Transcript Of Stenographic Notes 443l2k

Presiding Judge:

Call the Case.

Clerk of Court:

For arraignment, Criminal Case No. _____, People of the Philippines vs. Elpidio Manuel and Nino Amado Manuel for Murder.

Presing Judge:

Appearances

Atty. Rodriguez:

For the State, Your Honor.

Atty. Calumag:

Respectfully appearing for the defense, Your Honor.

Presiding Judge:

Ok. Counsel, have you talked to your client regarding the arraignment? You stand up, Counsel. I will cite you in contempt.

Atty. Calumag:

Yes, Your Honor. We are ready for the arraignment, Your Honor.

Presiding Judge:

Okay. Let us proceed to arraignment. Where are the accused?

Clerk of Court:

Elpidio Manuel. Nino Amado Manuel.

Atty. Calumag:

Your Honor, may we pray that the information be read in the Ilocano langguage.

Presiding Judge:

Okay.

Clerk of Court:

Elpido Manuel, Nino Amado Manuel, iti nagpirma ti baba, Associate Provincial Prosecutor ti Ilocos Norte, akusaran na kayo, Elpidio Manuel, Nino Amado Manuel, agpada nga residente iti Brgy. 11, Piddig, Ilocos Norte, iti krimen nga pammapatay naaramid a kas sumagand:

Nga idi wenno agarup alas nuwebe iti rabii idi November 20, 2015 Brgy. 11, ____, Municipalidad iti Piddig, Probinsya iti Ilocos Norte, Pilipinas, ken babaen iti kiddeng ti ___, dakayo nga akusado, ___ ken nagtitinulgan yo ti maysa ken maysa, adda gandat nga mangpapatay, adda panagabusar iti , inaramid yo nga panangkabil ken panangmalo Nathaniel Sudio ket isu iti nakaalan na Maykontra iti linteg. Naawatan yo met laeng iti naibasa nga saklang kanyayo? Presing Judge:

Ask them one by one.

Clerk of Court:

Sika, Elpido Manuel, naawatam met lang iti naibasa nga saklang kenka?

Elpidio Manuel:

Yes, Ma’am.

Clerk of Court:

Annugutem nga basol mo?

Elpidio Manuel:

Haan, Ma’am.

Clerk of Court:

Sika, Nino Amado Manuel, naawatam met lng iti naibasa nga saklang kenka? Nino Amado Manuel: Wen, Ma’am. Clerk of Court:

Annugutem nga basol mo?

Nino Amado Manuel: Haan, Ma’am. Clerk of Court:

Your Honor, accused Elpido Manuel and Nino Amado Manuel for ____.

Presiding Judge:

Order: In today’s arraingment, the accused were present and assisted by their Counsel, Atty. Mariel Calumag and the information was read to the accused in the Ilocano dialect, a dialect known and understood by them ________. Set, therefore, the preliminary conference on ________. So Ordered. Ms. Clerk of Court, kindly conduct the preliminary conference.

Atty. Rodriguez:

We would like to mark the Nasapataan nga Palawag of Melendrina Sudio as Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “A-1” the second page of the Nasapataan nga Palawag. And the signature of Melendrian Sudio to be marked as Exhibit “A-2”. As Exhibit “B” the Nasapataan nga Palawag of Joey Taylan, the second page as Exhibit “B-1” and the signature of Joey Taylan as Exhibit “B-2”.

Tadeo, Kagawad

As Exhibit “C” the Nasapataan nga Palawag of Brgy. Kagawad Erwin second page to be marked as Exhibit “C-1” and the signature of Tadeo as Exhibit “C-2”. As Exhibit “D” the Nasapataan nga Palawag of Orlando Taylan and for the second page, Exhibit “D-1” and Exhibit “D-2” for the signature of Orlando Taylan.

