2nd Witness: Ruel Puzon (Star witness)

FacebookTumblrTwitterBlogger PostEmailGoogle GmailShare

Star Witness Ruel Puzon’s testimony compared to his statements.

TESTIMONY IN COURT

Testimony date: June 5, 19, July 17, 24, and Sept. 18, 2012

The second witness was Ruel Puzon y Yumang. The witness testified that at-around 6:00 o’clock in the moming of October 12, 2011, he was at their house located at 6225 Poultry Compound, San Dionisio, Parañaque city; He was awakened by his mother because of persons, namely; Michael Nartea, Norwin Dela Cruz, Glaiza Visda, and a certain Bryan or Ryan who were calling for him.

Before October 12, he already knew Michael Nartea for quite a long time, but they were never together. They are neighbors and Michael is known as “namamaril” and engaged in hold-up. He knows Glaiza Visda for about a year with Norwin Dela Cruz. Both were introduced to him by a certain Lloyd Komeda @Lim. He came to know accused Bryan or Ryan Pastera only on October 12 when the group went to his house. The group talked about the replacement of Kiko (pagpalit kay Kiko).

Kiko is Roy Tolisora. The conversation was about the failed “pagpasok sa bahay ni Ramgen” as told to him by the group. They were then inside the Vios car of Glaiza Visda which she also drove. In the front passenger seat was Ryan, while at the back were Michael Nartea, Norwin Dela Cruz, and himself sitting in the middle. It was actually Norwin and Glaiza who told him about the failed plan to kill Ramgen in the early morning of October 12.

It was Michael who told him to replace Kiko in killing Ramgen. At that time, he was not yet sure to accept the offer. They then proceeded to the house of Kiko at Kabihasnan, Parañaque City.

Glaiza alighted from the car to see Kiko inside his house. Glaiza returned to the car with Kiko, qand then Ryan told Kiko that they were getting the two (2) guns. Kiko went back to the house and when he returned, handed the .45 gun to Ryan as the other gun he pawned. (Note: According to his Sworn Statement, he handed the gun to Norwin dela Cruz.)

They then went home. On the same date. October 12, 2011. Ryan gave Puzon a picture of Ramgen. (TSN of June 5, 2012. PP- 56-71)

On October 14, 2011 at around 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon together with Michael Nartea, he again met Ryan Pastera at C-5 Golden Haven, Las Pinas City to get the Php19,000.00 redemption money for a gun. Ryan arrived at around 1:25 pm. They went inside the car, an Innova, and while Ryan gave the Php19,000.00 to Michael. Ryan had then a companion whom the witness did not yet know. Later, he came to know the person as Ramon Joseph Baunsta through some pictures and a photocopy of a driver’s license the police showed him. Michael then gave the money to Puzon for the latter to redeem another gun as what Puzon made them to believe. The witness recognized Ramon Joseph who was seated in front beside Ryan because Ramon Joseph looked back at him and Michael who were seated at the back of the car.

On October 17, 2011, he met with Ryan at 7-Eleven at Pulanglupa, Las Pinas City at around 3:00 o‘clock in the morning as told by Ryan through cellphone. The message was made in the afternoon of October 16 and they met early in the next morning. Ryan is to point to him the house of Ramgen, the subject of the killing. They then went to BF Homes, Parañaque City, passing by Norwin Dela Cruz who also live in BF Homes, and who also went with them at that time (Note: According to his Sworn Statement, they went to the house with Michael and Bryan, not Norwin). Reaching the place of Ramgen, they looked at the garage and they passage at the back. They were riding an Innova. They alighted (Note: According to his Sworn Statement, they never alighted from the car, they were just roaming around and never went down) and Ryan pointed to him the passage into the house of Ramgen at the back. It was Ryan telling him the route to get inside. They stayed at the place for about 15 minutes. Puzon overheard Ryan talking with somebody through a cellphone he heard Ryan mentioning the name Joseph. Ryan was talking in that cellphone conversation with Joseph about the plate number of the car being used by Ramgen. Ryan then told Puzon about the plate number of the car of Ramgen, but the plate number was erased in his own cellphone.

