crim case nos. 45303 & 45304
pp vs larrañaga et al                        
hearing September 22, 1998
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /

PAGES 22 to 27 to follow

PAGE 28:
prints have found to have alike. In other words, fingerprints of the 2 persons even with regards to his own 10 fingers have never found to be exactly alike in all aspects. Twins, triplets, quadruplets and even quintuplets have never found to have the same fingerprints. And the second one is the principle of permanency.

     Q    Can you tell this Honorable Court what is that so-called principle of permanency? 

     A    The principle of permanency is that fingerprints have said to have been formed during the third embryonic period or the third month of pregnancy and that these fingerprints will ever remain the same during his lifetime and will continue to be the same after his death unless his body or his flesh and body have fallen away. And the third principle is the principle of infallibility. Meaning, this principle involves that it cannot be forged, it cannot be altered, it cannot be change, it cannot be copied in many ways and those are the 3 principles of fingerprints which I have established the basis that the fingerprint is the most and positive means to conclude that there are no 2 persons of the same type.

     Q    Alright. You just testified that one of the principles in fingerprint examination which you said makes it the most positive means of identification is permanency and you just also stated for the record that the fingerprint of a person will remain the same from the third month of pregnancy even until after the death of the said person. Now, my question Mr. Witness is this- Supposing a dead person's body is exposed to sun or is exposed to water, would it not affect his fingerprints after death?

     A    Definitely it could not affect, ma'am.

     Q    Now, can you tell this Honorable Court where were you in the morning of July 20, 1997?
 

     A    I was in my office reporting for work. 

     Q    When you mentioned your office, where is your office located? 

     A    Located at Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City. 

     Q    While you were in your office at Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City, what happened that morning of July 20, 1997? 

     A    A certain SPO2, SPO2 rather - SPO2 Rosalita arrived and delivered a letter-request signed by Senior Superintendent Mario Potot, the then incumbent Cebu Police Provincial Office.

PAGE 29:
     Q    Now, what was that letter-request about, that letter-request which you said was issued by Provincial Director Potot and was personally delivered to you by a certain SPO2 Rosalita? 

     A    It was all about the request to conduct fingerprint examinations on the dead woman found in the deep ravine at Barangay Tan-awan, Carcar, Cebu. 

     Q    Alright. Do you have a copy of that letter-request which you just mentioned?

     A    Yes, ma'am, I brought along with me the copy of the letter-request which I have mentioned to you a while ago. (witness is producing and showing to the Prosecutor a letter-request dated July 20, 1997 signed by Mario Llanto Potot, Superintendent, Provincial Director)
          

PROS. GALANIDA: 

          May I request, at this juncture, Your Honor... 

COURT: 

          What date was it? 

PROS. GALANIDA: 

          July 20, 1997. May I request, Your Honor, that this letter-request signed by Police Senior Superintendent Mario Llanto Potot, Provincial Director and dated July 20, 1997, be marked as Exhibit "TT" for the prosecution. 

COURT: 

          Mark it. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 

          And the portion here, Your Honor, which is a rubber stamped marking showing the date this was received, the time and date also it was received, who received and who delivered, be marked as our Exhibit "TT-1". 

COURT: 

          Mark it. 

PROS. GALANIDA: 

     Q    Now, Mr. Witness, would you know who made these markings here, Received 200830H July 97 then Received by Police Inspector Ed Lenizo, Delivered by SPO2 Rene Rosalita? 

     A    I personally made these markings, ma'am. (witness identified the markings marked as Exhibit "TT-1", the name Lenizo and SPO2 Rene Rosalita).

PAGE 30:
     Q    Considering that we are not very much conversant with military time, can you tell this Honorable Court what time is this 200830H July 1997? 

     A    I received this at 8:30 in the morning on July 20, 1997. 

     Q    Now, in this request already marked as Exhibit "TT", item no. 9 here has this entry, Evidence Documents Submitted and below it is Voter's Registration no. 31993938. We would like to know whether when you received this letter-request, you also received this evidence submitted which is Voter's Registration No. 31993938 indicated in this letter-request? 

