Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 274 , City of Parañaque

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus -
CRIM. CASE No. 95-
404
FOR: RAPE WITH
HOMICIDE as
defined under Article
266-A and penalized
under Article 266-B
of R.A. No. 8353
(Anti-Rape Law of
1997)
HUBERT JEFFREY WEBB,
ANTONIO LEJANO II,
MICHAEL GATCHALIAN,
HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ,
ARTEMIO VENTURA,
PETER ESTRADA,
MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ,
JOEY FILART,
GERARDO BIONG
Accused,

x--------------------------------------------x

TRANSCRIPT

of the stenographic notes taken during

the hearing held on March 12, 1995 at
08:30 o’clock in the morning before
Honorable Judge NICASIO ALVAREZ III

PRESENT:

NICASIO ALVAREZ III

Presiding Judge
 CLARICE ANGELINE QUESTIN
Clerk of Court

GABRIELLEE LEANO
Court Interpreter

JANE MARIE BIANCA CARILLO

ZANDRA JANE DEL ROSARIO
AUBREY JANE PANGANIBAN
Stenographers

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Lauro Vizconde Mr. Gerardo Biong

Ms. Jessica Alfaro Ms. Gena Myrtle Terre

Dr. Prospero Cabanayan Ms. Zaira Nancy Duquilla

Ms. Mica Joy Fajardo Ms. Denise Eisma

Mr. Hubert Webb Ms. Gail Diola

Mr. Antonio Lejano II Ms. Karlyn Agcaoili

Mr. Hospicio Fernandez

Mr. Miguel Rodriguez

Mr. Peter Estrada

Mr. Michael Gatchalian

Bailiff: The Court is now in session. Silence is hereby enjoined. The Honorable Nicasio
Alvarez III presiding.
*Prayer*
Judge Alvarez: Please take your seat. Call the case.
Clerk of Court: Criminal Case No. 95-404
People of the Philippines vs Hubert Jeffrey Webb, Antonio Lejano II, Michael
Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Artemio Ventura, Peter Estrada, Miguel
Rodriguez, Joey Filart and Gerardo Biong for Rape with Homicide as defined under
Article 266-A and penalized under Article 266-B of R.A. No. 8353.
Judge A: Appearances?
Atty. Fajardo: Your Honor, Prosecutor Mica Joy Fajardo for the People. I will be appearing now
in lieu of Prosecutor Barrieta.
Atty. Agcaoili: Prosecutor Karlyn Agcaoili appearing for the prosecution.
Atty Diola: Prosecutor Gail Diola for the prosecution.
Atty Hadloc: Atty. Angelica Hadloc appearing as counsel for all the accused, your Honor.
Atty Duquilla: Atty. Zyra Nancy Duquilla for the defense, your Honor.
Atty. Eisma: Atty. Denise Eisma, for defense, your Honor.
Atty. Terre: Atty. Gena Myrtle Terre for the defense, your Honor.
Judge A: Are all of your witnesses present today?
Atty. Fajardo: Yes, your Honor.
Judge A: Regarding preliminary matters, we received the comment and as well as the
motion of the parties. Since the defense is given the right to submit a reply, it shall
be submitted in the coming days. From the on we’ll continue with the resolution
of the case. So now, we continue with the examination of the witness Mr.
Vizconde and after, the cross-examination of the defense. Present your witnesses
counsel.
Atty F: Your Honor, I am presenting Lauro Vizconde. He will testify under the same oath.
Atty F: We will continue with the same purposes
Mr. Vizconde, I am showing you now the receipt of the funeral expenses your
incurred for the death of your family members. Would you identify the same
Mr. Vizconde: Ah yes it’s the same
Atty F: Your Honor, we are manifesting the receipt for the funeral expenses be marked as
exhibit K and K-1.
Witness, I am showing you the flight tickets you have incurred on your travel back
to Manila upon knowing of the death of your family members. Is it the same?
Mr. V: Yes.
Atty. F: Your Honor, we are manifesting the electronic ticket marked as exhibit L.
Atty Hadloc: Objection, your Honor. By the way your Honor, before I raise my objection, may I
be allowed to remain seated because I just came from a surgery.
Your Honor, the plane ticket as well as the receipt were not marked during the
pre-trial conference so it is our stand that they not be marked.
Atty. F: Your Honor, it was marked.
Judge A: Overruled. Proceed.
Atty.F: Your Honor, I am now concluding my direct examination. Thank you.
Judge A: Defese may now proceed to cross-examine the witness.
Atty. Eisma: Mr. Vizconde, I have here the pre-marked exhibit which you executed. Can you
confirm if this is the same exhibit
Mr. V: Yes
Atty. Eisma: Was this your signature?
Mr. V: Yes
Atty. F: Your Honor, may I see first the exhibit?
Your Honor, with all due respect to the defense counsel, this was not presented
as one of our exhibits during pre-trial
Atty. Eisma: Your Honor, we will not offer it as an evidence.
Atty. E: For the benefit of the court, can you tell us how long have you been in the United
States?
Mr. V: Approximately 10 years
Atty E: When did you leave for the United States?
