tagalog (Philippine language). ....the webmaster)
PAGE 32
ATTY. CARIN: (continuation)
on the part of
accused Paco Larraņaga, Your Honor, to be here in Cebu, when in fact.... COURT:
Why, would he not
have taken a private plane? ATTY.
CARIN:
I do not know about
that, Your Honor, but ... COURT:
But it is possible
that he had taken a private plane. ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
We have subpoenaed
for the appearance of the owners of private planes. COURT:
Who? private planes? ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
The owners of private
planes, charter planes. COURT:
What about if he used
another name? PROS.
GALANIDA:
Yes. ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
I think the Passenger
Manifest of all airlines, Your Honor, private or public will be recorded. COURT:
Suppose he used
another name. O, papano yan? (So, how is that?) ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
We are just speaking,
Your Honor, that we should not presume guilt but.... (NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from English to Tagalog (Philippine language). ....the webmaster)
PAGE 33
COURT:
No, we are not
presuming guilt. But he could have used another name. I'm talking only of
the possibility. Because the Rule says it must be impossible. So, it is
possible he used another name, di ba? (Isn't it?)
It was impossible that he used another name. PROS.
GALANIDA:
May we be recognized,
Your Honor? ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
May
I continue, Your Honor? PROS.
GALANIDA:
May we be recognized,
Your Honor? COURT:
Yes. PROS.
GALANIDA:
It is the stand of the prosecution panel, Your Honor, that the testimony of
this witness and all other witnesses along the same line is is very
immaterial and irrelevant because the stand of the prosecution is this Paco
Larraņaga was here all along in Cebu City on July 16, 1997. ATTY.
CARIN:
Your Honor.... PROS.
GALANIDA:
And in addition to
the observation of this Honorable Court even Ninoy Aquino, Your Honor, when
he came home he did not use his name. He used the name Andres Bonifacio.
Just to show... ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
Marcial.... PROS.
GALANIDA:
.... Marcial
Bonifacio whatever, just to show that a person can use another name not
necessarily his name. (NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from English to Tagalog (Philippine language). ....the webmaster)
PAGE 34
ATTY. CARIN:
The prosecution is
now speculating again, Your Honor. PROS.
GALANIDA:
Speculating? You did
not read the facts. COURT:
That it must be
impossible, that's the ruling of the Supreme Court and we are now under
public criticism. The trial of these cases began on August 12 and its now
January 18. E, ilang months na yon? (Oh, how many
months are those?) More than (5) months, di ba? (Isn't
it?) From the beginning of the trial. We are suppose to expedite the
trial of these cases and you are to present these witnesses from various
commercial airlines. How long will it take? Paco might have come to Cebu by
using another name, by taking a private aircraft or seacraft. So, if you
want to appeal that ruling to higher court, but as of now I'm disallowing
such witnesses. ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
May I just offer .... COURT:
Because that would be
waste of time and it would not prove that it was impossible for Paco to have
come to Cebu at 10:30 PM on July 16. That is a waste of time and
violation of the Supreme Court Administrative Order to finish the trial
within (60) days or as soon as possible. You will present all those
witnesses, how many months will that take? Ikaw lang ang pakikinggan natin
dito. (You will be the only we will hear here.)
That we do not know that so and so airlines did not have the name of Paco.
Alright, so and so airlines or private airline companies did not transport
Paco to Cebu. How many witnesses will you present and that will not prove
anything anyway because he could have use another name. He could have used a
private airplane of his friends or whoever and he could have used another
name. He could have used a private airplane of his friends or whoever and he
could have used seacraft. O, papano yan? (So, how is
that?) Because it will not be impossible for him to, for Paco to have
come to Cebu even if you present all these witnesses it will only be waste
of time of the court. Therefore, we are disallowing it. You can appeal that
ruling to the higher court on the ground that we are dis- (NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from English to Tagalog (Philippine language). ....the webmaster)
PAGE 35
COURT: (continuation)
allowing it on the
ground that this is irrelevant and the immaterial and waste of time of this
court and on the Administrative Order to expedite the trial of these cases
heinous crimes cases. ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
We will just make an
offer of proof, Your Honor
PROS.
GALANIDA:
We object, Your Honor COURT:
You already made an
offer that they will testify that the records of the Philippine
Airlines....alright , they admit. The Court admits that the records of the
Philippine Airlines shows that the name of Paco Larraņaga is not in the
records as having flown to Cebu from July 15 and July 16. The Court admits
its, the Court approves it that this witness will testify to that effect the
records of the Philippine Airline shows that the name Paco Larraņaga is not
in their manifests from Manila to Cebu, either of their Manifests from July
15 and 16 approved. Alright. ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
Also, Your Honor, my
point is that the purpose is that the records there, Your Honor, brought by
the witnesses marked as Exhibit.... COURT:
Yes, I'm approving it
not only for one but for all Manifests on that day and date July 15 and 16.
Alright. I am approving that this witness will testify to that effect. ATTY.
VILLARMIA:
One (1) purpose, Your
Honor? COURT:
Yes
|