SCRIPT Frustrated Murder People vs. Merin CHARACTERS: Ayn Sarsaba – Prosecution Counsel Anthony Prestoza – Prosecution Counsel Katherine Jane Manarang – Complainant Richard Alvin Nalupta – Boyfriend of the Complainant (Prosecution Witness) Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon – Expert Witness Analita Ocampo – Defense Counsel Helen Paulette Tapire – Defense Counsel Iris Victoria Merin - Accused Leira Taruc – Expert Witness Catherine Bool- Nunez – Officemate of Complainant (Defense Witness) Joel Macalino __________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________ COURT: Please state your name and other personal circumstances.
PROSECUTION Direct Examination of Catherine Jane Manarang by Prosecutor Anthony Prestoza COURT: Call the case. INTERPRETER: For hearing, Criminal Case No. 12345, People of the Philippines vs. Iris Victoria Merin. COURT: Appearances.
WITNESS: Catherine Jane Manarang, 28 years of age, single, a Certified Public Accountant of the Accounting Division of Nestle Philippines and a resident of Unit 143 Astral Apartment Padre Faura St. Ermita, Manila. COURT: Your witness.
ATTY. TAPIRE: For the defense.
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: The witness is being presented to testify on the fact that the accused bought the rat killer and that the substance that poisoned her was from the grapefruit juice which the accused prepared. May we proceed Your Honor?
COURT: Ready?
COURT: Proceed.
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: Ready Your Honor.
Q: Catherine Jane Manarang, will you please tell this Honorable Court where you were on October 17, 2007 at around 8 o’clock in the morning? A: I was in our apartment at Unit 143 Astral Apartment Padre Faura St. Ermita, Manila.
PROSECUTOR government.
PRESTOZA:
For
the
COURT: Call your witness to the witness stand. PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: Catherine Jane Manarang.
May
I
call
on
COURT: Swear in the witness. INTERPRETER: Do you swear to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth in this case? WITNESS: Yes, sir.
Q: Who lives in that apartment? A: I and my best friend, Iris Victoria Merin. Q: Who was with you at that particular time of the day? A: I was alone because I did not report for work to prepare for my engagement party.
Q: How did you prepare for the party? A: I decided to clean the house.
appearing above the printed name Catherine Jane Manarang as Exhibit A-1.
Q: And what particular areas of the house did you clean? A: I cleaned the living room and the CR first. Then I cleaned the dirty kitchen. Because I remembered Iris said something like “Dumadami na yung mga rodents sa dirty kitchen.”
COURT: Mark it.
of
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: And the signature appearing above the printed name of Rhandell Matuloy as the lessor be marked as Exhibit A-2. COURT: Mark it.
Q: The last place you cleaned was the dirty kitchen? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: What did you do in order to solve the problem on the rats? A: I used a rat killer, Your Honor. Q: Who bought the rat killer? A: Iris bought it because she told me that she noticed that there were rats in the place. Q: Have you actually seen any rats in your place? A: No. Actually, it made me wonder… I just relied on the word of Iris. Besides, in our lease agreement, there was a stipulation that it shall be the owner’s responsibility to conduct quarterly pest control measures. Q: I am showing to you this document previously marked as Exhibit A. Please go over this document and tell this Honorable Court if this is the lease agreement you are referring to. A: Yes, this document is the lease agreement.
Q: Whose signature is this above the printed name Catherine Jane Manarang which is appearing on page 2 of this contract of lease? A: My signature, sir.
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: We would also like to request for the marking of stipulation no.8 in this lease agreement as Exhibit A-3. COURT: Mark it. Q: Was there consistent compliance by the owner? A: Yes. Q: What happened next? A: After cleaning, I rested because I got tired. I remembered that before Iris left that morning for work, she told me not to forget to drink the grapefruit juice she prepared for me. Q: Where did you find the grapefruit juice? A: Inside the ref. Q: If that pitcher containing the grapefruit juice will be shown to you, will you be able to recognize it? (lawyer takes the pitcher showing it to the victim) A: Yes, that’s the one. PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: For the record, the pitcher, previously marked as Exhibit B was recognized by the victim as the pitcher containing the grapefruit juice prepared by the accused for the complainant. Q: When did you drink the said beverage? A: Before I went to Starbucks.
Q: And this signature belongs to whom? (Prosecutor Prestoza pointing at the right portion of the document) A: Our lessor, Mr. Rhandell Matuloy.
Q: How many glasses were you able to drink? A: I drank about 2 glasses.
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: Which for purposes of identification, Your Honor, I would like to request the marking of the signature
Q: Can you estimate the amount of juice you drank?
A: A glass would contain about 300-350 mL of liquid. So, that would make about 600-700 mL. Q: What else did you do on that day? A: I went out to meet Iris for our usual coffee break in Starbucks at 3 o’clock in the afternoon. We spent the whole afternoon together until we decided to go home for the party. Q: Did you feel anything at that time? ATTY. OCAMPO: Objection, Question is leading.
Your
Q: So, if the accused is inside this courtroom, would you be able to identify and point to her? A: Yes, Sir. (Victim pointed to the accused.) There. PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: That is all, Your Honor. COURT: Cross? ATTY. OCAMPO: Yes, Your Honor.
Honor!
COURT: Sustained. Q: What happened at Starbucks? A: While we’re eating, I complained to Iris that my head was aching. Q: Did your friend say anything? A: She told me that I was just tired. Q: What time did you leave Starbucks? A: 5 o’clock. Q: What time did you arrive in your apartment? A: We arrived at about 5:30 o’clock in the late afternoon. The dinner party was set at 6 o’clock that evening. Q: What happened later? A: The guests arrived. We entertained them. Q: Was your fiancée with them? A: Yes. Q: What happened next? A: I approached Iris and chatted with her. Q: What did you feel at that time? A: My headache worsened. I began to feel nauseous and I vomited. I felt so weak that I lost my balance. Q: Did anyone come to help? A: Yes, Iris caught me before I hit the floor. Q: Did you notice anything else? A: Before I totally lost consciousness, I saw that Iris was smiling while she held on to me.