22,

For Exhibit “E”, the Extract Copy from the Police Blotter dated November 2015 and the signature of Jake Isidro as Exhibit “E-1” Exhibit “F” for Medico Legal Certificate dated November 26, 2015, and the findings of the said Medico Legal be bracketed as Exhibit “F-1”. For the

signature of the attending Medical Officer, Emmunuel N. Pichay, as Exhibit “F-2”. Exhibit “G” the Medico Legal Certificate of Nathaniel Sudio issued by Piddig District Hospital, November 23, 2015 and the findings be bracketed as Exhibit “G-1”. For the signature of the attending Physician, Lorna M. Hernaez, to be marked as Exhibit “G-2”. For Exhibit “H”, the Certificate of Death of Nathaniel Sudio, and the name, Nathaniel Sudio be bracketed and marked as Exhibit “H-1”. And the dorsal side of the Death Certificate to be marked as Exhibit “H-2”. We reserve the markings of additional exhibits to be marked in the course of the trial. Clerk of Court:

For the defense.

Atty. Calumag:

For the defense, Your Honor, may we pray that the Ragup a Kontra-Palawag by Elipidio Manuel and Nino Amado Manuel be marked as Exhibit “1”, the second page thereof as Exhibit “1-A”, third page as Exhibit “1-B” and the signatures of both the accused Elpidio Manuel and Nino Amado Manuel be marked as Exhibit “1-C” and Exhibit “1-D” respectively. The Medico Legal Certificate of Nino Amado Manuel be marked as Exhibit “2”, the findings of the Physician be bracketed as Exhibit “2-A” and the signature of attending physician, Medical Officer IV, Emanuel Pichay, as Exhibit “2-B”. May we also pray that the Ragup a Palawag by Alex Salvador and Erpo Agustin be marked as Exhibit “3”, Your Honor, the signaure of Alex Salvador be marked as Exhibit “3-A” and Erpo Agustin as Exhibit “3-B”. Lastly, Your Honor, the Ragup a Palawag of Joey Taylan as Exhibit “4” and his signature be maked as Exhibit “4-A”. May we reserve for the marking of additional evidence, Your Honor, during the trial upon good question.

Clerk of Court:

How about the witnesses?

Atty. Rodriguez:

We will be presenting the following witnesses for the prosecution: The private complainant, Melendrina B. Sudio who is the mother of the deceased, Nathaniel B. Sudio.

Presiding Judge:

Ms. Sangalang, ask them the purpose of the testimony.

Clerk of Court:

What is the purpose of the testimony of Melendrina B. Sudio?

Atty. Rodriguez:

The purpose of the testimony of Melendrina B. Sudio is to prove the incident happened on November 20, 2015, which resulted to the death of his son, Nathaniel Sudio. We will also present Barangay Kagawad Erwin L. Tadeo as a witness to prove that the said incident was reported to him on the said date. Also, we will present Orlando M. Taylan as a witness to prove the existence of the incident that happened on November 20, 2015, which resulted to the death of Nathaniel Sudio. We will also present Dr. Emanuel M. Pichay and Dr. Lorna M. Hernaez to testify the cause of death of Nathaniel Sudio. Your Honor, I would like the reserve for the presentation of additional witnesses during the trial.

Clerk of Court:

For the defense?

Atty. Calumag:

Your Honor the following will be for the defense witnesses:

First is Elpidio Manuel, to prove that he acted in self-defense upon relative in relation to Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. Nino Amado Manuel, to prove that he acted in self-defense, particularly paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. Alex Salvador and Erpo Agustin, to tesify that the victim, Nathaniel Studio had committed unlawful aggression upon their persons, and that the accused is justified in the commission of the crime and lastly, the attending physician of Nino Amado Manual, Dr. Emanuel M. Pichay to testify that he itted the accused on November 27, 2015 due to the injuries he suffered. Judge:

Session Resumes. Call the case for Pre-Trial.

Clerk of Court:

For Pre-Trial is Criminal Case No. 1711, People of the Philippines vs. Elpidio Manuel, et al. for murder.

Judge:

Appearances?

Atty. Rodriguez:

For the State, Your Honor.

Atty. Calumag:

For the defense, Your Honor.

Judge:

Fiscal, for the record, kindly state your full name and roll number.

Atty. Rodriguez:

Your Honor, I am fiscal Eliza Rodriguez, with Roll Number 14344.

Atty. Calumag:

Your Honor, I am Atty. Mariel Calumag, with Roll Number 031872.

Judge: Ok. Counsels, have you gone over the Preliminary Conference Report you prepared during the Preliminary Conference? Atty. Rodriguez:

Yes, Your Honor.

Atty. Calumag:

Yes, Your Honor.