Mr. V: Around 1980’s I think.
Atty E: In the affidavit that you executed you said that you left in 1989, is that right?
Atty. F: Objection, your Honor. The affidavit was just an extrajudicial admission of the
witness.
Atty. E: Mr. Vizconde, can you state the purpose of your stay in the United States?
Atty F: Objection, your Honor. The question is irrelevant.
Atty E: Your Honor, we are establishing that he has been in the United States for
employment and it’s one of the facts admitted in the stipulations
Atty F: Since it’s already admitted by the counsel and already stipulated. The question is
already rendered irrelevant
Atty E: I’m merely reiterating it, your Honor, for the benefit of this Court.
Judge A: Overruled
Atty E: You were closes with your family, isn’t that right Mr. Vizconde?
Mr. V: Yes
Atty E: Even when you were working in the United States?
Mr. V: yes.
Atty E: How did you manage to be close to your family even if you were abroad?
Atty F: Objection, your Honor. The question is again irrelevant.
Judge A: What is the materiality of your line of questioning counsel?
Atty E: The purpose is to verify that he is indeed in the United States for employment
Atty F: Your Honor, the purpose is also irrelevant because as stated the purpose of the
witness is to identify the death of the family as well as the damages incurred. So
the employment is already irrelevant.
Judge A: Sustained
Atty E: Your Honor, before we proceed, may we first lay the foundation before the
prosecution starts further objections to our questions
Judge: Proceed
Atty E: How did you maintain this close bond with your family even if you were working
abroad?
Mr. V: I maintained a regular communication with them while I was abroad
Atty E: And how was that?
Mr. V: I call them every now and then with the help of technology.
Atty E: Isn’t it true that while maintaining this closeness with your family that meant
conversing with them regarding your day to day activities which includes the
exchange of stories even with the..
Atty. Agcaoili: Objection, your Honor. Propound question.
Atty E: May I rephrase the question, your Honor
Judge A: Proceed
Atty E: In maintaining your closeness with your family, did you exchange stories with
them and this includes your day to day activities, is that right?
Mr. V: Sometimes
Atty E: And in the course of your conversation with your wife and your daughters, they
would confer about their dreams and aspirations down to the most minor details?
Mr. V: Sometimes yes
Atty E: Would you agree with me that Carmela shared with you the details of her lovelife?
Mr. V: Yes some details.
Atty E: In the course of your conversation with Carmela, did she mention that she turned
down a suitor?
Mr. V: I can no longer recall
Atty F: Objection, your Honor. The question is already answered
Atty E: May we just ask the name of this suitor
Mr. V: The name of Bagyo
Atty E: Despite Carmela’s confiding with you regarding this secrets, these desires, she
never mentioned the full or real name of Bagyo, is not that right?
Mr. V: Yes
Atty F: So you have no knowledge as to who this Bagyo is?
Mr V: Yes
Atty E: Mr. Vizconde, can you recall the approximate month or atleast the year when
Carmela first disclosed to you this suitor Bagyo?
Mr. V: I can no longer recall.
Atty E: Can you recall the month or atleast the year when prosecution witness Ms. Alfaro
came forward with her testimony regarding the..
Atty. Agcaoili: Objection. The question is too long.
Atty E: Mr. Vizconde, isn’t it a fact that Ms. Alfaro identified Hubert Jeffrey Webb as one
of those responsible perpetrators of the crime?
Mr. V: Yes.
Atty E: And prior to this case, did you know or atleast heard of the name Hubert Jeffrey
Webb?
Mr. V: Yes
Atty E: How did you know about Mr. Webb?
Atty F: Objection, your Honor. The question calls for a narration.
Judge A: Rephrase your question
Atty.E: Can you state some instances which you can tell this Court that you know Hubert
Webb?
Mr. V: Aside from the fact that Hubert Webb is a son of a…coming from a political family.
I suddenly remembered now..
*laughter from the crowd*
Atty. Eisma: Mr. Witness is it safe to say that prior to Ms. Alfaro’s coming forward you never
looked at Hubert Jeffrey Webb as one of the perpetrators who could do the crime
to your daughter?
Atty. Fajardo: Objection Your Honor the question is (inaudible)
Judge: Rephrase your question.
Atty. E: Is it safe to say that prior to the Alfaro’s testimony, you never saw Hubert Webb
as one of the perpetrators of the crime?
Lauro: It crossed my mind…
Atty. E: Mr. Vizconde you never bothered to disclose this details to the police?
Lauro: Yes, but it does not mean that Hubert Webb might not have killed my wife…my
