Ellah Joy Case - Update

[Markham]

Today the Defence team issued the following Press Release as a result of the publication of wholly-inaccurate accounts two private prosecutors gave to reporters at the end of Monday's hearing:

BELLA SANTOS: Prosecution misleading the Press and Public

CEBU June 21, 2012: At the end of last Monday's session of Bella Santos' Bail Hearing, certain members of the Prosecuting team gave wholly inaccurate accounts of that morning's proceedings which, due to their seriousness, the Defense team can not allow to stand unchallenged and uncorrected.

Tuesday's editions of the Cebu press reported that private prosecutors told reporters that the testimony of nine year-old Cherilyn Repollo established that Santos and her co-accused Ian Charles Griffiths were seen outside the school on the day Pique disappeared and that she identified both of the accused during her testimony in court.

Their statements are absolutely and completely untrue.

Cherilyn Repollo actually testified that she was approached by a foreigner and his Filipino companion outside her school in Colon, Naga on the afternoon that Ellah Joy was allegedly abducted from outside her school in Calajoan, Minglanilla some 15 kilometres distant. Furthermore, this witness described the male driver as being a “black man” which, unfortunately for the private and public prosecutors bears no relationship to the co-accused Ian Charles Griffiths who is light-skinned and of fair complexion. Also witness Repollo failed to identify Ian Griffiths from the sheet of photographs presented to her, one of which bore his likeness and she also failed to correctly identify the colour of the Pajero allegedly used.

In a rare statement from his Hampshire (UK) home, Ian Griffiths said: “I am truly disappointed by the continuous stream of lies being promulgated by the Cebu Prosecutors who seek to bolster their own morale and standing even though they must be aware that they are fast losing this case. Not only are they deceiving themselves but also senior public officials, including the Governor, and of course, the public at large. They are also guilty of perpetrating a great disservice to a little girl, whom I've never met, Ellah Joy Pique. Given their attitude and behaviour it is little wonder that ordinary Filipinos have such little faith in their justice system.”

The Defense team strenuously denies that it has admitted the testimonies of Cherilyn Repollo and Richard Bansuan – as reported in Tuesday's edition of Sun Star Cebu - since that implies that their testimonies were not or will not be closely tested in cross-examination. What the defense admitted are the affidavits of 1] Josito Q. Pezez dated March 9, 2011, 2], Wilma C. Oralde dated March 9, 2011, and 3] SPO2 Marcelo T. Quevedo Jr. dated March 9, 2011, which neither establish culpability nor innocence upon any and/or both accused. Also, the ABS-CBN afternoon news report on June 18, 2012 is incorrect and false since child witness Repollo never testified that she saw Bella abducted Ellah Joy. Those who are interested may scrutinize the transcript of stenographic notes [TSN] for transparency and accuracy purposes.[ENDS]

---

The private prosecutors concerned were able to hoodwink reporters regarding the testimony of nine year old Cherilyn Repollo because her testimony was heard in the Judge's Chambers with only two counsel from each side.

[Steve & Myrlita]

Sounds very close to proscecutorial misconduct and may be grounds for a mistrial.

[Markham]

Sounds very close to proscecutorial misconduct and may be grounds for a mistrial.

Unfortunately this trial is beset with such issues. They include two instances (with two witnesses) where a certain private prosecutor handed his witness a sheet of photographs and asked the witness to identify the male driver. Believe it or not, one of the photographs (that of the co-accused) had been encircled to ensure correct identification. The attorney also obtained the identification of the Pajero by using a photo similarly marked.

[Steve & Myrlita]

Sounds very close to proscecutorial misconduct and may be grounds for a mistrial.

Unfortunately this trial is beset with such issues. They include two instances (with two witnesses) where a certain private prosecutor handed his witness a sheet of photographs and asked the witness to identify the male driver. Believe it or not, one of the photographs (that of the co-accused) had been encircled to ensure correct identification. The attorney also obtained the identification of the Pajero by using a photo similarly marked.

I can guarantee that if this trial was in the US it would have been a mistrial and the DA's office would be on the carpet.

[Old55]

It's more fun in da Philippines. However we don't know the facts it could be they are guilty but the whole thing stinks of a witch hunt.

[MikeB]

However we don't know the facts it could be they are guilty

They were identified by paid witnesses who saw them at night from some distance, that is the "fact". There is no other admissible evidence. Yes, they could be guilty, so could many thousands of others.

[Markham]

By making detailed statements to the press which included elements of testimony, the private prosecutors concerned have, yet again, broken the Judge's "no reporting" rule made when this hearing commenced towards the end of November last year.

[Markham]

However we don't know the facts it could be they are guilty

They were identified by paid witnesses who saw them at night from some distance, that is the "fact". There is no other admissible evidence. Yes, they could be guilty, so could many thousands of others.

If you're referring to the unfinished testimony of Richard Bansuan, then be prepared to be surprised when he is cross-examined on July 23 ;)

[Garpo]

I don't really give much credibility to either the defense lawyers or a private prosecutor. A private prosecutor can not even try a murder case in the Philippines. They usually are used to work with and assist the investigation and it is also often part of their job to keep media focus on a case.

I doubt that either of these two private prosecutors was even in the Judges chambers where the witnesses gave their testimony. That would make anything they say about it as hearsay and there is a very good reason that hearsay evidence is usually not excepted or much credibility put on it.

You also have the problem with the media actually reporting the truth as to what was said. The more sensation the media can make a story or report the better they look.

At this point in this case I am not even sure I would even believe a court transcript of the hearings.

[Markham]

I don't really give much credibility to either the defense lawyers or a private prosecutor. A private prosecutor can not even try a murder case in the Philippines. They usually are used to work with and assist the investigation and it is also often part of their job to keep media focus on a case.

I doubt that either of these two private prosecutors was even in the Judges chambers where the witnesses gave their testimony. That would make anything they say about it as hearsay and there is a very good reason that hearsay evidence is usually not excepted or much credibility put on it.

You also have the problem with the media actually reporting the truth as to what was said. The more sensation the media can make a story or report the better they look.

At this point in this case I am not even sure I would even believe a court transcript of the hearings.

I don't know where you're getting your information but it is completely wrong. Private prosecutors can litigate in any criminal case provided the State Prosecutor agrees and supervises the private prosecutors. The State Prosecutors are not litigating in this case at all, it is all being done by lawyers from the Children's Legal Bureau and one representing the Pique family. This was all agreed some weeks before the Bail Hearing started.

I know for a certain fact that both private prosecutors were in the Judge's Chambers as was a State Prosecutor (as supervisor). The child witness was examined by a (female) lawyer from the Children's Legal Bureau. Only the child witness gave evidence in Chambers. The adult witness gave his testimony in open court.

As for what was said to the press, only the private prosecutors made (detailed) statements which were overheard by the Court Observer employed by the Defence team and the press accurately reported what they said. The Defence team would certainly not issue a Press Release which basically accuses the opposing legal team of lying unless that is what happened.

You can of course dismiss both the Press Release and this reply as Defence propaganda if you wish, but it is the truth.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Markham