Innocents' Brief
Innocents' Brief
Let me share to you the Reply Brief that I filed in favor of my pro bono clients convicted by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (Branch 219) for double murder.
I firmly believed that my clients are innocent. And this belief is firmed up by glaring inconsistencies uttered by the prosecution witnesses who, sadly, were upheld as truth by the presiding judge of QC RTC (Branch 219).
In this Brief, I come up with the following conclusions:
Thus,
it is very clear now that with these substantial inconsistencies and
testimonies that betrayed the falsification on the part of the witnesses of the
prosecution acquittal is in order.
This
brief cites in particular the following substantive inconsistencies:
1. The
vacillation by Daniel Cadacio as to whether he knew the person who shot his
father;
2. The
insistence of Mark Joseph Cadacio that there was only one gunshot as against
the claim of Daniel Cadacio that there were three gunshots;
3. The
high improbability for the claim of Mark Joseph Cadacio to happen that he was
not touched by the killers despite the fact that he claimed he was right at the
scene when his grandmother Cresencia was being killed;
4. The
collision of the claims of Daniel Cadacio that he grabbed his nephew Mark
Joseph Cadacio while the latter was running to Daniel’s house as against the
claims of Mark Joseph Cadacio that he did not see his uncle Daniel Cadacio
outside the house of the grandparents and outside the house of Daniel Cadacio
while the child was running to the house of Daniel;
5. The
high improbability for the claim of Daniel Cadacio to happen that they gathered
the bodies of the dead only the next day;
6. The
vacillation in the claims of Daniel Cadacio about whether he told the mayor the
events that occurred when his parents and Domingo Ramos were killed;
7. The
high improbability to happen that the barangay officials did not do anything to
investigate the crimes or to report to the police the incident right after
these officials went to the house where the crimes occurred, considering there
was no policemen who arrived in the crime scene that night;
8. The
fact that Emalyn Cadacio did not testify to corroborate the claims of Daniel
Cadacio as to his claims what happened from the time he and his wife prayed
that night at 8:30 p.m. of June 17, 2000 until the time that Daniel and Mark
Joseph were already inside the house of Daniel;
9. The
fact that the trial court did not believe in the testimonies of Emalyn Cadacio
with respect to the testimonies on how Domingo Ramos was killed; and
10.
The fact that the totality of the
circumstances, which included the fact that there were neighbors and that the
nearest neighbor was the house of Daniel Cadacio, is consistent with the theory
that it is possible that the killers
knew there was nobody present at the house of Daniel Cadacio that night or
that the killing was inside job.
Acquit
the appellants.
The Brief is posted below.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Republic of the
Philippines
Court
of Appeals
Ma. Orosa St.,
Manila
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Apellee,
-
versus - CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04669 (Fr.
RTC of Quezon City,
CRIM
CASE No. Q01-98893-95)
DONATO MAGHIBON @ JUN,
ALEXANDER ASCANO @ ZANDRO,
and ERNESTO SAMSON
@ UNTONG,
Accused-Appellants,
x---------------------------------------------x
Reply
Brief
With
Motion
for Leave to Admit the Same
The appellants-accused, by undersigned
law firm, respectfully file this Reply Brief.
The
Timeliness
On
27 March 2013 the law firm received the Appellee’s Brief. Under the rules, there are twenty (20) days
within which a Reply Brief can be filed if the appellants are so minded.
The
20th day fell on 6 April 2013, a Saturday. Under the Rules of Court, if the last day
falls on a non-office day, the first office day shall be deemed the last
day. Thus, if it was filed on 8 April
2013, Monday, the first office day from 6 April 2013, it should have been
timely.
The
undersigned counsel was already halfway with the Reply Brief on 8 April 2013.
However, he had to urgently attend to so many other deadlines and daily hearings
that happened to be morning and afternoon for the whole two weeks,
notwithstanding that the good preparations for cross-examinations and the
writing of judicial affidavits also consumed much of the time of the
undersigned counsel assigned to this case.
Because
his time was consumed by other equally-important concerns, he failed to
complete the Reply Brief.
Perhaps,
the Court would find these reasons and the fact that only a couple of days
separate the day of submission from the supposed last day as sufficient to
admit this Reply Brief.
But
in the interest of justice and in the interest of better understanding of the
issues, the undersigned counsel seeks the kindness of the Court to admit this
Reply Brief.
The
Position of the People
The Counter-Statement
of Facts by the People
The Counter-Statement of Facts
narrated by the People is unfair.
It
presumed that the prosecution witnesses were telling the truth and it did not
even consider the interest of justice.
The
People did not discharge the duty of invoking acquittal when big doubt appears.
Reading
all the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses readily show inconsistencies
that are material to the question of acquittal or conviction.
It
is very clear that these inconsistencies cannot just be dismissed as minor.
In
some instances, one witness would show his or her testimonies colliding with
his or her very own testimonies.
In
other instances, the testimonies of one cannot be reconciled with the testimonies
of another.
In
another instances, the testimonies of material witnesses Daniel Cadacio and
Mark Joseph Cadacio would be improbable to happen if gauged against the normal
habit of life.
