Ellah Joy Case - Update

[Old55]

Mark,

What you have posted is of interest to many of us. :cheersty: :tiphat:

You should know there would be some that would question an unnamed court observer or what you say as facts. In my opinion you have provided an interesting and valuable look at this train wreck of a case. It's only normal not a bad thing and not an attack on you.

I have strong feelings to do with the case myself but keep them more or less to myself because I just dont know the facts. I do know there is little real justice in Philippines.

We know for a FACT many many times the local and national government, police and newspapers lie, twist and overlook facts. :bash: :th_unfair: It's more fun in da Philippines.

[i am bob]

Mark - I appreciate the information you have given us and hope that you will continue. I have long been an advocate for those facing trial on "slim" evidence and this one has gotten my attention as well. I may be wrong but I have the sense that you are personally involved in this case in some manner... May I ask if this is so and in what manner? Perhaps this might help others to understand better...

In any case, I personally do hope that you will continue to keep us informed on the progression of this trial.

[Jollygoodfellow]

If you do in fact have a member of the defense team giving you information then I would believe that you should give the name of the person that is giving you that information that you report as facts. I would suggest that you also use unedited quotes.

These are requirements of this Forum? Fine, then as you are a Moderator, kindly delete this entire thread and I won't bother posting here ever again.

Mark they are not the requirements of this forum and you should know that a moderator is also member who has an opinion just like anyone else and I'm sure you know that there are not many forums where moderators can delete threads so it wont be happening.

[FlyAway]

Does the Philippines use a "Court Reporter", the person that uses the dictation machine to type in every word spoken in a court?

Now I would consider that to be the best way to evaluate and report information. Court Reporters here have no problem giving someone a transcript. For a fee of course.

[Markham]

You should know there would be some that would question an unnamed court observer or what you say as facts. In my opinion you have provided an interesting and valuable look at this train wreck of a case. It's only normal not a bad thing and not an attack on you.

The Court Observer is a Filipino final year law student employed by the Defence to be another pair of eyes and ears in court. He may not appreciate being identified by name so I won't be doing that. His job is to record the unsaid and from that we get a much clearer picture of what took place.

I may be wrong but I have the sense that you are personally involved in this case in some manner... May I ask if this is so and in what manner?

I think I have answered that in a reply to a question posed by Lee around a year ago. In case you missed it, I am not a lawyer but I do have a part to play in the two nation defence team. I am somewhat restricted in what I can say in that regard.

Mark they are not the requirements of this forum and you should know that a moderator is also member who has an opinion just like anyone else and I'm sure you know that there are not many forums where moderators can delete threads so it wont be happening.

I appreciate that Tom however his views are well-rehearsed and have been a key feature of his posts about this case for quite a while. Around a year ago he told us that he didn't believe a word anyone says about this case and that opinion has been aired some four times in this thread. I respect his skepticism but that's his sole contribution and, as such, is overstated.

---

If you're going to be in Cebu on July 23 and you have any interest in this case, then you really should attend the hearing which is scheduled to start around 8.30am. It promises to be a really rather exciting session and is likely to be the pivotal point in this case. Richard Bansuan will be closely cross-examined on his very detailed testimony. Now he is one of the only two witnesses the prosecution has to hang the charges of murder against Ian Griffiths and Bella Santos.

The other witness is his girlfriend Ligaya Escultos and it is she who was originally listed as a prosecution witness; as she and Bansuan were together on the night in question - they were riding a motorcycle at the time - they made joint affidavits and therefore only one needed to be called to testify. However Escultos has "done a runner" and is no longer on Cebu because she doesn't want to appear in court. And with good reason. Following her last appearance at an evidential hearing for this case last year, she was cited for committing Perjury.

So Bansuan was called in her place. Having read both of their joint affidavits, I can tell you that they contain 6 or 7 instances of provable factual inaccuracies all of which Bansuan described in minute detail in court. As he has related those details in court, the Defence is able to tackle each in turn and will destroy his credibility in a far more devasting way than we have seen with earlier witnesses.

The prosecution has made two BIG mistakes, in my opinion. Firsty, it did not check the factual accuracy of Bansuan's and Escultos' affidavits and, secondly, the private prosecutor allowed Bansuan to describe "things" in minute detail thereby compounding his lies.

At the end of last Monday's hearing, one of the private prosecutors told the press that they would be presenting Ligaya Escultos as an additional witness to reinforce the account provided by her boyfriend and thus bolster the State's case. That of course assumes he can locate her and persuade her to return to Cebu neither of which are certain propositions. Having done so, he may then find that she is either a hostile witness - in that she refuses to answer questions to avoid possible Perjury charges - or she effectively becomes a witness for the defence by denying Bansuan's account completely and give the court a true account of what she and Bansuan did and saw that night.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Markham

[Markham]

Does the Philippines use a "Court Reporter", the person that uses the dictation machine to type in every word spoken in a court?

Now I would consider that to be the best way to evaluate and report information. Court Reporters here have no problem giving someone a transcript. For a fee of course.

As I understand it, the Cebu City courts use stenographers who do have recording machines and they also take notes - for example, to identify the names of each of the speakers. Transcripts are available, for a fee, usually two or three weeks after a given session. They are usually accurate accounts of the proceedings and are relied on by both sets of counsel and the Judge as being "the record".

[Garpo]

While there is certainly reason to question both the prosecution and defense teams. It does seem that the Judge has made some pretty decent and fair rulings so far in this case. Lets just hope that the final outcome can be fair and decent also.

