Tuesday, April 16, 2013

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

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


Post a Comment

Amazon Contextual Product Ads

MAN OF IMPOSSIBLE MISSION