To
the mind of the People, the inconsistencies are just minor that tend to bolster
the believability in the testimonies of the witnesses whose allegations clashed
each other.
However, the People did not offer a justification
why the inconsistencies are just minor despite the very clear indications as
shown in the Appellants’ Brief that these inconsistencies concern material
points that spell the life and death of the accused.
Reductions
of Issues
The
issues now boil down on inconsistencies of prosecution witnesses’ testimonies.
With the Appellee’s Brief centering
its arguments on defending the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses and with the strong arguments of the appellants insisting
these inconsistencies are glaring to expose the lies of the accusers to compel
acquittal judgment, the issues now center on WHETHER OR NOT THE INCONSISTENCIES
Specifically,
the appellants argue strongly that these inconsistencies diminished completely
the believability in prosecution witnesses Daniel Cadacio and Mark Joseph
Cadacio.
As
will be shown below, these inconsistencies are so revolting to justify the
finding made by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City that the accused are guilty
of the murders committed against Marcelino Cadacio Sr. and Cresencia Cadacio.
Appellants’
Position
Generally
speaking, the appellants stand pat that the inconsistencies in and among the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are too substantial that these cry for
acquittal.
Even by putting the defenses of the
accused aside and just considering these testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses alone, the appellants clearly deserve acquittal.
First,
it is a rule that the prosecution must stand on the strength of its own
evidence and not on the weakness of the defense evidence.
The
appellants submit that the inconsistencies they cited in the Appellants’ Brief
are too substantial to be set aside and that they cry for acquittal.
To clearly illustrate once more the extent
of these inconsistencies, the testimonies of the three material witnesses are
hereby presented in accordance with the Chronological Order of Time and in a
Matrix Form.
|
Comments of the Accused
|
Time-lines in terms of hours
|
Testi-monies
of Emalyn Cadacio
|
Testimonies of Daniel Cadacio
|
Testimo-nies of Mark Joseph Cadacio
|
|
|
FIRST STAGE
|
8:00 p.m. of June 17, 2000
|
Emalyn
Cadacio has no testimony on what happened around
this time
|
Daniel
Cadacio has no testimony on what happened around
this time
|
Mark
Joseph Cadacio has no testimony on what happened around
this time
|
|
|
SECONDSTAGE
It is noticed
that both Daniel Cadacio and Mark Joseph Cadacio heard the gunshot at around
the same time of 8:30 p.m. of June 17, 2000.
Both Daniel and
Mark Joseph testified what occurred step by step with their testimonies
giving impression that each step occurred after the other without any delay.
On the part of
Daniel Cadacio, his narration gives impression that all the events in a
series must have been completed in ten minutes or so.
And if the same
person who assaulted Mr. Melencio Cadacio Sr. are the same persons who
assaulted Mrs. Cresencia Cadacio, there must first be an interval of 10
minutes or so because the same attackers can get inside the house of
Cresencia.
But judging on
the stories of Mark Joseph Cadacio, there was no delay in time when the
sequence of events took place one after another.
How could this
happen that the evens in the eyes of Mark Joseph and the events in the eyes
of Daniel almost occurred at the same time.
It is to be
noted that Mark Joseph heard the gunshot at 8:30 p.m. while Daniel heard the
first gunshot at 8:30 p.m. also.
So that in
point of time, there is now a doubt on the stories of Mark Joseph and Daniel.
Highly improbable gauged vs normal habits of life.
IF MARK JOSEPH
WAS RIGHT AT THE SCENE,
why was he not
hurt? If he testified that it was
illuminated enough, it was impossible that he was not seen. HE
MUST HAVE BEEN HURT ALSO BY THE KILLERS.
The fact Mark
Joseph was not even touched makes it incredible to believe in Mark Joseph’s
claim.
The prosecution
did not present evidence how it could happen that the boy was not killed.
These claims of
Mark Joseph that are inconsistent with
normal habit of life go to the issue of WHETHER
MARK JOSEPH WAS THERE PRESENT WHEN HIS GRANDMA WAS BEING KILLED.
And when it is
doubtful that Mark Joseph was indeed present, his act of identifying the
accused becomes doubtful.
As such, the
issue is material to the issue of whether or not it was the accused who
killed the grandma.
ON THE PART OF DANIEL CADACIO, his
testimonies are also not consistent with habits of life.
First, his wife
could have testified beginning from the time they were praying inside the
house if indeed it were true that Daniel was praying with his wife Emalyn and
two children when he heard a sound of a gunshot.
THE FACT REMAINS that
Emalyn did not begin her testimony from the alleged time of prayer. A natural witness like her in that
situation, if true, would most likely begin her testimony from the occurrence
of a significant event like the time of prayer when the gunshot occurred.
To the
contrary, Emalyn began her testimony on the event when allegedly Mark Joseph
Cadacio and Daniel Cadacio got inside their house.
And if Emalyn
did not tell a story from the time of the alleged occurrence of the prayer,
it means SHE WAS NOT THERE PRESENT.
In fact, the
judge did not even believe in her testimonies that the trial court acquitted
all the accused with respect to the death of Domingo Ramos.
