Motion for Reconsideration: Justice shall be served! A Recap: From Oct. 31, 2011 to Present.


Note: Below, you will be able to download documents relating to the Ram Revilla Murder Case. This is just a reminder that some browsers doesn’t work with the download. Please use a different browser if it doesn’t work. Thank you! If not, you can use the Contact Us Page and message us so that we can specifically send you the document you want to download.

LAST SEPT. 4, 2013 the Judge ordered the DENIAL of the PETITION FOR BAIL filed by RJ BAUTISTA and other accused. Only one (1) of the accused has been granted bail and that is Roy Francis Tolisora, the alleged gun-man, whom he admitted in his affidavits that he was really a hired killer and suddenly just backed-out.

The Order dated Sept. 4, 2013 states:

x x x WHEREFORE, all the foregoing duly considered, this Court rules as follows: (a) find the evidence of guilt of accused RAMON JOSEPH BAUTISTA Y MAGSAYSAY, GLAIZA VISDA Y RIVERA alias GLAIZA VISTA, JAN NORWIN DELA CRUZ Y GENTELIZO alias TOTO, RYAN PASTERA Y MONTINOLA alias BRYAN, and MICHAEL JAY NARTEA Y CRUZ alias MICHAEL to be strong, accordingly, their petitions for bail are DENIED. (b) find the evidence of guilt of accused ROY FRANCIS TOLISORA y HERRERA alias KIKO to be not strong, the petition for bail for accused is GRANTED. The amount of bail for said accused is fixed in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php200,000.00) for his provisional liberty. x x x

According to the Honorable Judge, the evidence against all the accused are STRONG which signifies the DENIAL of the BAIL. With all due respect, as always maintained, WE BEG TO DISAGREE. Click here to download the ORDER of the Judge dated Sept. 4, 2013.

On that Order, the Honorable Court relied on the thesis of Regalado that asserted that when the Prima facie evidence unexplained and uncontroverted is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed. The accused disagrees with the conclusion reached by the Court when it surmised that since the defense has not presented rebuttal evidence, then the prosecution’s evidence standing alone would merit the continued denial of bail. Such proposition is downright unfair, unjust and unwarranted considering that the evidence so far presented by the prosecution against the accused RAMON JOSEPH BAUTISTA Y MAGSAYSAY is so weak that his continued confinement would be a denial of his basic right guaranteed under the Constitution to be entitled to bail even for a capital offense when the evidence could not warrant further denial of bail.

With that, the defense has no other choice but to file a Motion for Reconsideration in connection with the denial of the Petition for Bail. Given that, only three (3) accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration: Ramon Joseph Bautista, Ryan Pastera and Glaiza Visda.

Motion for Reconsideration

The Motion for Reconsideration (MR) filed by RJ Bautista through his counsels explained that the evidence used against RJ Bautista is so weak that the continued denial of his bail would be against his basic right. Also, it is again reiterated that he was arrested illegally and therefore detained illegally that was discussed in his Motion to Quash.

Download File: File Description:
Click the download button on the left side to download the RJ Bautista’s Motion for Reconsideration document in connection with the denial to Bail.

Download the file above to see the Motion for Reconsideration document filed by Ramon Joseph (RJ) Magsaysay Bautista. Read the grounds that his lawyer(s) stated for the Honorable Judge to reconsider his decision.

Download File: File Description:
Click the download button on the left side to download the Prosecution’s Comment (Re: the Motion for Reconsideration) document in connection with the denial to Bail.

Download the file above to see the Prosecution’s Comment (Re: the Motion to Quash of the accused). Read the Prosecution’s comment and opposition to the Motion for Reconsiderations filed by the accused.

Download File: File Description:
Click the download button on the left side to download the RJ Bautista’s Reply (Re: the Prosecution’s Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration) document in connection with the denial to Bail.

Download the file above to see the Reply of RJ Bautista’s lawyer in regards to the COMMENT of the Prosecution.


Timeline of Events: From Oct. 31, 2011 to Present

Ramon Joseph Magsaysay Bautista was arrested last October 31, 2011 at 11:30pm or just three (3) days after the crime.

  • On that fateful night of October 31, 2011 while the accused was on board a motor vehicle together with his youngest (male) sibling and elder sister coming out of their Patriarchial house in Bacoor, Cavite coming from the wake of his brother RAMGEN MAGSAYSAY BAUTISTA, a group of men holding heavy firearms asked them to pull over.