family.
Atty. E: Can you narrate what efforts did you take in finding out who the identities of this
perpetrators? Mr. Vizconde it is the natural reaction of a father to seek the help
of the police, isn’t it right?
Atty. F: Objection Your Honor the question calls for an opinion.
Atty. E: Your Honor let us first establish the materiality is…may we first lay the foundation
so we can test the credibility of the statements of the witness.
Atty. F: Your Honor the question calls for an opinion.
Judge: Sustain.
Atty. E: Mr. Vizconde did you seek the help of the police?
Lauro: Yes of course.
Atty. E: Did you ask around the neighborhood of who would be the possible leads or
suspects in this case?
May I rephrase the question Your Honor.
Judge: Proceed.
Atty. E: Mr. Vizconde you ask your neighborhood of who would be the possible suspects
or leads of this case, right?
Lauro: Yes.
Atty. E: And did the name of Jeffrey Webb ever came up linking him to the massacre of
your family?
Lauro: No.
Atty. F: Your Honor may we asked that the answer of the witness be striked. I think that
he was confused by the question.
Judge: Rephrase your question.
Lauro: Yes, I did not hear clearly the question.
Atty. E: In asking around the neighborhood, the name of Hubert Webb never came up as
one of the possible suspects of this case, right?
Lauro: It came up.
Atty. E: And you never bothered to tell this to the authorities?
Lauro: I did.
Atty. E: But you never manifested that on your sworn statement, isn’t that right?
Lauro: In my sworn statement?
Atty. E: Yes. Let me show you your sworn statement which you executed apparently on
July 3, 1995. Can you go over it if there is any mention of Hubert Webb in your
statements?
Lauro: (looking at the sworn statement) None.
Atty. E: Mr. Vizconde it has been four years since PNP came up with a lead in this case,
isn’t that right?
Lauro: Yes.
Atty. E: And the material fact that Bagyo who might be Hubert Webb as the suitor of
Carmela, this fact you never confirmed it to PNP, isn’t that right?
Lauro: Again again? Sorry.
Atty. E: For the interim of four years, you never bothered to tell the police that this Bagyo
who might be Hubert Webb is linked into this killing?
Atty. F: Objection Your Honor, the question is misleading. May I remind the defense
counsels that prior Hubert Webb being accused, there was a prior proceedings
subject the victims of this case and Lauro Vizconde relied on the prior proceeding
however, upon the dismissal of the proceedings and the appearance of Jessica
Alfaro, it was only the time when Lauro was able to connect the facts.
Judge: Comment:
Atty. E: Your Honor may we asked for conditional admission of statements since they
already mentioned the robbery gang. I think it would be in our advantage if we
could use the statements in our upcoming witness presentations in the coming
days.
Atty. E: Mr. Vizconde, you have mentioned that you were in the United States for 10 years,
correct?
Lauro: Proximately.
Atty. E: You were not in the crime scene when the incident happened, correct?
Lauro: Yes.
Atty. E: You were not there right? You never witness the killing right?
Mr. Vizconde, I will show you again the sworn statement that you executed. Can
you check paragraph two (2) and…
Mr. Vizconde, I would like to read to you paragraph two and paragraph ten of your
complaint affidavit, “that on No. 1989, with hopes of securing my family’s future,
 I left the Philippinesto work in the United States (par.2)” and paragraph ten says
that “on June 30, 1991, I received the most tragic phone call a father and a
husband could ever receive. A relative told me that my family has been killed in
our home and the investigations are still on going as to the motive and
circumstances behind their deaths” This affidavit states that the years 1989 and
1991 would only be about two years and hence it is contrary to the ten years stay
in the United States that you have been stating.
Atty. F: Objection Your Honor, the question is irrelevant.
Atty. E: Your Honor, we would like to show that there are prior inconsistencies that Mr.
Vizconde had said in the sworn affidavit he executed and the statements he just
just said in this witness stand.
Atty. F: Your Honor may we just point that the affidavit is not admitted by the witness in
the court; it is not in any way binding upon the witness.
Atty. E: But Your Honor, this has been pre marked and it has been identified by him as one
who executed the affidavit.
Atty. F: Your Honor may we repeat again that the affidavit is not admitted.
Atty. E: May we refer that earlier he has already admitted that ahhhm, the existence and
authorshipof this affidavit your honor.
Judge: Overruled.
Atty. E: That would be all Your Honor.