ADDITION-ALLY, it is
improbable for Daniel to have the heart of watching intently without blinking
his eyes while the brutal scene of killing his father was taking place. BUT the testimonies of Daniel Cadacio
showed he was a man of steel nerve that he had the capability to watch the
brutal killing of his father.
And if Daniel
indeed had a heart and nerves of steel, why is it that he did not run to the
rescue from the first sight of his father just before the alleged shooting?
The fact that
Daniel did not intervene while his father was still alive adds to the
improbable.
While no one
can fix how each man reacts to a stimulus, the probability of a common
reaction becomes higher when the stimulus is brutal and the stimulus is a
sight of one’s father being killed. More than half of men will right away run
to the rescue of his father upon seeing his father is being assaulted. So that there was now a need for Daniel
to explain why he was such a different son that he did not run to the rescue
of his father. Daniel never gave explanation why he never rescued his father.
ANOTHER
IMPROBABLE THING is that Daniel Cadacio said he did not know the name of the
person who shot his father, saying that Daniel could recognize the shooter if
he sees the person again.
This is improbable
because during the continuance of his direct examination, he named the
shooter as accused DONATO MAGHIBON.
This is improbable because Donato Maghibon had been present in all the
hearings, from the first time Daniel sat on the witness stand until such time
of the continuance of his direct examination.
During his
cross-examination, Daniel again repeated that he did not know the person who
actually shot his father, vacillating that he would recognize the shooter
once he sees the shooter once again.
Another thing
that added obscurity to the testimonies of Daniel Cadacio and Mark Joseph is
the fact that MARK JOSEPH SAID IN
CATEGORAL
MANNER THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE GUNSHOT.
Summing up the
established facts that HIS WIFE never
testified on the events that took place from the time of prayer up to the
time she saw Mark Joseph and husband coming inside their house, the fact that
Daniel did not run to the rescue just before his father was shot, the fact
that Daniel hardly named Donato Maghibon as the one who shot Melencio Sr.,
the fact that Mark Joseph said there was only ONE GUNSHOT as against Daniel’s
claim there were three gunshots, GAVE
A BIG DOUBT WHETHER DANIEL WAS INDEED PRESENT TO WITNESS THE CRIME. And if there is a doubt that Daniel was
there present, then there is also that big doubt when he identified the three
accused as the killers.
|
8:30 p.m.
of
June 17, 2000
|
Based on the assertion of Daniel Cadacio,
Emalyn Cadacio was with her inside the house around this time.
Emalyn
Cadacio did not corroborate this claim of Daniel
Cadacio that he and she were praying inside their house with their two
children.
She did not say whether the prayer took
place.
She did not mention whether there was
indeed a sound of the gunshot that was heard while they were praying as
claimed by husband Daniel.
Emalyn did not testify whether Daniel
indeed went out of their house when that alleged gunshot sound was heard.
|
Daniel
Cadacio said he was inside his house praying
along with his wife Emalyn Cadacio and with their two children.
While
praying, Daniel Cadacio said he heard the sound
of a gunshot and he went out of the house.
While outside
Daniel’s house, Daniel saw his father Melencio Sr. standing near the window
of the kitchen of the house of Melencio Sr. and Cresencia.
Daniel never
said that he tried to confront the persons in front of his father at this
point.
Daniel Cadacio
then testified that he heard his father say “Ano ba ang atraso namin sa inyo bakit ginaganito nyo kami?”
After a
ten-minute recess and drinking water, Daniel told the trial court that he then heard one of the attackers
say: “Mabait ka naman ha.”
After that,
Daniel said that all the attackers laughed.
After the
laughing, Daniel said that his father was shot. (This
was the second gunshot according to Daniel). Daniel said he did not know the person who
shot his father and that he would know this person if he sees this person
again. (Take note that he named the man who shot during the continuation of
the direct-exam and he said that the one who shot was accused Donato
Maghibon.)
Daniel
vacillated on who shot his father. In
his cross-examination, he said he did not know the name of the person who
shot his father, maintaining only that he could recognize the shooter if he
would see the shooter again.
Daniel said
that he then saw his father pushed back on the wall and clutching the left
hand on the right part of the chest.
Thereafter,
Daniel said he saw blood on his father that he saw through a fluorescent
lamp.
After this, Daniel
said that accused Ernesto Samson
and another man he did not know pulled up his father to a standing position.
At this
juncture, Daniel said that Ernesto Samson hit his father with round piece of
wood on the face and his father fell to the ground.
Then Daniel
changed the name Ernesto Samson as Zandro Ascaño as the one who smashed a
round piece of wood on the face of his father.
Then Daniel
said that he saw Ernesto Samson pull out a knife and repeatedly stabbed his
father in the face.
At this point,
Daniel said he cannot stand what he saw and he ran to the scene to help but
he was shot, causing him to run away.
In
all, Daniel Cadacio stated there were three gunshots. The first while they were praying. The second was when his father was shot. The third was when he was shot at when he
tried to run to the rescue.
This
is contrary to statement of Mark Joseph during the cross-examination that
THERE WAS ONLY ONE GUNSHOT.
|
Mark
Joseph Cadacio testified that around this time,
he was with his grandmother Cresencia inside her bedroom in the house of the
grandparents that are separate but adjacent to the house of Daniel Cadacio.