Judge: Do you have any other exhibits to be marked aside from the exhibits that you marked during your Preliminary Conference, fiscal? Because I will not be allowing any other exhibits to be marked and presented during the trial after this. Atty. R: Your Honor, we would also like to mark the english translation of the statements of Melendrina Sudio, Joey Taylan, Erwin Tadeo and Orlando Taylan. J:

So you are reserving this translation to be marked as exhibits, Fiscal?

Atty. R:

Yes, Your Honor.

J: Okay. So, the Court Interpreter is required and ordered to translate the Nasapataan nga Palawag of the witnesses mentioned by the State in the previous conference. Any other exhibit that you wnat to mark at this point in time, Fiscal? Atty. R:

None, Your Honor.

J:

You reserved the marking of the Official Receipts?

Atty. R:

Yes, Your Honor.

J: So, aside from that, you do not have any other exhibit to mark or reserve at this point in time? Because after this pre-trial, the only exhibit that I will allow you to mark and present during the trial of this case will only be the official receipts. Any other exhibits to be marked? Atty. R:

No more, Your Honor.

J: So, the only exhibits you are allowed to mark and present which you do not yet submitted in court are as of this date the official receipts or the proof of expenses pertaining to the civil liability? Atty. R:

Yes, Your Honor.

J: Okay. How about the defense? Atty. C: Your Honor, we are reserving the marking of the English translation of the KontraPalawag of Elpidio Manuel and Nino Amado Manuel as well as our witnesses, Erpo Agustin and Alex Salvador. J:

Okay. So, do you have any other exhibit to mark?

Atty. C:

None, Your Honor.

J: The Court interpreter is hereby directed to translate the Ilocano affidavits of KontraPalawag and the Ragup a Palawag mentioned by the Defense Counsel including the _____________, okay? Before we proceed to your wintesses fiscal and defense counsel, can we first go to your stipulations? Let us first proceed with the stipulations beofre we proceed with any other witness. Any proposals fiscal? Atty. R: That the persons arraigned your honor are the accused in this case. J:

What?

Atty. R:

Would the defense it that the persons arraigned are the accused in this case?

J:

What? Please repeat.

Atty. R: Will the defense it that the perons arraigned are the same persons accused charged arraigned and adverted to in the information? Atty. C:

itted, Your Honor.

J:

Okay. Next proposal counsel. Fiscal?

Atty. R: Will the defense it that the incident happened - that the accused had a drinking spree on November 20, 2015 at the house of Joey Taylan at Lagandit, Piddig, Ilocos Norte? J:

You are referring to both of the accused, Fiscal?

Atty. R:

Yes, Your Honor.

Atty. C:

itted, YOur honor.

J:

What time was that, Fiscal?

Atty. R:

On November 20, 2015 at about 9 pm, Your Honor.

J:

Counsel?

Atty. C:

itted, Your Honor.

Atty. R: Will the defense it that the accused, Nino Amado Manuel and Elpinio Manuel mauled the victim, Nathaniel Sudio?

Atty. C:

Not itted, Your Honor. The truth is that he only acted in self-defense.

J:

So, you are saying, Counsel, that your defense here is self-defense?

Atty. C: J:

Yes, Your Honor. So, they it killing the victim?

Atty. C: There is only an ission, Your Honor, but in relation to the Article 11 of the RPC which is justifying circumstance. J:

Okay. We will go to that. So, what was the proposal?

Atty. R:

That the accused, Your Honor, they mauled the victim Nathaniel Sudio.

Atty. C:

Not itted, Your HOnor.

J:

Okay.

Atty. R: Will the defense it that cause of death of Nathaniel Sudio was the conpiracy made between Nino Amado Manuel and Elpidio Manuel? J: death?

What do you mean fiscal? Are you saying that the conspirace is the cause of the

Atty. R:

No, Sir. The conspiracy in mauling Nathaniel Sudio.

J: Can you propose for the presence of the conpiracy? That is not the cause of death. You propose the presence of the conspiracy. Will the defense it - - come on, continue. Atty. R: victim?

Will the defense it that the accused Nino Amado and Elpidio Manuel chased the

Atty. C: Not itted, YOur HOnor. The truth is that, Nino Amado Manuel went to follow the victim but not for the purpose. J:

Fiscal, did you do your assignment? Next proposal Fiscal.