  • They asked herein accused: “Bryan, Bryan, ikaw ba si Bryan?” Herein accused answered in the negative and gave his name. Suddenly, the other men opened the car’s back door where his youngest sibling was seated and two men poked the heavy firearms to his sibling and asked the same question if accused younger sibling is “Bryan” and accused younger brother managed to say he is not the Bryan that the men were looking for;
  • After a while, it turned out that the men looking for a certain Bryan were police officers and their leader who accused later knew was Major Torred, managed to call over the phone to speak with the accused half brother Sen. Bong Revilla, who gave instruction for the police to get the accused be directed to Paranaque Police Station just for some questioning while the two other police seated at the back seat still carrying a large firearm. Herein accused was able to talk to his brother Sen. Bong Revilla on the same cellular phone that the police used and informed him that the police is asking him to go with them to their office for questioning of which Senator Bong Revilla, told the accused to follow the police, and in spite of a fever at that time, accused with his other siblings went directly on convoy to the Paranaque Police Headquarters;
  • At the Paranaque City Police Headquarters, the Police officers sent the accused and siblings to an private air conditioned office and even bought medicine for the accused and Mc Donald’s burger at that time which the accused and siblings consumed while the Police Officers was happily conversing with them;
  • It was only when the accused biological mother arrived that the Police officers particularly Major Torred informed all of us that they are apprehending the accused as suspect for the death of his brother RAMGEN MAGSAYSAY BAUTISTA;
  • Accused was not given the opportunity to meet face to face with the police witness who would identify his person and his rights under the Miranda Doctrine was likewise, not performed at the time of their so called “arrest”;
  • The next day, Nov. 1, 2011 accompanied by his mother, Genelyn Magsaysay and lawyer at that time, Atty. Dennis Manzanal, RJ Bautista was brought to the Paranaque City Prosecutor’s Office for Inquest. RJ’s camp did not execute the waiver under the provisions of Article 125, as a result RJ Bautista was not subjected to Preliminary Investigation. RJ’s case was submitted for Resolution and has been passed and elevated to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 274.

Download File: File Description:
Click the download button on the left side to download the Joint-Affidavit of Arrest by the Paranaque Police regarding the “invitation” made to RJ Bautista last Oct. 31, 2011 at around 11:30pm.

If you are not aware on how our Justice System works here in the Philippines, here it is: Inquest or Preliminary Investigation, if probable cause found –> To the Court –> Arraignment –> Pre-Trial –> Trial –> Judgement / Promulgation.

To the Court: RTC Branch 274

As the case of RJ Bautista was elevated to the court. His former lawyer, Atty. Manzanal filed a Motion to Quash Information, as believed that he was arrested illegally and therefore detained illegally.

Motion to Quash Information

Show / Hide to DOWNLOAD Documents relating to the Motion to Quash


It states, “The sacred right against an arrest, search or seizure without valid warrant is not only ancient. It is also zealously safeguarded. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches or seizures. Any evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Indeed, while the power to search and seize may at times be necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law implemented without contravening the constitutional rights of the citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government.(Valdez vs People, G.R. No. 170180, November 23, 2007)

Justifying RJ’s arrest

  • Now, in justifying the arrest of the accused, the Paranaque Police invoked the police theory of Hot Pursuit. However, this theory is belied by the fact that THEY INVITED RJ BAUTISTA FOR SOME QUESTIONING and even so, the arresting officers did not have personal knowledge of the crime allegedly committed at the residence of the accused. Neither the alleged reportee, Ruel Puzon has personal knowledge of the commission of the crime.

  • In a “Hot Pursuit Operation“, it falls under Section 5(b) of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure as amended.

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant: When lawful – A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: x x x (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and x x x

Going back to the Motion to Quash, it is stated that at anytime before entering his plea, the accused may move to quash the complaint or information in accordance with Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

Sec. 3. Grounds: The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds: x x x (c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; x x x

In several cases, it has been recognized by the Court that the legality of an arrest affects the jurisdiction over the person of the accused. (Diamante vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180992, September 4, 2009; Dolera vs. Philippines, G.R. No. 180693, September 4, 2009; People vs Alunday, G.R. 181546, September 3, 2008)

However, last December 16, 2011 the Court denied RJ Bautista’s Motion to Quash Information in favor of the prosecution.

Arraignment:

(Arraignment Page can be found here)

  • Nov. 16, 2011 is the original set date for the arraignment, however it was reset to Jan. 17, 2012 since there was a pending motion that needs to be resolved first.

  • On January 17, 2012, RJ Bautista, Michael Nartea, and Roy Francis Tolisora pleaded “NOT GUILTY” to charges against them.
  • On January 2012, Ryan Pastera, Glaiza Visda, and Norwin dela Cruz pleaded “NOT GUILTY” to charges against them.