Around
this time, Mark Joseph claimed he and his
grandmother Cresencia heard a sound of the gunshot.
As
they heard the gunshot, Mark Joseph claimed that he and
his grandma Cresencia Cadacio rose from their bed and they went out of the
bedroom.
Without
saying of any delay in time, Mark Joseph
said that while he and his grandma Cresencia were near the door (which door
he did not say), five men suddenly barged inside.
Mark Joseph said that his grandmother
then stepped back in reaction to the five men’s appearance.
Mark Joseph then said that when his lola
was near the bench she was suddenly struck with a piece of wood by accused
Zandro Ascaño.
Mark Joseph said he saw his grandma
Cresencia was hit on the back of her head and she fell to the floor and saw
her bloodied.
At this point, Mark Joseph claimed he ran
outside the house of his grandma.
Mark Joseph said he ran to the house of
his uncle Daniel Cadacio.
Contrary to Daniel Cadacio’s claim there
where three gunshots, Mark Joseph said in a categorical manner that THERE WAS ONLY ONE GUNSHOT.
|
|
|
THIRD
STAGE
There is now a
big disparity between HOW DANIEL AND MARK JOSEPH MET for the first time after
the killing.
This disparity
is not minor.
This is
material because it has already been established, or that a BIG DOUBT is
created, that Daniel and Mark Joseph did not meet each other after the
killings.
And if they did
not meet each other,
|
When Daniel and Mark Joseph Met
|
Emalyn Cadacio did not testify about the
alleged incidents that occurred before, during and after Daniel and Mark
Joseph met outside the houses.
|
Daniel Cadacio said that when he was shot
at, he ran away and hid in the bushes near his house.
While he was hiding, Daniel said he saw
his nephew Mark Joseph coming from the house of his parents and Mark Joseph
was running to the direction where Daniel was hiding.
Daniel said that he then grabbed Mark
Joseph and both of them got inside his house.
Then Daniel said he asked his nephew if
the latter was hurt or injured, the latter said he was not injured.
Thereafter,
|
Mark Joseph Cadacio said that when he was
outside the house of his grandma Cresencia, he saw his grandpa Melencio Sr.
sprawled just outside the house.
Mark Joseph Cadacio said when he was
outside the house he saw no other person.
He just said he went directly to the house of his uncle Daniel
Cadacio.
Mark
|
|
|
then there is
also a big doubt whether Daniel and Mark Joseph were indeed there at the
crime scenes while the crimes were happening.
And if there is
now a big doubt whether Daniel and Mark Joseph were there present, it becomes
also a big doubt to believe in their stories describing how the incidents
occurred and how they identified only three of the five alleged killers.
|
|
|
Daniel said that his nephew told him that
Cresencia was already dead.
|
Joseph said in categorical manner that
while outside the house of his grandpa, he did not notice the presence of his
uncle Daniel Cadacio.
Mark Joseph did not say he was grabbed by
his uncle Daniel Cadacio.
|
|
|
FOURTH
STAGE
Comparing the
statements of Daniel Cadacio and Mark Joseph and Emalyn, material disparities
showed.
The material
differences occurred in how Daniel went out of the house supposedly to seek
help from the barangay.
Daniel said he
went out through the window.
Emalyn said she
closed the door as soon as Daniel went out.
Mark Joseph did
not say how or indicate how his uncle Daniel went out of the house.
These
disparities created doubt whether Daniel Cadacio, Mark Joseph and Emalyn
Cadacio were indeed inside the house.
If there is
doubt that they were inside the house, there is also a doubt whether the
three were present in the crime scenes when the crimes occurred.
|
Getting inside the house of Daniel
Cadacio
|
Emalyn Cadacio said that her husband came
back to their house with Mark Joseph, who was already bloodied.
She said that her husband went out of
their house to seek help from the barangay.
She said that when her husband went out,
she closed the door. (This suggests
that her husband went out through the door.)
She said that while she was closing the
door, she heard a gunshot.
|
Daniel Cadacio said he grabbed his nephew
Mark Joseph and brought the kid to his house.
There inside his house, he asked Mark
Joseph whether the latter was injured.
Daniel said that Mark Joseph said he was
not injured but that the boy told him that Cresencia was already dead.
Thereafter, Daniel said he jumped out of
the window of the house to seek help from Barangay Chairman Ferdinand Orieta.
Daniel said he did not use their door
because he was afraid he might be seen.
Daniel said he was able to reach the
barangay chairman.
|
Mark Joseph Cadacio said during his
cross-exam that he went directly into the inside of the house of his uncle
Daniel.
Mark Joseph said he did not see his uncle
Daniel while Mark was still outside the house.
Mark said he saw his uncle Daniel for the
first time when he was inside his uncle’s house.
Mark said he told his uncle Daniel that
his grandpa was already lying dead in front of the house of the grandpa.
Mark Joseph did not say about his
grandma.
Mark said his uncle Daniel went out of
the house. He did not say how his
uncle got out of the house.
|
|
|
FIFTH
STAGE
In this story
of Emalyn, it is incredible to believe that she was a superwoman to have the
courage to open the window after having been apprised that her in-laws were
already killed and the killers were still presumably still there.