Judge: will the prosecution conduct a redirect?
Atty. F: Your Honor, I would just ask a few questions.
Mr. Witness may I just repeat, you have been working in the US for 10 years?
Atty. Hadloc: Objection, already asked and answered.
Atty. F: For the benefit of everyone, we are just reiterating.
Judge: Overruled.
Atty. F: While you were in the US, there are times that you missed your family, right?
Atty. H: Objection, leading.
(simultaneously)
Lauro: Yes.
Judge: Rephrase your question counsel.
Atty. F: While you are in US, how did you feel about your family.
Lauro: I’ve missed them a lot.
Atty. F: Mr. Witness, are there times that you thought of having a vacation in the
Philippines?
Atty. H: Objection Your Honor, leading. Very leading.
Atty. F: Your Honor may I rephrase the question. What did you do if any, in order to
overcome this feeling towards your family?
Atty. H: Objection Your Honor, it calls for a narration.
Atty. F: Your Honor may I rephrase the question. What did you do to overcome this
feeling.
Lauro: I took vacations in the Philippines.
Atty. F: Do you recall the dates when you went home to the Philippines, within the span
of ten years from which you were working there?
Lauro: I think I went home five times in 1981, 82, 85, 86…
Atty. F: Is one of the years 1989?
Lauro: Yes.
Atty. F: On what month of 1989?
Lauro: I think June.
Atty. F: So during your visit were you able to talk to your daughter Carmela?
Atty. H: Objection Your Honor, leading.
Atty. F: Your Honor may I rephrase the question. What did you do if any while you were
in the Philippines.
Lauro: I went to my family.
Atty. F: May I repeat the question, what did you do when you were in the Philippines, if
any?
Atty. H: Objection, already asked and answered.
Judge: Sustained.
Atty. F: After going to your family, what did you do afterwards?
Lauro: We went on a family vacation.
Atty. F: Where?
Lauro: In Baguio.
Atty. F: What did you do in Baguio if any?
Lauro: We went horse-back riding. (Laughter)
Atty. F: Who did you went with in the horse-back ridding.
Lauro: Me and Carmela went horseback riding.
Atty. F: And while horseback riding what did you do if any?
Atty. H: Objection, the question is inflammatory.
Atty. F: While horseback riding, was there a time that you talked to your daughter?
Atty. H: Objection Your Honor, leading.
Atty. F: aside from horseback riding, what else did you do, if any?
Lauro: Carmela and I talked and she was able to narrate to me certain suitor called Bagyo
whom I later found out to be Hubert Webb.
Atty. F: Is this Hubbert Webb a son of a famous politician?
Lauro: Yes.
Atty. F: Mr Witness, if he is in court, would you be able to point—for the benefit of this
honorable court who this Hubert Webb is.
(the witness is pointing to a person in yellow shirt)
Lauro: I was referring to the chubby guy.
Judge: Could you please stand up and identify yourself.
Webb: (standing up) I am Hubert Webb.
Judge: Let it be on record that the person standing up is Mr. Hubert Webb.
Anymore questions counsel?
Atty. F: No further questions Your Honor.
Judge: Will the defense conduct a re-cross examination?
Atty. H: Yes, Your Honor.
Judge: Okay, proceed.
Atty. H: Good evening Mr. Witness.
Lauro: Good evening.
Atty. H: You said in your direct, as well as your affidavit, as well as your cross examination
that you’ve been in the US for 10 years…
Atty. Agcaoili: Objection, compound questions.
Atty. H: You said that you have been in the US for 10 years, did you not?
Lauro: I did.
Atty. H: And during the direct examination, you said that you went home to the Philippines
in 1989, did you?
Lauro: Yes.
Atty. H: Mr. Witness I am referring to you the complaint affidavit to which you executed.
Can you recognized this, as well your signature?
Atty. H: This is already admitted as the one he executed Your Honor. If you said that you
went to the Philippines in 1989, how come that in your affidavit you said that you
were leaving for the US in November 1989? Is that true/
Atty. F: Objection Your Honor the question is argumentative.
Atty. H: You said in your complaint-affidavit that you left for the US in November 1989, did
you not?
Lauro: Yes.
Atty. H: So Your Honor, there are inconsistencies here in this court because how can…he
stated in his affidavit that he went to the Philippines in 1989 and he also went to
the US in 1989 starting his 10 year period stay there are in November 1989, same
year.
Atty. Hadloc: Since there is no objection here, I am making manifestation that he said that he
arrived in the Philppines from the US in the 1989 but then he also stated in his
affidavit that he left for the US starting his 10-year period stay there in November
1989, same year.

Atty. Fajardo: Your Honor, with all due respect, the counsel is already testifying for the witness.

Judge Alvarez: Comment, counsel?

Atty. H: No comment, your Honor. Mr. Witness, just for the point of emphasis, you said
earlier that you went to Baguio and you went horse back riding, did you?

Lauro: Yes.
Atty. H: That did Baguio incident happened in 1989, isn’t it?

Lauro: Yes.

Atty H: Again, I am confused. Mr.Witness, you said that you were in constant
communication while you were in the US, isn’t not?

Atty. F: Objection, your Honor, the question was already answered by the witness during
the direct examination.

Atty. H: But, your Honor, I need to ask this for my following questions to set a stepping
stone for my next questions.

Judge A: Already answered.

Atty. H: In your complaint affidavit, you said that you learned if this certain Bagyo while
you are in the US. You say that in your affidavit, did you?

Lauro: I did.

Atty. H: And during your direct examination, you said that your learned of this certain
Bagyo for the first time in Baguio when you went horseback riding, did you not?

Lauro: I did not say that I have learned it for the first time, I just said that she was able
to narrate to me a certain Bagyo but I did not say that it was for the first time.

Atty. H: Mr. Witness, you said during your direct examination that you only know if this
Bagyo by his name “Bagyo”?

Lauro: Yes, but I suddenly remembered it.

Atty. H: May I know when do you remember it? The full name of this certain Bagyo?

Lauro: The date?

Atty. H: No, any range.

Lauro: Ofcourse, I cannot recall.

Atty. H: But you recall the full name?

Lauro: Yes, because Carmela told me.

Atty. H: So if Carmela told you and your recollection dates back to when Carmela told you,
while during the interim period of the direct examination you do not know the full
name of this certain Bagyo?

Lauro: What was the question?

Atty. H: I cannot repeat the question.

Stenographer: *repeats the question*

Atty. H: It is a modified version.

Judge: Then, repeat the question.

Atty. H: I was asking your Honor that during the interim period of the direct examination
how come he was not able to recall the full name of Mr. Bagyo?

Atty. F: Objection, your Honor, the question is argumentative.

Judge: Comment?

Atty. H: I was just stating a fact that during the direct examination he did not know the full
name of Mr. Bagyo.

Atty. F: The question of the defense counsel is that there is a fact that the witness is
testifying on that matter, then there is no need for him to answer the question.

Judge: Any comment?

Atty. H: No comment, your Honor. But, your Honor I have question.

Judge: Sustained. Proceed with your next question.

Atty. H: Just for clarification, you now know the full name of this certain Bagyo?

Lauro: Yes.

Atty. H: Which is?

Lauro: Hubert…Webb.

Atty. H: That’s all, your Honor.

Judge: Since we concluded with the examination of the witness, Mr. Lauro Vizconde, may
the prosecution present the next witness. Mr. Witness you are now excused.

Atty. Diola: Our witness is Dr. Prospero Cabanayan.

Judge: Dr. Cabanayan please take the witness stand.

Clerk of Court: *Administers the oath* Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the
truth?

Dr. Cabanayan:Yes.

Clerk: Please state your name and circumstances.

Dr. Cabanayan: I am Dr. Prospero Cabanayan, 45 years old, the chief medico legal of the National
Bureau of Investigation.

Clerk: Your Honor, the witness is ready.

Atty. D: Good afternoon, your Honor. We are offering the testimony of Dr. Cabanayan, this
expert witness, to prove the material allegations in the criminal information, the
identity of the victims as well as the identity and authentication of the documents
in relation to this case.

Atty. H: Your Honor, having heard of the purposes of the examination of our expert
witness here, may I seek that we dispense with his testimony as we already have
here the reports which we believe he is testifying on marked as Exhibit B, E, and
F. So, we would just like to save time if we could just ask that these be
authenticated, your Honor.

Atty. D: Your Honor, we would also like to present our witness to identify the victims and
based on her testimony, we can identify such as well as authenticate and prove
material allegations in the case, and such reports only prove the identity and
authentication but not some points and matters in our complaint.

Atty. H: Precisely, your Honor, they are already identified here, your Honor.

Atty. F: Comment, your Honor. The medico legal presented is just the scientific
explanations of the conducted examination and for the benefit of the Court, we
are presenting the medico legal to give light as to the exact interpretation of the
findings.

Atty. H: Your Honor, only if she would only be allowed to testify on those which would give
light to the Court and to the audience.
Judge: Objection overruled.

Atty. D: Good afternoon, Mr. Witness. For the record, can you please, state your name and
personal circumstances?

Dr.Cabanayan: I am Dr. Prospero Cabanayan, 45 years old, resident of ABC Subdivision,

Paranaque City.

Atty. D: And Mr. Witness, what is your occupation?

Dr. Cabanayan: I am a medico legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation.

Atty. D: Do you have with you, if any, form of identification to prove such fact?

Dr. Cabanayan: Yes, ma’am. I have here my PRC license.

Atty. D: Your Honor, she is presenting his PRC Identification Card stating that she is a
member of such association.

Atty. H: Your Honor, at the time of the death of our victims here, it was when he executed
the autopsy report, however the registration date of the PRC ID is 1993 and valid
until 1996. If the autopsy report was conducted in 1991, then he was not
authorized then.

Atty. F: Your Honor, may I remind the defense counsel that the registration for a
physician is renewable.

Judge: Overruled.

Atty. D: Let’s proceed, Mr. Witness, what exact position are you currently holding?

Dr. Cabanayan: I am the Chief Medico Legal officer of the NBI.

Atty. D: How long have you been working as such?

Dr. Cabanayan: 10 years.

Atty. D: Can you state to this court, what are your credentials?

Dr. Cabanayan: I obtained my Doctor of Medicine Degree from the University of the Philippines,
I specialized in forensics and pathology and prior to my employment as
Medicolegal for the NBI, I worked at Quirino Memorial Medical Center as a
resident.
Atty. D: Your Honor, may we request for an order stating that we are presenting now our
expert witness, Dr. Cabanayan.

Judge: The order will be given on the coming days, but now please proceed with your
examination.

Atty. D: Thank you, your Honor. Mr. Witness, where were you on the day of June 30,
1991?

Dr. Cabanayan: I was at the headquarters of the NBI, on duty.

Atty. D: Do you remember what happened on the said day, if any?

Atty. H: Objection, your Honor.

Judge: What ground?

Atty. H: Leading, assuming, and calls for a narration.

Atty. D: I will rephrase, your Honor.

Judge: Please rephrase.

Atty. D: Do you remember what happened on the day of June 30, 1991, if any?

Dr. Cabanayan: Yes. I received a request from PNP to conduct an autopsy and investigation of the
three bodies.

Atty. D: Who were these bodies?

Dr. Cabanayan: The first is identified as Estrellita Vizconde, 49 years old female, next is Carmela
Vizconde, 19 years old female, and the last is Jennifer Vizconde, 6 years old,
female.

Atty. D: After receiving such request, what did you do next?

Dr. Cabanayan: I proceeded to conduct the autopsy and examination.

Atty. D: You said you conducted an investigation for the three bodies.

Dr. Cabanayan: Yes.

Atty. D: On the basis of your examination, what was the condition of the body identified
as Carmela Vizconde at the time of such examination?

Dr. Cabanayan: Carmela’s hands were hogtied using electric cord, and her mouth was gagged
with a pillow case.

Atty. D: And what else did you find upon examination, if any?

Dr. Cabanayan: Carmela had contusions on her right forearm and on her thighs, she also had
ligature marks on her both wrists, and she had 9 stab wounds on her chest area.

Atty. D: And based on your findings and medical knowledge, what was the cause of death
of the body identified as Carmela Vizconde?

Dr. Cabanayan: The cause of death is massive bleeding due to multiple stab wounds.

Atty. D: And what are the other findings, if any?

Dr. Cabanayan: Upon futher examination in the genital area of the victim, there was 1-2 cm of
lacerated wound in the hymenal area at 7 o’clock position. There was also
contusions in her right thigh, there was echimosis on the left inguinal area, there
was also on the labia minor, and upon further examination and proper
extraction, there is presence of human spermatozoa in the genitalia of the victim.

Atty. D: You mentioned extraction. Upon extraction, what did you do next, if any?

Dr. Cabanayan: I examined the specimen and confirmed that it was a human sperm.

Atty. D: If I show this specimen to you, would you be able to identify it?

Dr. Cabanayan: Yes, ma’am.

Atty. D: Did you personally… Let me rephrase my question. Upon extraction, what did
you do next, if any?

Dr. Cabanayan: I did some swabbing and place the specimen in the sealed container.

Atty. D: After placing such in the sealed container, what did you do next?

Dr. Cabanayan: I marked the container and signed it.

Atty. D: If I show the container and such marking, will you be able to identify?

Dr. Cabanayan: Yes, ma’am.

Atty. D: Your Honor, I will be showing to the witness this marked specimen. Is this the
same specimen that you marked?

Atty. H: Objection, your Honor, leading.

Atty. D: I will rephrase. What is the relation of this container containing certain specimen
to the one you earlier mentioned?

Dr. Cabanayan: This is the same specimen that I mentioned earlier.

Atty. F: Your Honor, in view of the presentation of the spermatozoa specimen, may we
ask the court for leave to allow the examination of the accused in order to
determine whether any of them will match the specimen.

Judge: Comment, defense counsel?

Atty. H: We will not allow it, your Honor.

Judge: Why?

Atty. H: It is incriminating, your Honor.

Atty. F: Your Honor, pursuant to the rules and established jurisprudence, the extraction
of any specimen from any of the witness or any of the accused is not considered
as self- incrimination because the same is not a testimonial compulsion.

Judge: Comment from the defense?

Atty. H: We would allow, your Honor.

Atty. D: You mentioned earlier the presence of human spermatozoa in the genitalia of
the body identified as Carmela Vizconde. Based on your medical knowledge and
experience, what causes the presence of such spermatozoa or semen in such
genitalia?

Dr. Cabanayan: The presence of such human spermatozoa in the genitalia usually entails that
such person had just sexual intercourse.

Atty. D: How about the mentioned laceration, medically speaking, what does it usually
indicate?

Dr. Cabanayan: Presence of laceration in the genitalia of a person usually indicates forced
penetration either by a male organ or by an object inserted in the genitalia.
Atty. D: And based on such, you mentioned presence of forced penetration and what
does it usually connote, if any?

Dr. Cabanayan: Forced penetration usually connotes either sexual intercourse without proper
lubrication or carnal knowledge forced upon the victim.

Atty. D: After the physical examination, what did you do next?

Dr. Cabanayan: After conducting the physical examination and extracting such specimen, I
proceeded to generate the medical report.

Atty. D: Did you personally execute and signed the report?

Dr. Cabanayan: Yes, ma’am.

Atty. D: If I show this report to you, will you be able to identify it?

Dr. Cabanayan: Yes, ma’am.

Atty. D: Your Honor, I will be showing to the witness the document marked as Exhibit D.
Mr. Witness, can you go over it and tell me if this is the same document that you
executed?

Dr. Cabanayan: Yes, ma’am this is the same document that I generated and the signature is mine.

Atty. H: May I examine it.

Atty. D: Thank you, Mr. Witness. Going to the next body identified as Estrellita Vizconde,
based on your examination and autopsy, what was the condition of the body at
the time of such autopsy?
Dr. Cabanayan: Estrellita’s hands were also hogtied and she also bore ligature marks on both
wrists.

Atty. D: Upon further examination, what are your other findings, if any?

Dr. Cabanayan: Estrellita Vizconde had 12 stab wounds in the chest are as well.

Atty. D: based on your finding, what was the cause of death of such body?

Dr. Cabanayan: The cause of death was massive blood loss due to multiple stab wounds.

Atty. D: And were there other findings?

Dr. Cabanayan: There are no more findings.

Atty. D: After the physical examination and autopsy, what did you do next?

Dr. Cabanayan: I proceeded to generate the medico legal report.

Atty. D: Did you personally execute and signed the report?

Dr. Cabanayan: Yes, ma’am.

Atty. D: Are you familiar with this report?

Dr. Cabanayan: Yes, ma’am.

Atty. D: If I show this report to you, will you be able to identify it?

Dr. Cabanayan: Yes, ma’am.

Atty. D: Your Honor, I will be showing to the witness the document marked as Exhibit F.
Mr. Witness, can you please go over it and tell me if this is the same document
that you executed?

Dr. Cabanayan: Yes, ma’am this is the same document that I generated.

Atty. D: Did you do anything else besides the execution?

Atty. H: Objection, your Honor leading.

Judge: Please rephrase your question, counsel.

Atty. D: What did you do next, if any?

Dr. Cabanayan: After generating the report of the victim, Estrellita Vizconde, I proceeded to
examine the next victim.

Atty. D: Mr. Witness, going now to the last body identified as Jennifer Vizconde, based
on your autopsy and physical examination, what was her condition at the time
of your examination?

Dr. Cabanayan: Jennifer Vizconde had 29 stab wounds located in different parts of her body but
most of which are located on her left chest.

Atty. D: And on such finding, what was the cause of death?

Dr. Cabanayan: The cause of death is massive blood loss due to multiple stab wounds.
Atty. D: Were there anymore findings?

Dr. Cabanayan: There were none.

Atty. D: After the physical examination, what did you do next, if any?

Dr. Cabanayan: I proceeded to generate the medical report.

Atty. D: Did you personally execute and signed such report?

Dr. Cabanayan: Yes, ma’am.

Atty. D: Are you familiar with this report?

Dr. Cabanayan: Yes, ma’am.

Atty. D: If I show this report to you, will you be able to identify it?

Dr. Cabanayan: Yes, ma’am.

Atty. D: Your Honor, I will be showing to the witness the document marked as Exhibit E.
Mr. Witness, can you go over it and tell me if this is the same document that you
personally signed and executed?

Dr. Cabanayan: Yes, ma’am this is the same document that I generated and this document bears
my signature.

Atty. D: Were there any findings?

Dr. Cabanayan: There are no more.

Atty. D: Awhile ago, under Exhibit D for the identified body of Carmela Vizconde, can you
tell the court if this is the same document you executed and if such is your
signature?

Dr. Cabanayan: This is the same document that I personally executed and this is my signature.

Atty. D: Next is for the report for the body identified as Jennifer Vizconde marked as
Exhibit E, can you please go over it and tell the court if this document is the one
that you personally executed and identify if such is your signature?

Dr. Cabanayan: This is the same document that I personally executed and this bears my signature.
Atty. D: And lastly, for the document marked as Exhibit F which is the report for the body
of Estrellita Vizconde, Mr. Witness, can you identify the same and tell the court if
you personally executed such and signed it?

Dr. Cabanayan: This is the same document that I personally executed and this bears my signature.

Atty. D: No further questions, your Honor.

Judge: Is the defense ready to conduct the cross examination?

Atty. H: Your Honor, may we ask for the continuance because of the lack of material time.

Judge: At this juncture, we shall continue with the cross examination of Dr. Cabanayan
after the prelim exams. So ordered.

We hereby certify to the correctness

of the foregoing transcript of
stenographic notes to the best of our
knowledge, belief, and ability.

Jane Marie Bianca Carillo

Zandra Jane Del Rosario

Aubrey Jane Panganiban

Stenographers