Atty. R: Will the defense it that the place of Joey Taylan or the house of Joey Taylan was the place where they had drinking spree on November 20, 2015? Atty. C:

itted, Your Honor.

J:

You are referring to the residence of Joey Taylan?

Atty. R:

Yes, Your Honor.

J:

Okay.

Atty. R:

That’s all.

J:

Are you not proposing for the presence of conpiracy, Fiscal?

Atty. R: I would like to propose for the presence of conspiracy. Will the defense it for that Elpidio and Amado Manuel conspired in beating and mauling Nathaniel Sudio? Atty. C:

Not itted, Your Honor.

J:

So they did not conspired?

Atty C:

There is no conspiracy between the two, Your Honor.

Atty. R:

That’s all.

J:

How about the facts of death are you not going to propose on that?

Atty R:

Will the defense it the authencity -

J:

Will the defense it that Nathaniel Sudio died on -

Atty R.:

Will the defense it that -

J:

When was Nathaniel Sudio died, Fiscal?

Atty. R:

November 21.

J:

What time?

Atty. R:

At three o’clock in the afternoon.

J:

At three o’clock in the afternoon. Would you like to propose on that?

Atty. R: Yes, Your Honor. Will the defense it that Nathaniel Sudio died on November 21, 2015 at three o’clock in the afternoon due to sever head injuries? Atty. C:

itted, Your HOnor.

J: injuries?

So the defense its that Nathaniel Sudio died on November 21 due to head

Atty. C: itted only, Your Honor, as to the time and death as indicated on the medico legal certificate but on the other - but on the cause of it, we are not itting, Your honor.

J:

Okay, Fiscal? What can you say on that?

Atty. R:

The cause of death are - appears on the Medical Certificate, Sir.

J:

Yes, but would you like to resolve your proposal, Fiscal on the cause of death?

Atty. R: Does the defense it that the victim died on November 21, 2015 at about three o’clock in the afternoon? Atty. C:

itted, Your Honor.

J:

Okay. What else fiscal? Do you want to propose some more?

Atty. R:

No more, Your Honor.

J: No more proposals? How about the defense? Do you have any more counterproposals to the prosecution? Atty. C: Your Honor, since both of the accused - the defense of the accused is in relation to Article 11, so we are now manifesting that the defense has no long stipulation for ission of the prosecution, Your Honor. J:

What article 11 are you talking about? What part there?

Atty. C: Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, particularly paragraph 1 on the party of Nino Amado Manuel and paragraph 2 on Elpidio Manuel, Your Honor. J:

So you are going to prove self-defense and defense of relative?

Atty. C:

Yes, Your Honor.

J:

So, are we going to have a revere trial?

Atty. C: Your Honor, we are praying for a reverse trial, since the accused had already itted the act but as a self defense. So, the prosecution now does not have the burden of proving that the accused have already killed the vicimt, but the defense is now having the burden of proving that the accused has really acted in self-defense. J: Okay. With your manifestation Counsel, it seems to me that you are loyal in prosecution because you are praying for reverse trial which might be detrimental to your case. At any rate, since you itted self defense and defense of stranger, this court is ordering a reverse trial in accordance with the Rules of Court. All right. Let us go to your witnesses, Counsels. For the defense, you mentioned the accused as well as Alex Salvador, Erpo Agustin and Dr. Emanuel Pichay?

Atty. C:

Yes, Your Honor.

J:

So, these are your witnesses to prove self-defense and defense of relative?

Atty. C:

Yes, Your Honor.

J:

You have no other witnesses?

Atty. C:

None, Your Honor.

J: No more. So, how about you fiscal? Just in case you want to conduct a rebuttal evidence in case, because actually, there is no need for you to present your evidence because the accused is inovoking self-deense and defense of a relative. So the burden of proof is already on them. So, just in case you want to adduce evident to rebut the defense of the accused. you name here five witnesses? Atty. R: yes Your honor. J: Atty. R: J:

So, that would be Melendrina Sudio, Erwin Tadeo? Yes, Your Honor. Orlando Taylan, Dr. Pichay and Dr. Hernaez?

Atty. R:

Yes, Your Honor.

J:

So, these are your only witnesses?

Atty. R:

We would also like to add Joey A. Taylan.

J:

Joey Taylan?

Atty. R:

Yes.

J:

Why? Why do you need the testimony of Joey Taylan?

Atty. R: Because it is in their - in his house where the incident happened and he made a sworn statment that he saw the other incident after. J:

Okay. You mea nto say Joey Taylan is an eye witness, Fiscal?

Atty. R:

No answer.

J:

Fiscal, I am talking to you. Is Joey Taylan an eye witness?

Atty. R:

No, Your Honor, but he has personal knowledge regaring the incident.

J:

What? If he is not an eye witness, what shall he testify?

Atty. R:

He is an eye witness to the chasing and mauling and beating the victim, Your Honor.

J: Okay. At any rate, it’s up to you if you present a rebuttal evidence because we will n have a reverse trial. Okay. So the order will be: The defense will present its evidence first and just in case the prosecution would like to present rebuttal evidence against the defense of the accused then you will be allowed to do so. Okay? Atty. R:

Yes, Your Honor.

J: So, ordered. In today’s pre-trail, the accused represented by their counsel, atty. mariel calumag appeared, the prosecution was represented by Assistant Provincial prosecutor Eliza Rodrigues, both parties itted the minutes of the preliminary conference conducted during last week and made stipulation of facts. As, the accused invokes self-defense in so far as the accused, Nino Amado Manuel, is concerned, and defense of relatives in so far as the accusd Elpido Manuel is concerened. The court hereby orders the conduct of reverse trial in this case pursuant to 2000 rues of cirminal procedures. By the way counsels, can you choose your dates for the presentation of your defense? Atty. C: yes your honor. J We will have a continuous trial in this case because this is the only case in this court. We will start today, August, 27, 2016. Atty. C: September 3 and September 16, Your Honor. J: You will only need 5 trial dates including today? Atty. C: Yes Your Honor. J: How many trial dates did you just mentioned? Atty. C. Auguust 27, September 3, September 16, Ocotber 7, no more, Sir. J: How about you fiscal, just in case? Choose your dates o complete your witnesses. R: November 5, Your Honor, Nov. 11 — J: No let us complete November. November 5? R: November 12, 19 and 26.Your honor.

j:

So you will only be needing 4 trial?

R:

One more.

J:

December?

R:

yes sir

J:

25 is a holiday.

R: December 3, your honor. J:

Were you able to get the dates?

R:

Yes, Your Honor.

J:

Okay. So, initial trial starts August 27, 2016 at four o’clock in the afternoon. So ordered. Okay, since we hae a continuous trial, let us start with the trial.

Session suspended.

Session Resumes. J:

Call the case.

CoC: For the presentation of defense evidence is Criminal Case No. 1711, People of the Phlippines vs. Elpidio Manuel, el al. for Murder. J:

Appearances?

R:

For the State your honor.

C:

For the defense your honor.

J:

Counsels, it is the term of the defense, so, are you ready?

C:

Yes, Your Honor, we are ready, Your Honor.

J:

So, may we call Nino Amado Manuel to the witness stand?

Interpreter: Sapatam nga naiget…

The witness, Your Honor, is Nino Amado Manuel, __ years old, single, a resident of Brgy. 7, Piddig, Ilocos Norte and a farmer. J:

Counsel?

C:

With the permission of the Honorable Court, Your Honor, may I proceed, Your honor.

J: C:

Okay. Mister Witness —

J:

Counsel, are you forgetting something?

C: Your HOnor, we offer the testimony of nino amado manuel to prove that he acted in selfdefense in relation to Artlice 11 of the Revised Penal COde, particularly paragrap 1 thereof, Your Honor. J: Can you be more specific Counsel because you are talking of a conclution of law rather thatn a conclusion of fact. Can you give me an offer basedon a conclusion of fact? C: We offer the testimony of the accused your honor to prove his participation on the alleged killing of the victim, nathaniel Sudio. J:

Okay. We offer the testimony of the accused to prove the following — tell me.

C:

We offer the testimony of the accued to prove the follwing;

J:

Give me one by one.

C: First, that he acted in self-defense; that the vicitm unlawful aggression on the part of the accused and that there is — that is all, Your honor. J: That is all? Next time, COunsel, when you offer a testimony in court, you do not have to say somethingl that is base on a conlusion of law. You offer facts, oaky, that the witness will testify, becuase wheter its self -defense of not, the court will decide just for the purpose that he will decide based on the evidence that you present, so your offer must be based on the facts that your witness is going to testify not any conclusion of law bevause self-defense is alreayd a conlducion of law. All right, Counsel? C:

Yes, your Honor.

J:

Next time, I will cite you in contempt.

C:

Yes, Your Honor.

J:

Oaky, you may proceed.

C:

Mr. Witness, do you know one Nathaniel Sudio?

W:

Yes.

C:

Why do you know him?

W:

He is my barangay mate and a co-farmer.

C:

Where were you in the morning of November 20, 2015?

J:

Would you like to answer in straight english, witness?

W:

No, Your Honor.

J:

Okay. Wait for the interpretation of the interpreter before you answer.

W: C:

Yes, Your Honor. Where were you in the morning of November 20, 2015?

W:

I was at my house, Your Honor.

C:

How about your father, Elpidio Manuel?

J: By the way, Counsel, perhaps you can ask for the time becuase morning is very broad. You might want to ask the witness what time in the morning. C:

At about six o’clock in the morning?

W:

I was at my home and having my coffee.

C:

How about your father?

W: My father went to harvest, along with Alex Salvador, Erpo Agustin, and Joey Taylan. (The witness is demonstrating the act of harvesting by raising his right hand in a circular manner.) C:

Did he finish harvesting all the crops within that day?

J:

Counsel, in asking that question, maybe you ask about the name of his father.

C:

By the way Mr. Witness, what is the name of your father?

W:

Elpidio Manuel.

C:

Okay. So, Mr. Witness, did he finish harvesting all the crops of Nathaniel Sudio that day?

W:

No. (The witness is waving his hand.)

C:

Okay. What have been agreed upon when they did not finish their work?

J:

Fiscal, are you not going to object on that question?

R:

No answer.

J:

Stenographer, what was the question?

Steno: What have been agreed upon when they did not finish their work? R:

I would like to object.

J:

What is your ground, Fiscal?

R:

A leading question.

J:

Leading question? If that is your ground, I will allow that question.

R:

The witness seems to be not involved in the harvesting.

J:

So?

R: That is why he doesn’t have any personal knowledge regarding what the group of farmes have agreed upon after doing the harvesting. J:

So, the witness in incompetent to answer the question, Fiscal?

R:

Yes, Your Honor.

J: All right. Counsel, can you lay the premise because before you can ask that quesiton, it apperas that the witness does not have any personal knwoledge. You lay the premise first why he can answer that question. C:

To establish the surrounding circumstances of what happened during that day, your Honor.

J: Well, you lay down the premise why he can answer your quesiont regarind the agreement because he not involved. He has no answer that he knows what happened. That is why you have to ask questions on that before you will ask the last question. C: So, Mr. Witness, on that day, November 20, 2015, while your father went harvesting with groups of workers of Nathaniel Sudio, what did you do? J:

Are you referring to in the morning, Counsel?

C:

Yes, Your Honor.

W:

I did nothing.

C:

Have you not went to see your father in the farm of Nathaniel Sudio?

R:

Objeciton, Your Honor. The question is leading.

J:

Sustained.

C:

I will rephrase, Your Honor.

J:

Please. Your question was objected.

C:

So —

J:

Counsel, to refrain asking a leading question, you start with asking the WH-Questions.

C:

So, after they went to the farm, what did you do, if any?

J:

Counsel, the question is vague. What do you mean?

C:

I withdraw, Your Honor.

J: Okay. All right, let me try to continue that question. You said that you were in your home when your father and group of workers went to harvest. Were you able wait for your father? W:

No, Your Honor, because I brought them their lunch.

J:

What time did you go there?

W:

At about twelve noon.

J:

Continue, Counsel.

C:

After giving the lunch of your father, what did you next?

W:

I stayed on the trees near the farm and had I fell asleep, Your Honor.

C:

At what time did you wake up?

W:

At about four o’clock in the afternoon.

J:

You might want to where is the farm located.

C:

Where is the farm of Nathaniel Sudio located?

W:

It is in Brgy. 11, Piddig.

C:

How far is that from your house, Mr. Witness?

W:

It is not more than one kilometer.

C:

What did you do after waking up?

W:

I’ve waited for the farmers to finish their work.

C:

And then what happened next?

W:

They decided to agree that they will continue the harvesting the crops the following day.

C:

Including you, Mr. Witness?

J:

Counsel, you are asking a leading question. It is not allowed under the rules on evidence.

C. I will rephrase, Your Honor. So, you said a while ago that since they did not finish their work, they planed to continue it tomorrow. So, after that agreement, what happened next? J: Okay. The court will clear us the question. You said there was an agreement. Okay. Who was included in that agreement? W: fast.

The partners, Your Honor, but they included me so that they will be able to finish the work

J:

Okay, continue Counsel.

C:

So after that, what did you do, if any?

W:

Customarily, Your Honor, after a hard day’s work, we went for a drink.

C:

Did you go with them? Withdrawn, Your Honor.

J:

I will allow that question.

C;

Did you go with the group?

W:

No, because I went home to change my clothes.

C:

So, after changing your clothes, what did you do next, if any?

W:

I rode motorcylce and I went to the place for a drink.

C:

Why did you return, Mr. Witness?

W:

Because it is satisfying to have drink.

C:

Have you already stayed there?

J:

Okay, the Court will ask the question. Were you able to go back to the group, Mr. Witness?

W:

Yes, Your Honor.

J:

Okay. Did you the group?

W:

Yes, Your Honor, but when I notice that there is no ice, I want to buy for some.

J:

Okay, continue.

C:

Then after having bought ice, what did you do next?

W:

I went back and enjoy the drinking session.

C: any?

While drinking with them have you observed any unusual behavior of Nathaniel Sudio, if

W: While drinking spree is going on, Nathaniel Sudio suddenly freaked out and boxed Erpo Agustin and Alex Salvador? C:

What did you do during the incident?

W:

I tired to intervene but he also boxed me.

C:

So after that boxing incident of Nathaniel Sudio, what transpired next?

J: Counsel, you might want to ask what was hit because he already said that he was asked, so you ask him. C:

What part of your body was was hit by Nathaniel Sudio?

W:

My head. (The next is touching the right portion of his face.)

C:

After hitting you, what was your reaciton, Mr. Witness?

W:

I was surpised but I presume it is ordinary for a person who is drunk.

C:

After that, what transpired next?

W:

I saw Nathaniel Sudio proceeded southward.

C:

What did you do after he left?

W

I followed him so that I could accompany home because I know he is drunk.

C:

After that, what happened?

W:

Just before I reached him, he hit me with a stone.

C:

After hitting you, what did you do next if any?

W:

After that, Your HOnor, I composed myself and we wrestled.

C:

Did someone see the fight between you and Nathaniel Sudio?

W:

There is and that was my father, Elpidio Manuel.

C:What did your father do when he saw you being injured by the victim, if any?

W: When my father saw me in a less defensive state (“naagrabyado”), he grabbed a piece of wood and kicked Nathaniel Sudio. C:

AFter that incident, what happened next?

J:

Wait Counsel, before you would ask that quesiton, was Nathaniel Sudio hit?

w:

He was hit by my father.

J:

Yes. What was hit?

W:

At the back of his head.

J:

Continue, COunsel.

C:

So, after that incident what id you do next.

W: My father came to my rescue. We wanted to g home but becaue of the pai that i suffered, we didceide to fo to te hopsital. C:

That is all, Your Honor.

J:

Okay. Any cross-examination?

R:

Yes, Your Honor.

J:

Okay.

R: So, Mr. Witness, I understand that on the morning of November 20, 205, you were having a coffee in you house and you said that in that morning, your father with Alex Erpo and Joey Taylan went to harvest the crop of Nathaniel Sudio. How were you able to see them? W:

My father asked permission. He told me that they were going to the farm.

R:

So they did not see them going to the farm?

W:

No.

R:

So, you are just presuming that he is with them?

J:

Fiscal, what is your point?

R:

Because the it is only the father whom he saw.

J: Yes, but the Court does not say that these are relevant to be principal witnesses. You might as well go direct to the point because we might be wasting time. It is already raining and we want to go home early, also. R:

May we pray for a continuance then Your Honor.