Even Mark
Joseph, who was presumed to be with her after Daniel left, said he did not
know about the killing of Domingo Ramos.
THEN THE TRIAL
COURT ACQUITTED THE ACCUSED ON THE DEATH OF DOMINGO RAMOS FOR INSUFFICIENCY
OF EVIDENCE.
This means that
the trial court did not believe in the stories of Emalyn Cadacio.
And if the
trial court did not believe in the story of Emalyn, why did the trial court
believed in the stories of Daniel Cadacio and Mark Joseph Cadacio despite the
big disparities presented above?
|
When Daniel Cadacio already left
the house
|
Emalyn said that when Daniel left, she
heard a gunshot and heard a shout saying “aray” and a shout for help.
Emalyn said that she then opened the
window of her house.
Emalyn said that when she opened the
window, she saw some people and two of these were holding Ramos.
Emalyn added that while two of the five
men were holding Ramos, one of the three stabbed Ramos in the body.
She said it was around 8:30 p.m. of June
17, 2000. (Another conflict of time as against the claims of Daniel and Mark
Joseph.)
She said that she then closed the window.
She added she recognized three of the
five as Ernesto Samson, Alexander Ascaño and Donato Maghibon.
Like Daniel and Mark, she offered the
same story that she can identify the two others if seen again.
|
|
Mark Joseph said he did not know about
the killing of Domingo Ramos.
|
|
|
SIXTH
STAGE
Examining the
testimonies of Daniel Cadacio on this part shows that it is doubtful whether
it occurred that barangay officials arrived at the house of the victims.
The reasons
are: (1) that Emalyn Cadacio did not testify on this; (2) that Mark Joseph
did not testify on this; (3) that there is no statement that the barangay
officials caused the investigations to start right away; and (4) the barangay officials did not
cause a funeral parlor to fix the dead.
One more reason
is that Daniel Cadacio did not present to the court Chairman Orieta or any of
these barangay officials he was talking about.
|
When Daniel Cadacio reached the Barangay
and arrived at the houses of the
victims
|
Emalyn Cadacio did not testify about the
coming of the barangay officials.
This means that she was not there.
|
Daniel Cadacio claimed that when he
reached the barangay chairman, Daniel told the stories to Chairman Orieta.
Daniel then said that the chairman
instructed one tanod to call the
barangay councilors and tanods.
Daniel then said that the barangay
kagawads and Chairman Orieta went to their house.
Daniel said that upon arriving at their houses,
he saw his father sprawled outside the house of the old man. He said he also saw his mother sprawled in
the sala of his parents’ house.
Daniel also said that he then went wild
or “nagwala” after seeing what happened.
After that, Daniel said that the chairman
brought him to the house of Mayor Andy Dangeros.
Daniel did not say whether he caused a
funeral parlor or an investigation to be done right away.
Daniel did not say whether the barangay
officials caused the investigations to be done right away and caused the
funeral parlor to fix the dead.
|
Mark Joseph Cadacio did not testify about
this phase of the story.
This means that Mark Joseph was not there
present.
|
|
|
SEVENTH
STAGE
It is very
clear here that Daniel Cadacio vacillated as to whether he told the mayor the
events that took place in the killings committed against his father and
mother.
This
inconsistency is too material to be ignored.
The fact that
he cannot tell the stories means Daniel was not present when his father and
mother was killed.
It is also
improbable for the mayor to have not inquired from him how the incidents
occurred as Daniel witnessed. This is
because the natural habit of life of any person to be initially told of a
shocking incident is to inquire further.
The fact that Daniel
did not present the mayor to prove that he indeed met with the mayor is a
circumstance that suggests that Daniel is hiding the truth or falsity of that
claimed fact.
|
Meeting
with the
mayor
|
|
Daniel Cadacio said he met with Mayor
Andy Dangeros of Sablayan at the latter’s house.
There, Daniel Cadacio said he told the
stories about the killings.
Then Daniel said that the mayor told him
to rest in the meantime and they set the meeting for the police headquarters
the next day.
But during his cross-examination, Daniel
said he was inside the residence of Mayor Dangeros but he did not tell the
mayor how his parents and Ramos were killed and he did not tell the mayor who
killed his parents and Ramos.
In the same cross-examination, Daniel
said that the mayor also did not ask him about the murders.
|
|
|
|
EIGHTH
STAGE
What is
incredible in this stage of the claims of Daniel Cadacio is that he disclosed
it took him the next day for him to gather the dead bodies of his parents and
Domingo Ramos.
|
At the police station the next day
(June 18, 2000)
|
Emalyn Cadacio did not testify about
this.
|
Daniel Cadacio claimed that he was at the
police headquarters the next day.
Daniel Cadacio said that at the police
station, he gave his statements to the police.
Daniel Cadacio said that he signed his
statements without reading because he was told by the police to sign it
immediately because they would go out immediately to arrest the suspects.
Daniel Cadacio said he was not able to
get a copy of his sworn statements because after the burial of his parents
Daniel did not return because of the death threats.
Daniel Cadacio said that only after his
investigation with the police that Daniel returned to the scene of the crime
and only then that they gathered the bodies of the dead.
|
||
FIRST STAGE
Comments of the accused
on conflicts of stories about
the beginning of the incident
It
is noticed from the testimonies of the prosecution at the start that both
Daniel Cadacio and Mark Joseph Cadacio heard the gunshot at around the same
time of 8:30 p.m. of June 17, 2000.
Both
Daniel and Mark Joseph testified what occurred step by step with their
testimonies giving impression that each step occurred one after the other
without any delay.
On
the part of Daniel Cadacio, his narration gives impression that all the events
in a series must have been completed in ten minutes or so in the act of killing
Melencio Sr. before the next killing occurred.
And
if the same person who assaulted Mr. Melencio Cadacio Sr. were the same persons
who assaulted Mrs. Cresencia Cadacio, there must first be an interval of 10
minutes or so because the same attackers can get inside the house of Cresencia
and kill Cresencia.
But
judging on the stories of Mark Joseph Cadacio, there was no delay in time when
the sequence of events took place one after another.
So
that this question arises: How could
this happen that the events in the eyes of Mark Joseph and the events in the
eyes of Daniel almost occurred at the same time?
It
is to be noted that Mark Joseph heard the gunshot at 8:30 p.m. while Daniel said
he heard the first gunshot at 8:30 p.m. also.
So
that in point of time, there is now a doubt on the stories of Mark Joseph and
Daniel.
These are highly improbable if gauged
against normal habits of life.
IF
MARK JOSEPH WAS RIGHT THERE AT THE SCENE OF THE KILLING, why was he not hurt by
the brutal killers?
If
he testified that it was illuminated enough inside the house of Cresencia, it
was improbable that he was not seen by the killers. For sure, there is no doubt that if indeed
Mark Joseph Cadacio was there present, HE
MUST HAVE BEEN HURT ALSO BY THE KILLERS.
And
the fact Mark Joseph was not even touched makes it incredible to believe in
Mark Joseph’s claim that he was there present.
The
prosecution did not present evidence how it could happen that the boy was not
killed.
So
that it is easy to see: These claims of
Mark Joseph that are inconsistent with normal habits of life go to the issue of
WHETHER OR NOT MARK JOSEPH WAS THERE
PRESENT WHEN HIS GRANDMA WAS BEING KILLED.
And
when it is doubtful that Mark Joseph was indeed present, his act of identifying
the accused becomes doubtful.
As
such, the issue is material to whether or not it was the accused who killed the
grandma.
COINCIDING circumstance is that Mark
Joseph was only about nine (9) years old
when he said he witnessed the crime killing his grandmother.
There is even a doubt whether a testimony
of a nine-year-old can be trusted.
When he testified, he was 14 years old.
ON THE PART OF DANIEL CADACIO, his
testimonies as to the initial phase of the incidents are also not consistent
with habits of life.
First,
his wife Emalyn could have testified beginning from the time they were praying
inside the house if indeed it were true that Daniel was praying with his wife
Emalyn and two children when he heard a sound of a gunshot.
THE FACT REMAINS that
Emalyn did not begin her testimony from the alleged time of prayer.
A
natural witness like her in that situation, if true, would most likely begin
her testimony from the occurrence of a significant event like the time of
prayer when the gunshot occurred. And
she should do so because she did not contradict her husband’s testimonies that
both of them and their children were praying at 8:30 p.m. when the gunshot was
heard.
To
the contrary, Emalyn began her testimony on the event when allegedly Mark
Joseph Cadacio and Daniel Cadacio got inside their house.
ADDITIONALLY,
it is improbable for Daniel to have the heart of watching intently without
blinking his eyes while the brutal scene of killing his father was taking
place.
But
the testimonies of Daniel Cadacio showed as if he was a man of steel nerves
that he testified as if he saw every turn of each event, sequence by sequence. As if he had the capability to watch the
brutal killing of his father step by step.
It
is taken of judicial notice that no man can afford to see every turn of event
while his father is being killed. To say
it happened merits a discharge of the obligation to overturn the presumption.
And
if Daniel indeed had a heart and nerves of steel, why is it that he did not run
to the rescue from the first sight of his father just before the alleged
shooting?
The
fact that Daniel did not intervene while his father was still alive added to
the improbable.
While
no one can say how each man reacts to a stimulus, the probability of a common
reaction becomes higher when the stimulus consists of brutal sight by one of
his father being killed.
More than half of men similarly
situated will right away run to the rescue of his father upon seeing his father
being assaulted.
So
that there was now a need for Daniel to explain why he was such a different son
that he did not run to the rescue of his father. Daniel
never gave explanation why he never rescued his father.
ANOTHER IMPROBABLE THING
is that Daniel Cadacio said he did not know the name of the person who shot his
father, saying that Daniel could recognize the shooter if he sees the person
again.
This
is improbable because during the continuance of his direct examination, he
named the shooter as accused DONATO MAGHIBON.
This
is improbable because Donato Maghibon had been present in all the hearings,
from the first time Daniel sat on the witness stand until such time of the
continuance of his direct examination.