Cross Examination of Catherine Jane Manarang by Atty. Analita Ocampo Q: Miss Witness, you testified that in the lease contract, the lessor had the responsibility to conduct pest control measures. How often is this pest control conducted? A: Quarterly, Your Honor. Q: And during what months did the lessor conduct these pest control measures? A: February, May, August, and November of every year, Your Honor. Q: Miss Witness, you testified that in cleaning the dirty kitchen, you used a rat poison to kill the rats there. Is that right? A: Yes. Q: How did you use the rat poison? A: I took the pack out of the box. Then I put some into my hand. I put the rat poison in some rice and then I put the rice on the floor so that the rats could eat them. Q: You did not use any gloves to protect your hands or your skin? A: No, Your Honor. Q: Miss Witness, did you know that a rat poison could also poison humans if accidentally swallowed? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: So, even if you knew that, you still did not use any protection for your hands? A: Yes, because I planned to wash my hands after I cleaned the dirty kitchen. Q: After cleaning the dirty kitchen? A: Yes, Your Honor.
A: Yes, I was quite tired, Your Honor. Q: Not right after you put the poison into the rice, as you have said earlier? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: You testified that you drank the grapefruit juice. What was the color of the juice? A: Yellow. Q: When you drank the juice, what was its taste? A: It was sour, a bit bitter, Your Honor.
Q: You also said that at the party you felt nauseous, and then you vomited and fell to the floor. Is that right? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: When you were already at the floor, were you still conscious? A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Bitter? A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Was your sight still clear? A: A bit blurry, Your Honor.
Q: Hindi ka ba nagtaka at mapait yung juice na ininom mo?
Q: So you cannot see clearly at the time you fell to the ground? A: Yes, because I was so dizzy.
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: Objection: Your Honor! My witness cannot understand Filipino. COURT: Let the question be translated for the witness. INTERPRETER: Did you not wonder why the juice was bitter? A: No, Your Honor. The grapefruit juice really has a slight bitter taste, perhaps because it was so sour.
Q: So you cannot possibly say that Iris was really smiling when she held you? A: I’m not sure Your Honor. Q: Miss Witness, have you ever visited a psychiatrist? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: When was this? A: Around August 2006, Your Honor.
Q: You testified that before the accused left the house, she told you not to forget to drink the juice. Has she done this even before the incident happened? A: Yes, Your Honor. Both of us used to do that. We often leave food and drinks for each other.
Q: Why did you go to such psychiatrist? A: I needed treatment for my depression, Your Honor.
Q: So, when she told you not to forget to drink the juice, it was nothing new to you, because both of you had that habit. A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Who was the doctor who treated you? A: Dr. Leira Taruc.
Q: You testified that at 3 pm on October 17, 2007 you met with the accused at a coffee shop. When you were with the accused, did you notice anything different about her? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: What was that? A: When I complained about my headache, she just told me that I was just tired. Q: Were you not really tired after cleaning the entire house?
Q: What was the cause of your depression? A: My parents died of a terrible accident, and I blamed myself for their death.
Q: Where is her clinic located? A: At the Medical Center Manila. Q: What did this Dr. Taruc do to treat you? A: I went through psychological counseling sessions, Your Honor. Q: Were this counseling sessions reduced into writing? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: Is this document the record of the treatment you went through under Dr.
Taruc? (Atty. Ocampo showing the summary discharge report to the complainant) A: Yes, Your Honor
COURT: Your witness.
ATTY. OCAMPO: For the record, the complainant has identified Exhibit 1 which was previously marked as Summary Discharge Report at the Medical Center Manila.
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: This witness, Your Honor, Richard Nalupta is presented to testify on the fact that the accused secretly fell in love and could possibly be obsessed with him and may likewise began to hate the complainant secretly. May we proceed, Your Honor?
Q: Who prepared this medical report? A: It was Dr. Taruc who prepared the report, Your Honor.
COURT: Proceed.
Q: Miss Witness, did anything happen before you visited your psychiatrist? A: I committed suicide. Q: Did your psychiatrist prescribe any medication? A: Yes, she gave me anti-depressant pills. Q: Are you still taking these medications? A: Not anymore, Your Honor. ATTY. OCAMPO: No further questions. COURT: Re-direct? PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: No, Your Honor. We will call on our next witness. COURT: Miss Witness, You may step down. Call your next witness.
Direct Examination of Richard Nalupta by Prosecutor Anthony Prestoza PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: I’m calling on Mr. Richard Alvin Nalupta. INTERPRETER: Do you swear to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth in this case? WITNESS: Yes Sir. COURT: Please state your name and other personal circumstances. WITNESS: Ritchie Nalupta, 30 years of age, single, head security officer of the Security Services Division of Nestle Philippines and a resident of 299 Aguado St. San Miguel Quiapo, Manila.
Q: Do you know the complainant? A: Yes. Q: How are you related to her? A: She is my fiancée. Q: Do you know the accused? A: Yes. Q: How is she related to the complainant? A: She is the childhood friend of the complainant; officemate; and they live in the same apartment. Q: Were you aware that the accused likes you? ATTY. OCAMPO: Objection, Counsel is speculating.
Your
Honor.
Q: Do you visit the complainant in their apartment? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: How often do you visit the complainant? A: During weekdays, whenever I drop her after work, and during weekends. Q: Whenever you visit the complainant in their apartment, are there any persons around? A: Yes, sometimes, Iris was there. Q: When you visit the complainant during weekend, was the complainant always there? A: Not always, Your Honor. Q: What do you mean when you said that the complainant was not always there? A: She’s not there because she went out. Q: And whenever that happens, who do you find at their apartment?
A: Iris, Your Honor.
Q: Mr. Witness, please examine this text message, and tell the Court if you recognize it? A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Mr. Witness, what do you do whenever you visit the complainant at their apartment and she is not around? A: I wait for her to come back, Your Honor. Q: Where or in what particular part of the apartment do you wait? A: At the living room, Your Honor. Q: And while waiting, what normally transpires? A: I watch the tv or listen to music. Q: You said earlier that whenever the complainant is not around during your visit, Iris was at the apartment, is that right? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: So there were times that only you and the accused were in the apartment, while you were waiting for the complainant? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: What transpires whenever you and the accused are alone in the apartment? A: The accused flirts with me, Your Honor. Q: What do you mean when you said she was flirting with you? A: She wears revealing clothes, she says “I love you” jokingly, mga ganun. Q: Do you recall how many times these have happened? A: Many times, Your Honor.
Q: Why do you recognize it? A: Because I received that text message from the accused on August 15, 2007. Q: This text message purports to have been sent by the person owning this mobile number, 09173237890. Do you recognize the person who owned this number? A: Yes, that is the mobile number of the accused, Your Honor. Q: How do you know? A: Because the mobile number of the accused is stored in my mobile phone, Your Honor. Q: Will you please read aloud the contents of this text message? A: “Richie, kung hindi ka magiging akin, walang makikinabang sa’yo!” (“Richie, if I won’t have you, no one else will!”) Q: Mr. Witness, kindly read the next text message. A: “Akin ka lang, Richie. Mamamatay ang kahit sinong aagaw sa’yo.” (You’re mine, Richie. Whoever tries to steal you from me will die.”) PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: Your Honor, for the record, these text messages appearing on the screen of the mobile phone of Mr. Nalupta, previously marked as Exhibit C has been identified by the witness.
Q: What do you tell the accused every time she flirts with you? A: I don’t mind her jokes.
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: This document is the printed copy of the text messages contained in the mobile phone of Mr. Nalupta. We would like to request that it be marked as Exhibit C-1.
Q: Does your fiancée instances? A: Yes, Your Honor.
COURT: Mark it.
know
of
these
Q: Why? A: Because I told her a few times about it. Q: What did your fiancée say? A: She said: “Don’t mind her. She’s crazy.”
Q: How often does she send you this kind of text messages? A: Almost everyday, Your Honor. Q: What were you doing during engagement party? A: I was entertaining our friends. Q: Were you near the victim?
the
A: No. I was about 8 meters away from her. Q: Who was with the victim when the incident happened? A: She was with the accused. Q: What did you do when you learned of the incident? A: I rushed to her. She was already lying on the ground. Q: What did you do afterwards? A: I called for an ambulance. We rushed her to the hospital. Q: How long did you stay with her at the hospital? A: About four hours. I waited for the doctor to come out. Q: When the doctor came out, what did he tell you? A: The doctor said my fiancée was poisoned. PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: questions, Your Honor.
No
Q: Mr. Witness, is it possible that the reason why Ms. Merin treats you well and with extra sweetness is because she considers you as a close friend since you are the fiancée of her best friend? A: Yes… Q: You also testified that Ms. Merin sent you threatening text messages. What is you proof that it was indeed my client who sent you those messages? A: I am sure Your Honor because I am familiar with the way she constructs her messages. Q: Mr. Witness, does the complainant use your mobile phone in sending text messages to her friends? A: Yes, sometimes… Q: How about you? Are there times when you borrow the complainant’s cellular phone? A: Yes, there are times I use her phone.
further
COURT: Cross? ATTY. OCAMPO: Yes, Your Honor
Q: So, is it possible that Ms. Merin’s phone has also been borrowed by someone else and it was not her who sent you those text messages? A: Yes… it’s possible. But Your Honor I’m really sure she was the one who sent me those messages. ATTY. OCAMPO: No further questions, Your Honor.
Cross Examination of Richard Nalupta by Atty. Analita Ocampo Q: Mr. Witness, you have testified that whenever you and Ms. Merin are alone in the apartment, she tried to flirt with you. Is that right? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: What made you say that? A: Well, I feel she made some advances. ( extra sweetness ) Q: How long have you known Ms. Merin? A: I have known her ever since I began courting my fiancée since both of them live in the same apartment. That’s about four years ago. Q: Would you consider Ms. Merin as your friend? A: Ummm…. Yes.
COURT: Re-direct? PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: No, Your Honor. We will call on our last witness. COURT: Call your witness.
Direct Examination of Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon by Prosecutor Ayn Sarsaba PROSECUTOR SARSABA: I’m calling on Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon. INTERPRETER: Do you swear to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth in this case? WITNESS: Yes.
COURT: Please state your name and other personal circumstances. WITNESS: Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon, 28 years of age, single, emergency physician and a resident of Robinsons Tower, Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila. COURT: Your witness. PROSECUTOR SARSABA: This witness, Your Honor, Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon, will testify on the findings in the medico-legal report prepared by him to prove the following: (i) that the effective cause of the complainant’s condition is chemical poisoning; (ii) that the dose taken by the complainant is necessarily fatal; and (iii) that the possible source of the cyanide poison is the grape fruit juice prepared by the accused. May we proceed, Your Honor? COURT: Proceed. Q: You declared that you are a doctor of medicine, Dr. Gascon, where did you finish your medical degree? A: Emilio Aguinaldo College, United Nations Avenue, Manila. Q: When did you graduate? A: 1994? Q: Are you a licensed physician? A: Yes. Q: When did you pass the doctor’s board examination? A: in 1995. Q: Where are you presently connected? A: I’m presently connected with the Philippine General Hospital located in Taft, Manila. Q: Since when have you been employed in that hospital? A: I have been employed there since 1998. Q: What is your present designation? A: I’m presently an emergency physician in said institution. Q: Since you became a licensed physician, have you attended seminars and undertaken
training in connection with the practice of medicine? When and where? A: Yes. I have attended several training seminars on emergency medicine held here and abroad. In fact, I have also been invited as a guest speaker to give special lectures on modern medical toxicology and the medico-legal aspect of poisoning. To name a few: One of the international medical conferences I’ve attended was in Switzerland last October 2007 called Poisoning and Drug Overdose by Dr. Barry Rumack and Dr. Allan Hall who were internationally recognized experts in internal medicine. Another would be the one held just last January in Florida, USA entitled Emergency Medicine: Practicing According to the Evidence.
Q: Have you testified as a Medical expert in cases before courts of justice? A: Yes, mostly on medico legal cases. Q: How many medico legal cases so far have you testified? What kind of medico legal cases have you testified? A: For the past 5 years, around two hundred (200) cases. Mostly homicide and murder cases involving food and chemical poisoning, medical malpractice cases and industrial and vehicular accidents. Q: Do you recall having attended on one Catherine Jane Manarang at the Philippine General Hospital? A: Yes. Q: Do you recall when was that doctor? About what time? A: About 6:30 in the evening of October 17, 2007. Q: Do you recall how many days was she confined to the hospital? A: She was confined for one week. Q: Why was she confined that long? A: We made sure that the neurologic and cardiovascular status has normalized and acidosis and other metabolic abnormalities have resolved before we discharged her. Q: While in the hospital, did you continue attending on her? A: Yes.
Q: After her discharge, did you require her to still see you for further medications? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: Why? A: I advised the patient to have a follow-up within 7 to 10 days after discharge to reevaluate and monitor for onset of delayed neurologic manifestations. Q: Did the patient see you for a follow-up Doctor? A: Yes. Q: Did you find any neurologic complications in said follow-up? A: None.
of 12 cycles per minute and temperature of 37.8 degree Celsius. Patient’s skin was flushed. Q: Could you please explain this finding in more simple terms for an ordinary person to understand? A: The patient clearly was in an unstable condition, or in a very critical condition, warranting an immediate medical intervention, constant monitoring for any sign of deterioration and further evaluation. Q: Do you know what could have caused this kind of condition? A: My diagnosis at that time was there was chemical poisoning.