Charge sheet / Information

The accusatory allegations of the ”amended criminal information” indicting all the accused for the non-bailable offense of murder are as follows:

“The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses, Ramon Joseph Bautista, Michael Jay Nartea alias “MICHAEL”, Roy Francis Tolisora alias “KIKO”, Ramona Bautista alias “MARA”, Glaiza Visda alias “GLAIZA VISTA”¸ Norwin dela Cruz alias “TOTO”, and Ryan Pastera alias “BRYAN” of the crime of murder, committed as follows:

That on or about the 28th day of October 2011, at the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, and unlawfully and feloniously attack, shoot with unlicensed firearm and stab with a bladed weapon one RAMGEN JOSE BAUTISTA y MAGSAYSAY, hitting him on the different parts of the body, thereby inflicting upon him serious physical injuries which directly caused his death, the said killing having been attended by the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise, and abuse of superior strength, and the attendant ordinary aggravating circumstances of a crime committed in a dwelling during nighttime and employment of disguise which qualify such killing to Murder.”

Pre-trial:

(Pre-trial Page can be found here)

  • March 1, 2012 is the original set date for the Pre-trial, however it was reset to March 15, 2012, due to the “pre-marking of evidence” must be set first.

  • March 15, 2012, the second set date for the Pre-trial, however it was reset again and scheduled on March 19, 2012 due to the ”absence” of State Prosecutor Quetulio.
  • March 19, 2012, Pre-trial pushed through. All pre-marked evidence ”accepted”.

Accused Petition for Bail Filed


Download File: File Description:
Click the download button on the left side to download the Petition for Bail that RJ Bautista filed last Jan. 11, 2012

All accused, except for Ramona Bautista, filed a Petition for Bail to ask the court for their temporary liberty since the prosecutor didn’t recommend any bail, in regards to the murder charge, for all of the accused.

It was ruled that, “As a general rule, a person in custody shall, before final conviction be entitled to bail as a matter of right.” 1 When evidence of guilt is strong, a person shall not be entitled to bail if charged with a capital offense or with an offense that under the law is punishable with reclusion perpetua at the time of its commission and at the at the time of the application for bail.

From the foregoing, it is clear that it is jurisprudentially settled that before conviction of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is NOT strong, ”bail becomes a matter of right”.

  • Supreme Court in Paras v. Baldado cites: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, honor or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws”.

    RJ Bautista and other accused, through their respective lawyers filed their Petition for Bail. For RJ Bautista’s part, his petition for bail states the following grounds:

    1. ACCUSED RAMON JOSEPH M. BAUTISTA, HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH MURDER AND FRUSTRATED MURDER BASED ON HEARSAY EMMANATING FROM TESTIMONIAL HEARSAYS OF QUESTIONABLE AND/OR POLLUTED SOURCES.

    2. THE ARREST OF THE ACCUSED IS QUESTIONABLE AND BORDERING ON ILLEGALITY OF THE CONTINUED DETENTION OF THE ACCUSED IS ESSENTIALLY ARBITRARY IN CHARACTER BASED ON MISTAKEN IDENTITY ANCHORED ON MERE ALLEGATIONS OF HOT PURSUIT WITHOUT A WARRANT, AS MANDATED BY THE MOST BASIC AND PARAMOUNT LAW OF THE LAND, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ITS SUPREMACY MUST BE UPHELD.
    3. PRIVATE COMPLAINANT HONORABLE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, HAS NO DIRECT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE INORDER FOR THEM TO QUALIFY AS PRIVATE COMPLAINANT IN THE INSTANT CASE. WHICH IS HEREBY STATED WITH ALL HUMILITY AND RESPECT TO LAWFUL AUTHORITIES TO SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

Let us always remember, “Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. Every circumstances favoring the accused’s innocence must be taken into account. Proof against him must survive the test of reason; the stronger suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgement. The conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged. What is required is moral certainty. 2

Petition for Bail Trial: Prosecution Witnesses

As for all the accused filed a Petition for Bail, the court has to hear first the Petition for Bail before it could go to the main trial. For the Prosecution for its presentation of evidence presented seven (7) witnesses with the following testimony with our comments:

  1. First witness of the prosecution is Senior Police Officer 4 (SPO4) Charlie Bayoca of the Philippine National Police.
    Show / Hide to read the Testimony of this Witness

  2. Second witness of the prosecution is Ruel Puzon y Yumang, the alleged INFORMANT, STAR witness, and the supposed REPLACEMENT GUNMAN.
    Show / Hide to read the Testimony of this Witness

  3. Third witness of the prosecution is Ronaldo Ancajas y Flores, the guard and PA of the late, Ram Revilla..
    Show / Hide to read the Testimony of this Witness

  4. Fourth witness of the prosecution is Janelle Manahan y Quintano, the former girlfriend of the late Ram Revilla, also complainant in the Frustrated Murder case.
    Show / Hide to read the Testimony of this Witness

  5. Fifth witness of the prosecution is Dr. Dominic L. Aguda, the Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI.
    Show / Hide to read the Testimony of this Witness

  6. Sixth witness of the prosecution is Sheridan Embat, the police tagged him as to “where it all started”.
    Show / Hide to read the Testimony of this Witness

  7. Seventh witness of the prosecution is Nino Tabada, the security guard of the village.
    Show / Hide to read the Testimony of this Witness

After presenting seven (7) witnesses, the Prosecution asked the Court for thirty (30) days to file their Formal Offer of Evidence.

Download File: File Description:
Click the download button on the left side to download the Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence filed in Court.

Right after the Prosecution filed their Formal Offer of Evidence, the Defense replied and filed their opposition to the Offer, then the Honorable Court Ordered on June 3, 2013 directing all accused to manifest if still they intend to present evidence before the court will consider the incidents of Petitions for Bail be submitted for resolution.

At that juncture, the Defense filed a Manifestation that in lieu of presenting evidence, the Defense would just move to file a Memorandum in support for the Petitions for Bail.

Download File: File Description:
Click the download button on the left side to download RJ Bautista’s Manifestation (Re: the Order to Present Evidence or Not) filed in Court.

Memorandum filed by the Accused

The defense filed their Memorandum (In Support for the Petitions for Bail). Below is RJ Bautista’s Memorandum in Support for his Petition for Bail. Also, download below the Manifestation filed by RJ Bautista to ask the Honorable Court to resolve the Petition for Bail due to the time given that the other accused hasn’t file their respective Memorandums.

Download File: File Description:
Click the download button on the left side to download RJ Bautista’s Memorandum (In Support for the Petition for Bail) filed in Court.
DOWNLOAD
Click the download button on the left side to download RJ Bautista’s Manifestation (That the Court should resolve the Petition for Bail) filed in Court.

Petition for Bail submitted for Resolution

After the Court gave all the accused time to file their respective Manifestations and Memorandums, only RJ Bautista and Ryan Pastera, through counsels, was able to file their Memorandums. With that, the Court ordered the incidents of Petitions for Bail of all the accused be submitted for Resolution.

Download File: File Description:
Click the download button on the left side to download the Order (072213) – Petitions for Bail submitted for Resolution document released by the Court.

Bail Resolution & Motion for Reconsideration

If you have missed the Download option at the top most portion of this post, below are the download links for the Bail Resolution and for the Motion for Reconsideration filed by RJ Bautista.

Download File: File Description:
Click the download button on the left side to download Order (090413) – Bail Resolution released by the court resolving the Petitions for Bail by all of the accused.
Click the download button on the left side to download the RJ Bautista’s Motion for Reconsideration document in connection with the denial to Bail.
Click the download button on the left side to download the Prosecution’s Comment (Re: the Motion for Reconsideration) document in connection with the denial to Bail.
Click the download button on the left side to download the RJ Bautista’s Reply (Re: the Prosecution’s Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration) document in connection with the denial to Bail.

Notes:

  1. People vs. Presiding Judge, RTC Muntinlupa City [Br. 276] 431 SCRA 391
  2. People v. Bania, G.R. 46524, 31 Jan. 85
  3. Sworn Statement given to the Police of Janelle Manahan
  4. http://www.philstar.com/metro/2012/10/10/857886/medico-legal-officer-details-ramgens-wounds
  5. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/99887/another-sister-linked-to-slay
  6. People of Phils. vs RJ Bautista, et. al., March 12, 2013 at 8:30am, Transcript of Stenographical Notes (TSN): 63 pages (031213TSN)
  7. People of Phils. vs RJ Bautista, et. al., March 19, 2013 at 8:30am, Transcript of Stenographical Notes (TSN): 62 pages (031913TSN)
  8. Sworn Statement of Niño Tabada, taken last Oct. 29, 2011 by Police Officer 2 Encallado, 4 pages
  9. Sworn statement of Tabada
  10. 031213TSN
  11. 031213TSN
  12. 031213TSN
  13. Sworn statement of Tabada
  14. 031213TSN
  15. Sworn statement of Tabada
  16. 031913TSN

2nd Witness: Ruel Puzon (Star witness)

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.

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