J: No, no. Fiscal, if you do that, you will be the first prosecutor who will pray for a contiuance. You are the prosecutor in this case. R: Okay, so I understand, Mr. Witness, that you also brought lunch for you father that day, am I right? And after that, you fell asleep near the farm, correct? J: Fiscal, these matters have asked already. You may want to go straight, because I don’t thinkg that is material or relevant in this case. R: So you said that after you have harvested the crops from the farm of Nathaniel Sudio, you said that you went on for a drinking spree in the house of Joey Taylan, is that right? W:

Yes.

R: But you did not them immediately becaue there was a need to buy for an ice so you went home or you went somewhere to buy the ice, is that right? W:

Yes.

R: But when you went to buy ice, did they started drinking already, your father and Nathaniel Sudio and company?

W:

Not yet.

R:

Okay, so waited for the ice before they started to drink?

W:

Yes.

R:

So, by the way, Mr. Witness, what did you drink on that night?

W:

Ginebra San Miguel, square type.

R:

How many bottles did you drink?

W:

Around 4-5 bottles.

R:

So you were drunk on that night?

W:

Not yet.

J:

Weren’t you drunk yet in drinking 4-5 bottles?

W:

We are used to it.

J:

Do you usually do it?

W:

Yes, Your Honor, after a hard day’s work.

R:

By the way did it take you to finish the four bottles of gin?

W:

It took us two hours if we are in a conversation, at around six o’clock.

R: But you said that it was only after few minutes that Nathaniel Sudio started to box Erpo and Erwin Agustin. You said that it is only after few minutes of ing the group when the suddenly victim, Nathaniel sudio started to box the other companions. W:

No, Your Honor, the incident only happened afterwards, not after ing the group.

R:

So do you think Nathaniel Sudio was also drunk considering that both of you —

J:

What was the question?

R: I rephrase, Your HOnor. Mr. Witness, do you think Nathaniel Sudio was also drunk at that time? W:

Yes.

And do you know the reason why he boxed the other two companion of yours? No, your Honor because it was a sudden incident. So how did he box them? You said he boxed the two. Who was boxed first, Erpo or Alex? It was Alex and then after that he boxed Erwin? Yes. R: Considering that you were not drunk at that time and Nathaniel sudio was already drunk at that time, you did not even try to pacify Nathaniel on the first time that you boxed your one companion? W: He was seating at the other side when nathaniel hit Erpo and it was only that time that I was going to intervene. R:

So you are trying to say now that distance stopped you from pacifying the boxing, Erpo?

J:

If you cannot exactly measure the distance, you can point from where you are seated.

Interpreter:The witness is pointing his position from this position to the position of the Prosecutor which is about two meters.

J:

One and half meters. Put that on record. Continue fiscal.

R:

But did you try to pacify Nathaniel Sudio?

W:

Yes, Ma’am. Did you succeeded in pacifying him? No becauase he also hit me

How could it? Nathaniel Sudio is already drunk. So, I presume you are more stronger at that time. You were not able to pacify him? J: Fiscal, you are asking an hypothetical question. The court will ask you. Nathaniel Sudio was already drunk at that time, is that correct? W: He is drunk but he is still in control. J:

Who is more drunk between you and Nathaniel?

W:

Nathaniel, Your Honor.

J:

So, between the two of you, are you more in control of yourself?

W:

Yes, your Honor.

J:

Continue, Fiscal.

R: By the way Mr. Witness, what was the reaction of Erpo and Alex after seeing that Nathaniel Sudio also boxed you? W:

I’m not sure because I was also boxed.

R: But when you saw that Nathaniel Sudio immediately boxed for unknown reason, what was their reaction ? W:

They were shocked and a little bit angry.

R:

So they fought him back?

W:

No more, Your Honor, because they know that he is already drunk.

R: So Mr. Winess after being boxed by Nathaniel Sudio you said that he went ahead just to leave you, am I correct? W:

Yes.

R:

And you said a while ago that even if he is still drunk, he is still in control of himself?

W:

Yes.

R:

And you also said that you followed him because you wanted to bring him home, why?

W: Because of the incident, I was afraid that on his way home, he may meet other and may do the same thing to them. R:

So despite being boxed by Nathaniel, you still wanted to bring him home?

W: Yes, Your HOnor, it is better that the incident is between us and no one else will be involved. R: Okay. So, when you when ahead - when Nathaniel went ahead he walked away, turned his back against you, is that correct? W:

Yes, Your Honor.

R:

And you followed him?

W:

Yes.