Q: Attached to the record of the case is a Medico Legal Report issued by one Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon, is this the one you are referring to? (Exhibit D) A: Yes.
Q: Why is the condition of Catherine Jane Manarang attributable to poisoning rather than to disease or some natural cause? Were tests conducted confirming the existence of poisoning? A: We did Toxin Screening with the patient’s blood. It revealed the presence of trace amounts of cyanide in the blood, and since cyanide is not normally found in our blood and considering its chemical nature, it is poisonous.
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: For the record, the witness has identified the document previously marked as Exhibit D as the Medico Legal Report issued by Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon.
Q: So you are saying that the actual or effective cause of the condition of the patient is…? A: Chemical poison, which is harmful to the body or deadly to humans.
Q: There is a signature above the typewritten name Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon, do you know whose signature is this doctor? A: It is my signature.
Q: Did the symptoms which appear resemble the typical symptoms of poisoning by the alleged poison? A: Yes. The symptoms of cyanide poisoning are headache, nausea, vomiting, generalized body weakness, loss of consciousness, flushed skin, and unstable vital signs – all of which are present in this case.
Q: So Doctor, we are assured that the patient, complainant herein, is in a healthy state of mind? A: Yes.
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: I respectfully request Your Honor, that the signature appearing in Exhibit D be marked as Exhibit D-1. COURT: Mark it. Q: Doctor, please read this particular entry. (Witness reading a portion of the medico legal report) A: The patient came in the emergency room stretcher-borne, unconscious and in respiratory distress. Her vital signs then were: Blood pressure 80/50 mmHg, Cardiac rate of 50 beats per minute, Respiratory Rate
Q: Doctor, what could be a possible source of cyanide in this case? A: Based on the history given to me by the informant when the patient was brought to the ER, possible sources of cyanide could be any of the food or beverage the patient had ingested on the day of the incident. Q: History? What do you mean by that Doctor?
A: We fill out a form called History and Physical Examination. Contained here are the General Data, Reason for the Consult or Chief Complaint, the History of Present Illness and the Past Medical History. Relevant here is the History of Present Illness. This refers to the events and activities of the patient which transpired prior to the consultation, from the onset of symptoms to the time of consultation. Q: Now, you mentioned about an informant. Who was the informant of the patient in this case, Doctor? Was it Miss Merin? ATTY. TAPIRE: Objection, Your Honor, the question is leading! Q: Who was the informant of the patient in this case? A: It was Miss Iris Merin. Q: Would you please tell the Court what it was exactly that Miss Merin told you? A: The informant told me that during their coffee break on the day of the incident, the food intake of the patient consisted of tuna sandwich, fresh green salad, green tea frappuccino, and during the party, she drank coke zero. Q: Now, my question to you is: Is it possible Doctor that a grape fruit juice can be a source of the cyanide poison? ATTY. TAPIRE: Objection, the question is leading. Court: Sustained. A: Actually, during the confinement of the patient in the hospital for one week, said patient mentioned to me that she also drank grape fruit juice. It is possible that the grape fruit juice could be the source of cyanide considering that she ingested the same 3 hours before the onset of symptoms. Q: What is the minimum lethal dose of cyanide? A: Fatal dose is the smallest dose known to cause death: not the smallest amount which will certainly cause death. Several scientific studies have shown that the toxic threshold dose is 50 to 100mg of cyanide in the human body.
Q: In your opinion, was the dose taken by the victim necessarily fatal? A: An analysis of the patient’s blood would tell us the amount or level of cyanide in the blood. The patient’s blood was found to have 1.5 mg/dL cyanide content. Based from this definitive finding, I can extrapolate that the amount ingested by the patient is lethal or fatal. Q: Is that all, Doctor? A: As previously stated, the symptoms of the patient would eventually lead to cardiopulmonary arrest (death). If no prompt intervention was done, the patient would have died. Q: What are you trying to tell us Doctor? A: The severity of the symptoms may serve as an indication of how lethal the dose of cyanide is. Or that the effect of poisons in the body is usually proportional to the dose taken. The bigger the dose, the more severe the symptoms will be. Q: Doctor, do you have any other field of expertise? A: Yes. I am also an expert chemist and toxicologist. I specialize in Forensic Medicine and Toxicology specifically Poisoning and Drug Overdose. PROSECUTOR SARSABA: I will show you a document, previously marked as Exhibit E. This is the Toxicology Report from the NBI on the results of their chemical analyses of the sample taken from the grape fruit juice in the pitcher and of the sample taken from the rodenticide or rat killer, Rat-A-Rest, found in the apartment of the complainant and accused. Q: As an expert, can you please interpret to us the findings in this report? A: This report reveals that the sample taken from the grape fruit juice has been contaminated with rodenticide. It also shows that rodenticide has 50% cyanide concentration. It also illustrates that the grape fruit juice is hence contaminated with cyanide. Q: Doctor, have you formed an opinion? A: It seems that the rodenticide has been intentionally mixed into the grape fruit juice.
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: No more questions, Your Honor.
the patient can not be attributed to cyanide poisoning but to some other cause? A: Yes. That is possible.
COURT: Cross? ATTY. TAPIRE: Yes, Your Honor.
Cross Examination of Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon by Atty. Paulette Tapire Q: Doctor, you have testified that you also specialize in Toxicology specifically Poisoning and Drug Overdose, hence, you are an expert in that field, am I right? A: Yes. Q: Doctor, when does ingestion of the cyanide poison cause the onset of symptoms of cyanide poisoning? A: Patients who ingest potentially fatal amounts may not develop life-threatening symptomatology for up to 1 to 2 hours following exposure. Q: Symptoms such as? A: In patients who do not experience sudden collapse, the initial signs and symptoms can resemble those of anxiety or hyperventilation syndrome. Early signs include headache. Late signs of poisoning are nausea, vomiting, loss of consciousness, and a variety of cardiac effects. Q: The patient-complainant also testified that she drank two glasses of the alleged source of the poison – the grape fruit juice – at around 2:45 pm and the onset of the symptoms of cyanide poisoning was about 6:00 pm. Thus, 3 hours had lapsed from the ingestion of the alleged source (grape fruit juice) before the symptoms developed, am I right? A: Yes. Q: But you also said that symptoms of cyanide poisoning are expected to develop 1 to 2 hours following ingestion? A: Yes. Q: If that’s the case, don’t you think there is an inconsistency of the duration of ingestion and onset of symptoms between the patient’s actual case and the established scientific findings of cyanide poisoning? With this, does it not mean that the condition of
Q: Are you sure? A: I can say that it is possible that the patient’s condition was not due to cyanide poisoning. Q: Doctor, about the source of the poison, you only said possible sources, right? A: Yes. Q: By possible, you mean…? A: Probable or potential source of the poison, Ma’am. Q: That the grape fruit juice is just one possible source of the cyanide poison? A: Yes. Q: And that there are other possible sources of the cyanide as well? A: Yes. Q: So, is it safe to conclude, Doctor, that the cyanide poison may have come from another source considering that for that day, the patient’s food intake comprised of different food and beverages? A: Yes, that is possible. Q: Are you aware of the history of said patient, that she had at one time in the past, attempted to end her life due to depression? A: Yes. Q: That she has a history of one previous suicidal attempt one year from the date of the incident? A: Yes. Q: In your opinion, is said fact relevant to the determination of the cause of the symptoms? A: Yes. History of any previous suicidal attempts, history of the patient’s mental condition and history of business, marital and social failures are taken into consideration in cases of poisoning. Q: Is it safe to conclude then that it is possible that the poisoning is attributable to suicide? A: Yes, Your Honor.
ATTY. TAPIRE: No further questions, Your Honor.
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: questions, Your Honor.
No
further
COURT: Re-cross? COURT: Re-direct? ATTY. TAPIRE: No re-cross, Your Honor. PROSECUTOR SARSABA: Yes, Your Honor COURT: Mr. Witness, you may step down. Re-Direct Examination of Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon by Prosecutor Sarsaba Q: Doctor, is it possible that the onset of symptoms for cyanide poisoning varies for each person? Is it possible that said symptoms may appear beyond the normal 12 hour duration? A: That is possible. Q: Will you explain to us how that is possible? A: Some persons possess different levels of sensitivity to certain substances. The body may acquire tolerance to some substances. Another would be: The body has a natural defense against cyanide exposure in the form of an endogenous enzyme, namely, rhodanese. This enzyme catalyzes cyanide complexing with sulfur, forming the much less toxic ion thiocyanate. The availability of sulfur constitutes the rate limiting factor in natural cyanide detoxification. In the absence of exogenous source of sulfur, rhodanese activity is too slow to prevent serious toxicity or death. Q: Could you explain to the Court what you mean by that Doctor? A: Even though the normal duration is 1 to 2 hours, there are some cases in which the signs and symptoms of cyanide poisoning in a patient may be delayed and appear beyond the normal duration. In the case of the patient Miss Manarang, there was a onehour delay of appearance of symptoms because as confirmed in her lab tests, her body produces abnormal amounts of sulfur and as I’ve mentioned earlier, when there is more sulfur in the body, the cyanide detoxification in the body is hastened, thus, the serious toxic effects of cyanide will be diminished. Lastly, the food intake of the patient may possibly contribute to such effect.
Formal Offer of Evidence by the Prosecution PROSECUTOR SARSABA: Your Honor, we are now resting the case for the prosecution. COURT: How do you intend to submit your formal offer? PROSECUTOR SARSABA: We can now offer our evidence, Your Honor. COURT: Proceed PROSECUTOR SARSABA: Exhibit A is the Contract of Lease being offered to prove that there is a stipulation on the quarterly conduct of pest control measures by the lessor. Exhibit A-1 and A-2 are the signatures of Catherine Jane Manarang as lessee and Rhandell Matuloy as lessor to prove that these two persons were the contracting parties to the lease agreement. Exhibit A-3 is the stipulation regarding the pest control measures to prove that the lessor undertakes to conduct the quarterly pest control measures. Exhibit B is the pitcher from which a sample was taken and subjected to chemical analysis for the purpose of proving the fact that the source of poison was the grapefruit juice prepared by the accused contained in the pitcher. Exhibit C consists of text messages to prove that the accused nurtured feelings for the complainant’s boyfriend. Exhibit C-1 consists of printed copies of the text messages to corroborate to the fact that the accused had been sending several text messages to the complainant’s boyfriend to manifest her obsession.
DEFENSE Exhibit D is the Medico Legal Report issued by Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon to prove the following: (i) that the effective cause of the complainant’s condition is chemical poisoning; (ii) that the dose taken by the complainant is necessarily fatal; and (iii) that the possible source of cyanide poison is the grapefruit juice prepared by the accused. Exhibit D-1 is the signature of Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon to be a part of his testimony that he was the attending physician of the complainant. Exhibit E is the Toxicology Report of the National Bureau of Investigation to prove the chemical analysis of the sample taken from the pitcher for qualitative and quantitative determination of the poison. Exhibit F is the Box of Rat Killer to prove the source of the poison which was bought by the accused. COURT: Any comment? ATTY. OCAMPO: As to Exhibits A, A-1, A-2 and A-3 we admit the existence and authenticity, Your Honor.
Direct Examination of Dr.Leira Taruc by Atty. Helen Paulette Tapire ATTY. TAPIRE: For the defense, we are ready to present our first witness, Your Honor. COURT: Proceed. INTERPRETER: Do you swear to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth in this case? WITNESS: Yes Ma’am. COURT: Please state your name and other personal circumstances. WITNESS: I am Dr. Leira Leonor Taruc, 35 years old, single, a licensed psychiatrist at the Psychiatry Department, Medical Center Manila, and a resident of 123 Krusada St. Quaipo, Manila. ATTY. TAPIRE: Your Honor, the witness is presented to testify on the medical records of the complainant who underwent several counseling sessions under her supervision and to prove the mental and emotional instability of the complainant. May we proceed, Your Honor? COURT: Proceed.
As to Exhibit B, we admit its existence but not its purpose. As to Exhibits C and C-1, we can only admit as to the existence of the text messages but not its authenticity.
Q: When were you admitted to the practice of medicine? A: In 1995, Your Honor.
As to Exhibit D and D-1, we admit the existence and authenticity, Your Honor.
Q: From what university or college did you graduate and when? A: I graduated from the University of Santo Tomas in the year 1994.
As to Exhibit E, we admit its authenticity and genuineness.
Q: Did you graduate with honors? A: Yes, Latin Honors Your Honor.
As to Exhibit F, we admit its existence but not its purpose.
Q: Do you have any post-graduate degree? A: Yes, Your Honor. I finished my Master of Psychiatry degree at the University of Melbourne in 1998.
COURT: Acting on the formal offer of exhibits of the prosecutor and comments thereon by the defense counsel, the Court resolves to admit all the exhibits offered by the defense counsel specified in the offer.
Q: Since when have you been practicing as a psychiatrist? A: For almost 10 years, Your Honor. Q: What is the nature of your work as a psychiatrist?
A: As a psychiatrist I deal with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mental and emotional illness and behavioral disorders of patients. Q: How do you treat your patients? A: I listen and talk to patients about their mental, emotional or behavioral problems and assess the status of these disorders. I also prescribe medications, cognitive therapy, behavioral therapy or psychological counseling depending on the patient’s needs.
A: The physical examinations revealed sleeping apnea, insomnia, hypertension, and migraines. Q: As to her emotional condition? A: The patient is suffering from major depression, without psychotic features. Q: Did you talk to anyone else regarding the patient’s emotional condition? A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Do you know the complainant in this case? A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Who else did you talk to about her emotional condition? A: I spoke to her friend, the one who advised the patient to seek help. This was part of the analysis of the patient’s condition.
Q: Why do you know her? A: She was my patient at the Psychiatry Department of Medical Center Manila.
Q: Any other tests that you conducted on the patient? A: No more, Your Honor.
Q: When was this? A: August 16, 2006.
Q: Doctor, from the examinations and observations, what did you conclude about the complainant’s condition? A: The patient from suffered from single episode depression.
Q: For what reason did she come to your clinic? A: She consulted me about her condition. Q: Was the consultation out of her own volition? A: No. She was advised by her friend. Q: Doctor, what procedures or tests did you conduct on the complainant during the consultation? A: I conducted physical examinations. I asked her to tell something about her, her work, her family, and other personal relationships. I just listened to whatever she said. While she was talking, I observed her demeanor, the way she spoke, and her gestures. Q: What did you notice about the complainant while she was talking to you? A: At first, the patient was apparently normal. But when she began talking about her family, particularly her parents, she began to sob, and then she cried. Her hands were trembling. She blamed herself for the death of her parents. Q: What matters were revealed to you by the complainant in the course of the consultation?
Q: Will you explain to this Court what that condition meant? A: Single episode depression or SED is a type of major depression that occurs once, as a result of a single psychological trauma. In the case of the patient, based on our conversations, the only traumatic event which caused the depression was the terrible accident and death of her parents. Q: What made you conclude that the patient was suffering from this condition? A: The symptoms of SED, which include insomnia, loss of appetite, which may, or may not lead to weight loss, mood swings and hypnotic spells, matched with the results of the patient’s physical examination. Q: How did you treat the patient? A: The patient was admitted to the hospital as inpatient. Q: How long did she stay at the hospital? A: One month, Your Honor. Q: And what methods or procedures did you use to treat the patient?
A: I conducted supportive counseling, Your Honor. Q: Will you tell this Honorable Court what supportive counseling meant? A: Supportive counseling helps ease the pain of depression and addresses the feeling of hopelessness that accompanies the depression. In the case of the patient, I talk to her about what happened to her during the past week. If the patient mentioned a negative event, I ask her what she felt, why she felt that way and how she should have viewed the negative situation. Q: And the counseling sessions were at what intervals? A: Once a week, Your Honor. Q: Did you prescribe any medication to the patient? A: Yes, I prescribed anti-depressant pills. Q: When did you discharge the complainant/ patient? A: September 16, 2006, Your Honor. Q: The medical findings that you had on the complainant, were these reduced into writing? A: Yes, Your Honor, I have made a psychiatric assessment on the medical findings. Q: Did you personally prepare the said writing? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: Does this document have any relation to the report that you have prepared? (Showing the psychiatric assessment) A: That is the report that I have prepared, Your Honor. ATTY. TAPIRE: For the record, the witness has identified this document previously marked as Exhibit 2 as the psychiatric assessment record of Catherine Jane Manarang.
COURT: Mark it. Q: Doctor, who ordered the discharge of the complainant? A: I ordered the discharge, Your Honor, upon request of the complainant? Q: Were there any conditions upon the discharge of the complainant? A: In my discharge summary, I stated that although the patient is being discharged, she is to continue treatment as an outpatient. Q: Did the patient comply with the condition? A: No, Your Honor. She did not return to the hospital after the discharge. Q: Doctor, when the complainant was discharged, what was her condition? A: There was an improvement in her condition in general, although she is not completely stable yet. Q: What do you mean she is not completely stable yet? A: While she manifested improvement, there is a possibility of relapse. Q: Do you mean to say, Doctor, that the patient’s condition may recur? A: If unguarded, Your Honor. Q: Unguarded…? A: If the patient does not follow the treatment plan, the possibility of relapse is high. Q: Do you mean to say, Doctor, that, in the case of the complainant, there is a possibility of a relapse, considering she did not return to you for further treatment? A: Yes, Your Honr. Q: And should there be a relapse, would another suicide be also a possibility? A: That is possible, Your Honor.
Q: In the last page of this document, there appears a signature. Whose signature is this, Miss Witness? A: That is my signature, Your Honor.
ATTY. TAPIRE: No further questions, Your Honor.
ATTY. TAPIRE: I respectfully request, Your Honor, that the signature appearing in this document be marked as Exhibit 2-A.
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: Yes, Your Honor.
COURT: Cross?
Cross Examination of Dr. Leira Taruc by Prosecutor Ayn Sarsaba Q: Doctor, you testified that you treated the complainant for single episode depression. Is that true? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: When you discharged the complainant, what was her condition? A: She was emotionally stable. Q: What made you conclude that the patient was emotionally stable? A: During our last counseling session, there were no longer signs of the SED. She no longer showed signs of mood swings. She no longer cried when I asked her about the death of her parents. She said she would not blame herself anymore. Q: You also testified that your relationship with the complainant lasted for one month. Will you tell this Honorable Court why it lasted only for such period? A: The patient responded well during our counseling sessions. The anti-depressant pills which I have prescribed also worked positively on her. Q: The anti-depressant pills that you prescribed; do they have any side effects? A: I asked the patient what she felt after taking the medication. She said she felt drowsy, which is a normal side effect of antidepressants.
Q: Are there any other side effects? A: Other anti-depressants make a patient restless and anxious. But the effects really vary from one person to another. In the case of the complainant, the only effect was drowsiness.
A: If the patient is under several medications and they are not followed, a relapse is highly possible. And if the patient does not submit to further counseling sessions when required, a relapse is also possible. Q: Was the complainant under medication when she was discharged? A: Yes, but only for anti-depressant, Your Honor. Q: So in your opinion, is the possibility of a relapse high or low? A: I cannot tell, Your Honor. Q: Would that also mean that, in the case of the complainant, such relapse may not happen? ATTY. TAPIRE: Objection, Your Honor, the question is leading. COURT: Sustained. PROSECUTOR SARSABA: questions, Your Honor.
No
further
COURT: Re-direct? ATTY. TAPIRE: No, Your Honor. We will call on our last witness. COURT: Miss Witness, You may step down. Call your last witness.
Direct Examination of Kate Nunez by Atty. Analita Ocampo ATTY. OCAMPO: May I call on our next witness, Miss Kate Nunez. INTERPRETER: Do you swear to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth in this case?
Q: You testified that a relapse is possible if the patient does not continue treatment after discharge, is that true? A: Yes, Your Honor.
WITNESS: Yes Ma’am.
Q: How high are the chances of a relapse? A: It depends, Your Honor.
WITNESS: I am Kate Nunez, 32 years old, married, an officemate of the complainant and a resident of 345, Paco, Manila.
Q: Depends on what?
COURT: Please state your name and other personal circumstances.
ATTY. OCAMPO: The witness is being presented to testify on the character and suicidal tendencies of the complainant. May we proceed, Your Honor?
Q: What did you do during that second incident? A: None. I did not ask her anymore because I know she wouldn’t tell me anyway.
COURT: Proceed. Q: Do you know the complainant? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: Why do you know her? A: I work with her at the accounting department at Nestle Philippines. Q: How long have you been officemates? A: About two years.
Q: Do you remember what transpired afterwards? A: After about three days, I learned of the complainant’s attempt to commit suicide. Q: Miss Witness, on June 22, 2006, did you receive an e-mail from the complainant? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: Who was the sender of that e-mail? A: It was Catherine, Your Honor.
Q: How would you describe her as an officemate? A: She is a quiet person, a loner. Q: In the two years that you’ve known the complainant, was there any untoward incident which involved her? A: None sir. Q: Was there any time that you noticed something different about the complainant? A: Yes. Q: What was that? A: I saw her one time at the comfort room, she was crying while staring at the mirror. Q: What did you do when you saw her crying? A: I asked her if something wrong happened. Q: What was her answer? A: She said, “I wanna die!” Q: What did you tell her after she said those words? A: I asked her again what happened Q: And what was her answer? A: She did not say anything, she just stared at me. Q: What was your reaction? A: I said, “Come on, you can tell me your problems.” Q: Did this kind of incident happen again? A: Yes. Two days after, the same incident happened in the comfort room.
Q: How do you know? A: Because she used her signature, Your Honor. Q: Miss Witness, please examine this writing, and please tell the Court if you recognized it? A: That is the e-mail sent by the complainant, Your Honor. ATTY. OCAMPO: For the record, the witness has identified this document previously marked as Exhibit A as the printed copy of the e-mail sent by the complainant. Q: Can you tell the Court what the e-mail contained? A: It says: “Dear Kate, my parents didn’t deserve to die that way. I am so stupid, I should have died with them. I wanna die now!” Q: How sure are you that this is the same email which you received from the complainant? A: Because her signature appears at the bottom of the e-mail, Your Honor. Q: This signature appearing here, is this the signature of the complainant? A: Yes, Your Honor. ATTY. OCAMPO: Your Honor, it is respectfully requested that the signature appearing in this Exhibit 3 be marked as Exhibit 3-A. ATTY. OCAMPO: No further questions.
COURT: Cross? PROSECUTOR SARSABA: No crossexamination for the witness, your honor.
Direct Examination of Iris Victoria Merin by Atty. Helen Paulette Tapire ATTY. TAPIRE: For the defense, we are ready to present the accused, Your Honor. COURT: Proceed. INTERPRETER: Do you swear to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth in this case? WITNESS: Yes Ma’am. COURT: Please state your name and other personal circumstances. WITNESS: Iris Victoria Uy Merin, 28 years of age, single, food toxicologist at the Research and Development Division Nestle Philippines, and a resident of Unit 143 Astral Apartment Padre Faura St. Ermita, Manila. COURT: Your witness. ATTY. TAPIRE: Your Honor, the testimony of the witness is being offered to controvert the material allegations of the information against Iris Victoria Merin and to testify that due to the complainant’s mental and emotional state, her perspective of the situation cannot be relied upon. May we proceed, Your Honor?
A: She is a childhood friend. We work in the same company and we live in the same apartment. Q: Iris Merin, please tell this Honorable Court, where were you on October 17, 2007 at around 6pm? A: I was at the engagement party of Catherine and Richard. Q: Can you recall what happened during that engagement party? A: I was chatting with Catherine while having a drink. We were in the kitchen then. Afterwards, I saw her holding her abdomen and vomiting. Q: What were you drinking that time? A: I was drinking margarita, she was drinking Coke zero. Q: Then what happened? A: She dropped to the ground. She was so pale and sweaty. She lost her consciousness. Ritchie called for an ambulance and then we brought her to the nearby hospital. Q: How long did you stay at the hospital? A: I stayed there overnight. Q: Before the incident happened, where were you? A: I was at the Starbucks with Catherine. Q: At around what time was that? A: It was around 3pm. It was my coffee break then. Q: Did Catherine go to work that day? A: No, Your Honor.
COURT: Proceed. Q: Miss Witness, are you the same Iris Victoria Merin who is the accused in this case? A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Do you know the complainant? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: Do you know her personally? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: How are you related to her?
Q: Would you know why? A: She told me she would take a leave because she needed to prepare for their engagement party. Q: Did you go to work that day? A: Yes. Q: What time did you leave the house? A: I left the house 6:30 am. Q: So could you positively say that you had no idea about what transpired on that day,
October 17, 2007, before the incident at the engagement party happened? PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: Objection, Honor! The question is leading.
Your
COURT: Sustained. Q: When you left the house, what was Catherine doing? A: She was still sleeping, Your Honor. Q: Miss Witness, were you aware that the complainant suffered from a major depression? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: Would you know the reason why she suffered from that depression? A: Because she couldn’t accept the untimely death of her parents. She blamed herself for their death.