At this time, Puzon did not yet agree to do the job of Kiko. He was just riding on with the plan with the intention to just take the money of Ryan. By 4:00 o’clock in the morning of October 17, they left BF Homes for home.

After October 17, they met again on October 19, 2011 at 7 Eleven Sucat. Ramgen was not yet dead at that time. Present then were Ryan Pastera, Norwin Dela Cruz. Glaiza Visda, and Michael Nartea. He and Michael arrived at around 9:00 o’clock in the evening riding in a motorbike. The meeting was about the planning to ambush Ramgen. There was no designated gunman yet at that time. The group went ahead towards BF Homes. Puzon and Michael were to follow in a motorbike. However. the two did not follow as planned, intending to give the excuse later that they were caught by the police for traffic violation. He and Michael went home instead. Later, he watched on TV that Ramgen Revilla was killed. He then went to the police headquarters and gave his statement on October 30, 2011 (Note: PROOF that Ruel Puzon DID NOT voluntarily surrender at police headquarters). (see TSN of June 5, 2012, pp. 11-96; TSN of June 19, 2012, pp. 9-113; TSN of July 17, 2012, pp. 6-119; TSN of July 24, 2012, pp. 9-103; TSN of September 18, 2012, pp. 7-19; TSN of November 20, 2012, pp. 6-12)

CROSS EXAMINATION with comparison with the discrepancies to the exisiting Sworn Statement of the witness:

Page 55, TSN June 19, 2012

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: In your Sinumpaang Salaysay dated October 30, 2011, in question no. 13 you were asked, “Matapos nito mayroon pa bang sumunod na pangyayari, kung mayroon man? And you answered “Mayroon po, noong 17 October 2011, bandang 3:00 ng hapon isinama ako ni Michael at Bryan sa lugar nila Ramgen sa BF Parañaque”. Do you confirm that?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Hindi po.

Atty. Diaz-Salccdo:
Q: So, this is not true?

Wimcss R. Puzon:
A: Hindi po.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: What you stated in your salaysay dated October 30 is not true, Mr. Witness? Because here, you stated that it was Michael and Bryan who were with you. Now in your testimony on page 55 or earlier, you just stated that it was Norwin and Bryan who were with you.

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Opo.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedoz:
Q: So who were with you?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Norwin and Bryan po.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: So, this is not true, in your statement dated October 30 which you earlier said to have contained all the true information that you knew about the incident? You were not telling the truth when you executed this affidavit, Mr. Witness?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Mali po. Opo.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: You were lying?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Mali po ‘yong nasabi ko?

Page 68, TSN, June 19, 2012

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: Going back to your statement dated October 30, 2011, Mr. Witness. Were you able to enter the house of Ramgen, Mr. Witness?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Hindi po.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: You just stayed outside?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Opo.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: Outside of the vehicle?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Sa labas po ng gate.

xxx. xxx xxx.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: So, you alighted from the vehicle but you just stayed outside of the house, at the gate, is that correct?

Wimess R. Puzon:
A: Opo.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: In your statement dated October 30, 2011, in question no. 14 you were asked, “Nakapasok ba kayo sa loob ng bahay ni Ramgen”, sagot: Hindi sir, sa labas lang. Doon kami sa Innova ni Bryan at inikutan lang naming ang bahay at nasabing lugar”. Do you confirm that statement?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Opo.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q. You did not state here that you alighted from the vehicle and then proceeded to the gate of Ramgen’s house? Hindi mo sinabi?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Hindi po.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: So, what is the truth Mr. Witness, did you alight from the vehicle?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Bumaba po kami.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: So, your answer in question no. 14 of your Sinumpaang Salaysay dated October 30 that you stayed inside the Innova is not true?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Hindi po.

xxx xxx xxx.