But
during his cross-examination, Daniel again repeated that he did not know the
person who actually shot his father, vacillating that he would recognize the
shooter once he sees the shooter again.
This
is too much. The trial court did not notice this?
The
fact that Daniel Cadacio vacillated diametrically as to the issue of who
actually shot his father means only one thing: THAT HE WAS NOT THERE PRESENT
WHEN HIS FATHER WAS SHOT.
Another
thing that added to the improbability is the fact that all witnesses of the
prosecution named there were five killers. However, they can only name three
persons: Ernesto Samson, Zandro Ascaño and Donato Maghibon.
The
other big disparity is Mark Joseph who categorically stated during his
cross-examination that THERE WAS ONLY ONE GUNSHOT as against his uncle’s claim
that there were three gunshots.
Summing
up the established facts (1) that HIS
WIFE never testified on the events that took place from the time of prayer
up to the time she claimed to have seen her nephew Mark Joseph and husband
coming inside their house, (2) that Daniel did not even run to the rescue just
before his father was shot, (3) that Daniel said at first that he did not know
who shot his father but that he can identify the shooter if he sees the shooter
once again, and only to say during the continuation of his direct testimonies
that the shooter was Donato Maghibon yet Donato Maghibon has been present in
all hearings from the time Daniel started his testimonies, and saying again in
the cross-examination that he did not know the shooter, (4) that Mark Joseph
categorically stated in his cross-examination that there was only one gunshot
as against Daniel Cadacio’s claim there were three gunshots, and (5) that he
and all other witnesses said there were five killers but they only identified
the three (Ernesto Samson, Zandro Ascaño
and Donato Maghibon), THIS GAVE A BIG DOUBT WHETHER DANIEL WAS INDEED
THERE PRESENT TO WITNESS THE CRIME.
And
if there is a doubt that Daniel was there present, then there is also that big
doubt whether he was telling the truth when he identified the three accused as
the killers.
On these scores alone, acquittal was
clear.
Non-occurrence of meeting
between Mark Joseph and
Daniel Cadacio outside the houses
puts another big doubt on witnesses
There is now a big disparity between the
accounts of Daniel and the accounts of Mark Joseph on HOW DANIEL AND MARK
JOSEPH MET for the first time after the killing.
This disparity is not minor.
This
disparity is material because it has already been established, or that a BIG
DOUBT is created, that Daniel and Mark Joseph did not meet each other after the
killings.
And
if they did not meet each other, then there is also a big doubt whether Daniel
and Mark Joseph were indeed there at the crime scenes while the crimes were
happening.
And
if there is now a big doubt whether Daniel and Mark Joseph were there present,
it becomes also a big doubt to believe in their stories describing how the
incidents occurred and how and why they identified only three of the five
alleged killers.
The
non-occurrence of the meeting between Daniel and his nephew is marked by the
conflicting testimonies of the two.
Daniel said he grabbed his nephew while the nephew was running away from
the house of the grandparents. But Mark
Joseph said he did not see Daniel at any time while Mark Joseph was still
outside the houses running toward the house of Danie.
On getting out the house
Comparing
the statements of Daniel Cadacio and Mark Joseph and Emalyn, material
disparities showed.
The
material differences occurred in how Daniel went out of the house supposedly to
seek help from the barangay.
Daniel
said he went out through the window.
Emalyn
said she closed the door as soon as Daniel went out.
Mark
Joseph did not say how or indicate how his uncle Daniel went out of the house.
These
disparities created doubt whether Daniel Cadacio, Mark Joseph and Emalyn
Cadacio were indeed inside the house at the time of the occurrence of the
crimes.
If
there is doubt that they were inside the house, there is also a doubt whether
the three were present in the crime scenes when the crimes occurred.
As
such, there is also a doubt whether they were telling the truth when they
identified the accused as the killers.
When Daniel left the house
In
this story of Emalyn, it is incredible to believe that she was a superwoman to
have the courage to open the window after having been apprised that her in-laws
were already killed and the killers were still presumably still there outside
her house.
Even
Mark Joseph, who was presumed to be with her after Daniel left, said he did not
know about the killing of Domingo Ramos.
THEN
THE TRIAL COURT ACQUITTED THE ACCUSED ON THE DEATH OF DOMINGO RAMOS FOR
INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.
This
means that the trial court did not believe in the stories of Emalyn Cadacio.
And
if the trial court did not believe in the story of Emalyn, why did the trial
court believed in the stories of Daniel Cadacio and Mark Joseph Cadacio despite
the big disparities presented above?
When Daniel reached the barangay
and when they arrived at the houses
of the victims
Examining
the testimonies of Daniel Cadacio on this part shows that it is doubtful
whether it occurred that he reached the house of the barangay chairman and that
the barangay officials arrived at the house of the victims.
The
reasons are: (1) that Emalyn Cadacio did not testify on this; (2) that Mark
Joseph did not testify on this; (3) that there is no statement that the
barangay officials caused the investigations to start right away; (4) the
barangay officials did not cause a funeral parlor to fix the dead; and (5) that
no policemen arrived that night.