     A    Yes, ma'am, I have received also the Voter's Registration Record No. which appears the name of Marijoy Chiong. (witness producing and showing to Prosecutor Galanida the Voter's Registration Record No. 31993938 of Marijoy Chiong).  

PROS. GALANIDA: 

          Now, considering, Your Honor, that this Voter's Registration Record will have to be returned to the Comelec, may we request the defense counsel to compare the machine copy of this Voter's Registration Record so that we will mark the machine copy instead of the original because this is to be  returned to the Comelec Office. May we request the gentlemen...

COURT INTERPRETER: 

          Defense counsels comparing the original copy of the Voter's Registration Record to the machine copy. 

ATTY. DEBALUCOS: 

          Yes, Your Honor, we admit that this machine copy appears to be a faithful reproduction from the Voter's Registration Record of a certain Marijoy Chiong. 

PROS. GALANIDA:

          May we know whether that is also the same manifestation of the other 2 PAO lawyers, Your Honor, because that was the manifestation only of Atty. Debalucos. We would like to know whether the other 2 will also adopt the same manifestation. 

ATTY. YPIL: 

          We adopt, Your Honor. 

ATTY. DE JESUS: 

          The manifestation of Atty. Debalucos, Your Honor, is also our manifestation.

PROS. GALANIDA: 

          Thank you, Gentlemen. May we request, your Honor,

PAGES 31 and 32 to follow

PAGE 33:

     Q    So, what did you do when you saw that the fingers were already stiffening?

COURT: 

          What was that?

PROS. GALANIDA: 

            Stiffening.

     Q    I then requested Dr. Sator to slice off the skin tissues on the left and and the right thumbprints of the dead woman.

     Q    In effect, did Dr. Sator slice off skin tissues on the right and the left thumbs of the dead woman?   

     A    Yes, ma'am.

     Q    At that time when Dr. Sator sliced off the skin tissues on the right and the left thumbs of the dead woman, did you have any inkling on who she was? 

     A    There was none at all. 

     Q    So, what did you do with the skin tissues then?

     A    Right after the skin tissues has been cut and removed, it was placed in a small bottle preserved with a formalin.

     Q    After that was done, what next happened there at the Tupaz Funeral Parlor?

     A    The dental officer, Dr. Langcauon immediately conducted a dental examination on the dead woman. 

     Q    After Dr. Lancauan conducted a dental examination, what happened next?

     A    It was already the turn of Dr. Sator who conducted a postmortem examination of the dead woman also.

     Q    Where you present when Dr. Sator conducted an autopsy or postmortem examination?

     A    Yes, ma'am. 

COURT: 

          By the way, was the victim identified also through her dentures? Was she identified also?   

PROS. GALANIDA: 

          Not anymore, Your Honor, because after the positive identification with the thumbprint, the right thumbprint, the denture examination was not anymore conducted because according to this witness, the thumbprint 

PAGE 34:
is the best or the most positive way of identifying a person and also, Your Honor, because according to the dentist, the teeth were all broken up and down. The teeth were broken.

COURT: 

          Why, did he say why? Because of the exposure - exposure to the elements or what?

PROS. GALANIDA: 

          Maybe because of the fall.

COURT: 

          Because of the fall?

PROS. GALANIDA: 

          Yes, the impact. But we will request the dentist to testify on that point, Your Honor.

COURT: 

          So, we understand from this witness that they did not resort to the other methods of identification that he mentioned earlier in his testimony. So, they relied solely on the fingerprint.

PROS. GALANIDA: 

          Yes, Your Honor.

COURT: 

          The other methods that he mentioned were not utilized.

PROS. GALANIDA: 

          Yes, Your Honor, because secondly, Your Honor, apart from the fact that the teeth of the dead body were all broken, it needed the dental records of the victim. They did not go through it anymore after the positive identification.
 

COURT: 

          Proceed.

PROS. GALANIDA:            

     Q    May we know how long or what time did Dr. Sator finish his neoropsy or postmortem examination?

     A    That was already past 12:00 o'clock.

     Q    So, after Dr. Sator finished the autopsy or post-mortem examination at past 12:00 o'clock that day of July 20, 1997, what did you and your companions do?