Q: What did you do to help her in her condition? A: I was always talking to her, asking her how she feels, I kept telling her not to be depressed anymore. I also told her to stop drinking. Q: After she sought the help of a psychiatrist, what happened? A: Catherine recovered from the depression. She was sleeping well and was no longer drinking often. Q: No more signs of the depression were present? A: Hmm, sometimes she suddenly kept quiet. There were times I caught her crying silently. ATTY. TAPIRE : No further questions, Your Honor. COURT: Cross?
Q: When did her parents die? A: Around May of 2006.
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: After the death of the complainant’s parents, what happened to the complainant? A: She became insomniac. There were nights that she couldn’t sleep. She also drank liquor more often. She began to lose weight. There were also mood swings, particularly in the afternoon. There were times that she would just cry. Sometimes she just keeps quiet and not talk to me.
Cross Examination of Iris Victoria Merin by Prosecutor Anthony Prestoza Q: In the direct examination, you told this Honorable Court that you work as a food toxicologist, how long have you been practicing this profession? A: 7 years.
Q: Did the complainant remain that way? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: For how long did she remain that way? A: I think around two months, before she attempted to end her life. Q: When did she attempt to commit suicide? A: Around July or August 2006, Your Honor. Q: After she committed suicide, what happened? A: She sought the help of a psychiatrist. Q: Did you advise her to seek medical help? A: No, Your Honor, because I was afraid she’d say I think she’s crazy. Q: Did you do anything to help her? A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: What is your specialization? A: I specialize in chemical analysis of food composition and toxicity of food contents. Q: So, you have knowledge of different kinds of chemicals and food substances? A: Yes. Q: Are you familiar with rodenticide? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: Is it poisonous? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: Do you think it can kill a person? A: Depending on the amount, Your Honor. Q: Do you use rodenticide? A: Yes, we use them for killing house rats.
Q: Do you have a rodenticide at home? A: Yes, Your Honor.
poisoned around 6 hours earlier before she was brought to the Hospital? A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Do you recognize this box of rat killer, previously marked as Exhibit F? A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Where were you during that time? A: I was in the office. I have work.
Q: Was this the package that contained the rat killer? A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: On the day of the incident, what time did you wake up? A: The usual. 5:30 AM.
Q: Were you the one who bought this? A: No. It was Catherine who bought it because she intends to clean the apartment and to eliminate the rats at home.
Q: Did you wake up earlier than Catherine? A: Yes, Your Honor
Q: Miss Witness, were you aware of the provision in the lease contract which said that it is the responsibility of the lessor to conduct quarterly pest control measures? A: Yes, Your Honor. In fact, I was surprised why Catherine bought rodenticide, well in fact our lease agreement provides that we should report any complaints we have to the lessor. Q: How long have you been staying with the complainant in the same apartment? A: About 8 years now, Your Honor. Q: Do you have any other companion in the apartment where you and Catherine stay? A: None Q: Does this mean that either only you or Catherine prepares the food and drinks that may be found in the apartment. A: Yes. Except those which are ready to eat or drink. And sometimes if a close female relative from the province decides to stay for a while in the city, we allow her to stay in the apartment. Q: The night before Catherine was poisoned, were there any other person staying with you in the apartment? A: None sir. Q: So during that time, all the drinks and food inside the apartment were either prepared by you or Catherine? A: Most probably, Your Honor. Q: Are you aware of the findings of the doctor who attended Catherine that she was
Q: During that time, did you notice any grapefruit juice in the ref? A: Yes. We always have some stock of juice. Q: You testified that you and the complainant were childhood friends. Were you not concerned during the time that she suffered from depression? PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: Objection, Honor, counsel is speculating.
Your
(Pag overruled, ANSWER: I was concerned about her, but knowing her, she would not tell me how she feels because she liked keeping things to herself) (Pag sustained, reform the question to: WHAT DID YOU DO TO HELP THE COMPLAINANT DURING THE TIME SHE WAS SUFFERING FROM DEPRESSION? Answer: I was always talking to her, asking her how she feels, if she was okay or not.) Q: Miss Witness, do you know the fiancée of the complainant? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: How did you come to know him? A: He is the head security officer of the company where I and Catherine work. Q: Does he visit your apartment regularly? A: Yes, I think so. Q: Do you entertain him when he visits your place? A: Not at all. I usually give the couple some privacy. Q: Did you like him? A: No, Your Honor.
Q: Did you nurture any affection towards him? A: No, Your Honor. Q: Are you not jealous of your best friend? A: No, Your Honor. Q: Did you not develop any ill feelings towards your best friend when you learned that she and Ritchie is getting married? A: No, Your Honor. In fact, I’m happy for the both of them. PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: questions, Your Honor.
No
and emotional instability of the complainant and her suicidal tendencies. Exhibit 3-A is the printed copy of the electronic signature of the complainant to prove the authorship of the electronic mails sent by her. COURT: Any comment, Prosecutor Sarsaba? PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: As to Exhibit 1 and 1-A, we can admit its existence and authenticity, Your Honor.
further
COURT: Re-direct? ATTY. TAPIRE: No, Your Honor. COURT: Miss Witness, You may step down.
Formal Offer of Evidence of Defense ATTY. OCAMPO: Your Honor, we are now resting the case for the defense. COURT: How do you intend to submit your formal offer? ATTY. OCAMPO: We can now formally offer our evidence Your Honor. COURT: Proceed. ATTY. OCAMPO: Exhibit 1 is the Summary Discharge Report to prove the complainant’s admission for treatment at the Medical Center Manila. Exhibit 2 is the Psychiatric Assessment issued by Dr. Leira Taruc to prove mental and emotional condition of the complainant at the time she was admitted for psychiatric treatment. Exhibit 2-A is the signature by Dr. Leira Taruc as part of her testimony attesting to the fact that she was the psychiatrist of the complainant at Medical Center Manila. Exhibit 3 consists of printed copies of the electronic mails sent by the complainant to witness Kate Nunez to prove the mental
As to Exhibit 2 and 2-A, we can only admit the existence but not the authenticity and truthfulness Your Honor. Court: Acting on the formal offer of exhibits of the defense counsel and comments thereon by the public prosecutor, the Court resolves to admit all the exhibits offered by the defense counsel specified in the offer. COURT: Any rebuttal-evidence, Fiscal? PROSECUTOR SARSABA: evidence, Your Honor.
No
rebuttal
COURT: Considering that the public prosecutor will not present rebuttal evidence, the court gives the parties 30 days from today within which to file their respective memoranda. The case shall be deemed submitted for decision after the lapse of the said period, even without the said memorandum. COURT: Order.