[Markham]

Why is it that the prosecution is so reluctant to release the results of the DNA testing that was carried out on blood samples retrieved from a bed sheet in Bella Santos' home and from a seat cover in her Pajero?

Some two or three weeks ago, the Defence filed yet another Motion calling for the production of this DNA testing and the Judge ordered the prosecution to provide an answer. Well it did and their letter arrived last Friday morning basically refusing to comply. This prompted the following Motion to be filed the same afternoon:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7^th Judicial Region

Branch 6

Cebu City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CBU-92962

-versus-

IAN CHARLES GRIFFITHS &

BELLA RUBY SANTOS.

Accused.

X-------------------------------------X

REPLY TO COMMENT

DATED JUNE 13, 2012

COMES NOW the Accused, through the undersigned defense team, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers, THAT:

1. Accused received the People’s Comment dated June 13, 2012 on June 21, 2012 via registered mail. With the State’s enormous resources, it could have sent its comment via service in person but it chose the dilatory mode of furnishing a copy to the Accused via snail-paced registered mail;

2. It is clear now that everybody in the whole wide world, including the Honorable Court, wants to know the DNA results except: the prosecution and the private complainant.

3. Accused is constrained to asked these legitimate questions, to wit:

· How come the DNA result is not yet published until now if the result is positive? If the result is positive, this could have been slapped upon the Accused’s face as early as April 15, 2011 [after the completion of the examination] in order to put an end this issue.

· If negative, how come the prosecution and the RCLO 7 is hiding such document?

· How come the prosecution and the RCLO 7 are very much hell-bent in suppressing such negative DNA result and continue persecuting both Accused in this case?

· Do the prosecution and the RCLO 7 know the legal implication of a positive or a negative result?

4. The members of the prosecution team is perhaps not listening or just being unmindful when the Honorable Court suggested that a letter request must first be made and only after an inaction from the RCLO 7 can the Accused move for its production in court. Needless to emphasize, since the day herein Accused were framed-up by the police, they are already demanding for the production of the DNA result;

5. The prosecution’s sweeping comment that the request is out of order is a manifestation that such DNA result is hurtful to the people’s case and is like a ghost haunting them;

6. Accused is not dictating the State as to who will be presented in court as its witness. Accused merely relied on the 12-man list of witnesses the Stated submitted in court. Again, the State is just being unmindful that it has already gone beyond their list when they presented an alleged witness not included in the list. In short, the State must be circumspect before making any comment;

7. A simple scrutiny of the Comment would easily reveal that such a comment is the ones lacking in merit.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered and in the highest interest of justice, Accused prays of this Honorable Court that in its own initiative based on its inherent power to order the production of documents and of compulsory processes, TO ORDER the production of the DNA result relative to the death of Ellah Joy Pique, which said result is in custody of C/Insp. David Alexander Patriana and/or Dr. Nestor A. Sator of the RCLO 7 of the PNP.

Respectfully submitted this 22^nd day of June 2012 at Cebu City, Philippines.

THE VTU&M LEGAL TEAM

[VILLAGONZALO, TATLONGHARI, UBOD & MACEREN]

Room 302 K&J Bldg.

J. Llorente St. [beside Palladium Suites]

6000 Cebu City

Tel. No. [032] 255-1588

RAMESES VICTORIUS G. VILLAGONZALO

Attorney’s Roll Number: 48716, May 3, 2004

IBP Lifetime Roll No. 07841, 5/30/08

PTR No. 10147909, 01/02/12, Cebu Province

MCLE Compliance No. III-0001179, 11/12/08

e-mail address: ram_oakwood@yahoo.com

GERARD ANTHONY C. REGIS

Attorney’s Roll No. 59853, March 22, 2012

PTR No. 10957812, 03/23/12, Cebu Province

IBP No. 893881, 03/19/12, Cebu City

MCLE Compliance No. Exempt: New Lawyer

[PROOF OF SERVICE, NOTICE OF FILING/HEARING & EXPLANATION]

TO THOSE WHOSE NAMES APPEAR HEREUNDER:

HON. CLERK OF COURT

RTC 6, Cebu City 6000

RECEIVED:___________

HON. JEROME ABARCA

RESIDENT TRIAL PROSECUTOR

RTC 6, Cebu City 6000

RECEIVED:___________

Greetings:

Kindly take notice that the foregoing REPLY TO COMMENT DATED JUNE 13, 2012 will be submitted to the Honorable Court for consideration/resolution immediately upon receipt hereof sans appearance of counsel and/or further arguments.

A copy of this pleading is furnished to the adverse counsel via service in person.

Thank you.

RAMESES VICTORIUS G. VILLAGONZALO

Item 6 above refers to Attorney Dela Cerna's comments to Sun Star Cebu in which he said that the prosecution would additionally be calling Ligaya Escultos, who should have given evidence but fled from Cebu and whose place was taken by Richard Bansuan.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Markham

[brock]

Forgive my ignorance Markham, But couldnt the defence team submit the blood for a DNA of their own ?

Brock.

[Markham]

Forgive my ignorance Markham, But couldnt the defence team submit the blood for a DNA of their own ?

Brock.

That would be a tad difficult. The defence doesn't have access to the alleged bloodstained material samples the PNP collected nor to any sample of Ellah Joy's blood that was obtained at autopsy.

The prosecution wants to give the illusion that the DNA testing would reinforce its case without having to produce the actual test results.