One big reason is HE DID NOT PRESENT
CHAIRMAN ORIETA OR ANY OF THESE BARANGAY OFFICIALS to testify their claimed
arrival at the house of the victims that night when crimes occurred.
Meeting with the mayor
at the mayor’s house
It
is very clear here that Daniel Cadacio vacillated as to whether he told the
mayor about the events that took place in the killings committed against his
father and mother and Domingo Ramos.
This
inconsistency is too material to be ignored.
The
fact that he cannot tell the stories to the mayor as he claimed means Daniel
was not present when his father and mother was killed.
It
is also improbable for the mayor to have not inquired from him how the
incidents occurred as Daniel witnessed. This is because the natural habit of life of
any person to be initially told of a shocking incident is to inquire further.
The
fact that Daniel did not present the mayor to prove that he indeed met with the
mayor is a circumstance that suggests that Daniel is hiding the truth or
falsity of that claimed fact.
At the police station: Repeating the lie on who shot
his father; Gathering of dead bodies the next day
What
is incredible in this stage of the claims of Daniel Cadacio is that he
disclosed it took him the next day for him to gather the dead bodies of his
parents and Domingo Ramos.
Additionally,
Daniel Cadacio repeated in his cross-examination that he did not know the
person who shot his father.
In addition to the above-cited
substantial inconsistencies stated one by one above, the accused adopt as part
of this Reply Brief all the inconsistencies and annotations stated in the
Appellants’ Brief.
The
Conclusion
Thus,
it is very clear now that with these substantial inconsistencies and
testimonies that betrayed the falsification on the part of the witnesses of the
prosecution acquittal is in order.
This
brief cites in particular the following substantive inconsistencies:
1. The
vacillation by Daniel Cadacio as to whether he knew the person who shot his
father;
2. The
insistence of Mark Joseph Cadacio that there was only one gunshot as against
the claim of Daniel Cadacio that there were three gunshots;
3. The
high improbability for the claim of Mark Joseph Cadacio to happen that he was
not touched by the killers despite the fact that he claimed he was right at the
scene when his grandmother Cresencia was being killed;
4. The
collision of the claims of Daniel Cadacio that he grabbed his nephew Mark
Joseph Cadacio while the latter was running to Daniel’s house as against the
claims of Mark Joseph Cadacio that he did not see his uncle Daniel Cadacio
outside the house of the grandparents and outside the house of Daniel Cadacio
while the child was running to the house of Daniel;
5. The
high improbability for the claim of Daniel Cadacio to happen that they gathered
the bodies of the dead only the next day;
6. The
vacillation in the claims of Daniel Cadacio about whether he told the mayor the
events that occurred when his parents and Domingo Ramos were killed;
7. The
high improbability to happen that the barangay officials did not do anything to
investigate the crimes or to report to the police the incident right after
these officials went to the house where the crimes occurred, considering there
was no policemen who arrived in the crime scene that night;
8. The
fact that Emalyn Cadacio did not testify to corroborate the claims of Daniel
Cadacio as to his claims what happened from the time he and his wife prayed
that night at 8:30 p.m. of June 17, 2000 until the time that Daniel and Mark
Joseph were already inside the house of Daniel;
9. The
fact that the trial court did not believe in the testimonies of Emalyn Cadacio
with respect to the testimonies on how Domingo Ramos was killed; and
10.
The fact that the totality of the
circumstances, which included the fact that there were neighbors and that the
nearest neighbor was the house of Daniel Cadacio, is consistent with the theory
that it is possible that the killers
knew there was nobody present at the house of Daniel Cadacio that night or
that the killing was inside job.
Acquit
the appellants.
The Prayer
ALL
TOLD, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court to acquit all the
accused on the ground of utter lack of evidence. Other relief and remedies just and equitable
under the premises are likewise prayed for.
April 16, 2012.
RENTA PE CAUSING SABARRE CASTRO & ASSOCIATES
Mailing Address:
Unit 1, No. 2368 Leon Guinto St. corner JB Roxas St., Malate, Manilaa
Emails: totocausing@yahoo.com,
berteni.causing@gmail.com; Tel:
3105521
By:
DERVIN V. CASTRO
IBP No. 904357 / Oct. 2012 up to Dec. 2014
PTR No. 1418627 / January 7, 2013
Roll No. 53624 / MCLE No. IV-0007336 issued
August 10, 2012
BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING
IBP No. 876498 / Manila IV / 10-01-2013
PTR No. 1435314 / Manila / 10-01-2013
Roll No. 60944 / MCLE No. IV -0007338 /
08-10-2012
Notarial Comm. No. 2012-269 / Until Dec. 31, 2013
EXPLANATION
Lack of manpower compelled the service
of the copy to the Office of the Solicitor General, the RTC of Quezon City,
Branch 219 and Atty. Rolando Zubiri by
registered mail.
BERTENI C. CAUSING
Cc:
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
134
Amorsolo St., Makati 1229
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 219
Hall of
Justice, City Hall Compound, Elliptical Circle, Quezon City
ATTY. ROLANDO V. ZUBIRI
6-A B.
Gonzaga St.,
Xavierville Subd., Phase 1, 1100, Quezon City
Comments