TSN, page 97, June 19, 2012.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: Do you know the publicized reward of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php. Php500,000.00) for whoever who can provide information or lead on the persons who are responsible to the death of Ramgen Revilla? Have you ever heard about that. Mr. Witness, the Five Hundred Thousand (Php.500,000.00) reward?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Hindi po.

Atty. Diaz-SaIcedo:
Q: You never heard about that?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Hindi po.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: So you have no idea that there was a reward Five Hundred Thousand (Php500,000.00)?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Wala po.

Atty. Diaz-Salccdo:
Q: Until now, Mr. Witness?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Alam po.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: Were you given any part of that reward Mr. Witness?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Opo.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: How much?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Nong bago lang po mag pasko.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: How much Mr. Witness?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Fifteen lang po.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: Fifteen thousand (Php15,000.00)?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Opo, 15.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: Who gave you, Mr. Witness, the fifteen thousand?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Sila hepe po.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: What’s the name of the hepe?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Beltran po.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: Why did he give you Fifteen Thousand Pesos?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Kumbaga pamasko lang daw po. 1

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: As a Christmas gift?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Opo.

Atty. Diaz-Salcedo:
Q: It’s not part of the reward?

Witness R. Puzon:
A: Hindi po.

Xxx xxx xxX

And finally, on Oct. 19, 2011, this was the last meeting with Puzon wherein they will execute the plan to kill Ramgen, however he backed out, out of the blue without telling the group. He further testified that after this alleged meeting, the said group ”never” contacted him ever again.

When the judge find some of what he is saying hard to believe he asked the witness, “Sa palagay mo, Ruel, hindi naman kaya gawa gawa mo lang itong mga sinasabi mo?” 2(TSN, page 112, June 19, 2012)

SWORN STATEMENTS

Ruel Puzon executed three (3) Sinumpaang Salaysay which are dated October 30, 2011, November 1, 2011, and November 17, 2011.

Analysis

Ruel Puzon, the star witness of the prosecution, revealed a lot of allegations regarding the death of Ram Revilla. However, said fact that he does not have any personal knowledge as to what transpired on the evening of Oct. 28, 2011, assuming it to be true, just the failed attempts to murder Ram Revilla. 3

However, after his giving his testimonies and statements it somehow revealed to have a lot inconsistencies.

As even pointed by him on his testimony of having huge discrepancies on his sworn statement and testimony in court.

Ruel Puzon tried to pin RJ Bautista being the financier of the deal being in the car on the alleged “Oct. 14, 2011” meeting, this statement is just based on conjectures, surmises, and speculation, he admitted, assuming it to be true, that the person sitted in front was not doing anything and was just sitting therein.

He was not there at the crime scene at the time of its commitment, given that he is not a witness. He did not see who shot Ram Revilla or wounded Janelle Manahan.

His statement did not prove anything that RJ Bautista or the other accused really participated in the well-written script that this witness is saying, the only thing that his statements and testimony proved is that he is a LIAR.

And by in large, clearly appears on his testimony not only bordered on perjury but even more his acts speaks for itself to have dwelled in the realm of fallacious statements at the expense of justice and of the accused.

The numerous odd inconsistencies are so vital for the witness to answer but he resorted to of switching personas in his testimony.

As stated, the court asked the witness for its clarificatory questions, and in query asked if the group ever contacted him again after the last Oct. 19, 2011 meeting? He said “No.” Meaning, after all the alleged purported meetings and giving him money as he was the replacement gunman, according to him, he was never contacted again and nothing at all transpired.



This post has been seen 868 times.

Notes:

  1. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/230484/ramgen-witness-%E2%80%98in-it-for-the-money%E2%80%99
  2. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/215561/genelyn-says-‘hallelujah’-as-judge-asks-witness-are-you-lying
  3. http://www.tempo.com.ph/2012/06/ramgen-case-4
Tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *