ARRAIGNMENT

COC: All rise, the court is now in session,

Honorable Mila Catabay-Lauigan, presiding.

COC: LET US PRAY.

Almighty God, we stand in Your Holy Presence as our Supreme Judge.
We humbly beseech You to bless and inspire us so that what we think,
say and do will be in accordance with Your will.

Enlighten our minds, strengthen our spirit and fill our hearts with
fraternal love, wisdom and understanding, so that we can become
effective channels of truth, justice and peace.

In our proceedings today, guide us in the path of righteousness for the

fulfillment of Your greater glory. Amen.

ALL COUNSELS: Good afternoon, Your Honor!

The Miranda doctrine requires that:

(a) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain
silent;
(b) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law;
(c) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to
have his counsel present when being questioned; and
- Should be a competent and independent counsel preferably of the
suspect's own choice
(d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any
questioning if he so desires.

JUDGE : Call the case!

COC: Criminal Case No. 12345 People of the Philippines vs. Mario A.
Dumaual for the crime of murder.

JUDGE: Appearances.

Prosecution

Your honor, I am Prosecutor Mary Grace Cauan respectfully appearing

for the people.

Prosecutor Ma. Lourence Lim for the people, Your Honor.

Prosecutor Jose Carlos Tumaliuan, appearing for the people, Your

Honor.

Gracy: Your honor, we are ready for arraignment and pretrial.

Defense

Your honor, I am Atty. Dianne Macaballug respectfully appearing for

the accused.

Atty. Alicia Ashley Viggayan-Pintucan respectfully appearing as a

collaborating counsel, for the accused, your honor

Your honor, I am Atty. Christian King Capili, also appearing as a

collaborating counsel, for the accused, your honor

AA: For the Defense, we are ready for arraignment and pretrial, your
honor.

JUDGE: Arraign the accused.

AA: We pray that the information be read to the accused in Ilocano, your
Honor.

COC: Criminal Case No. 12345 People of the Philippines vs. Mario A.
Dumaual for the crime of murder.

Translated into Ilocano**

That on or about the 5th day of November, 2020, in the Municipality of
Baggao, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, with treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attacked and
stabbed the victim Nancy G. Castillo, with a knife, while the latter was
walking along the road, to insure that there would not be any risk to
himself, inflicting upon said victim fatal wounds in the chest and neck
which caused her instant death.

Nga idi ika-lima iti Nobyembre tawen iti 2020, iti ili iti Baggao ken
hurisdiksyon iti daytoy nga korte, nga sika Mario Dumaual, nga awan iti
kalaban-laban na ken panangusar iti pigsa, ket inubra na nga kinaykayat na iti
maiparit iti linteg, ket inatakem ken binagkong mo iti namintallo iti biktima nga
ni Nancy G. Castillo, usar mo iti imuko, nga isu iti kagapwanan iti pannakatay
na. Aminem detoy?

Contrary to law.

JUDGE: Do you understand the crime against you?

Int: maawatam daytoy nga krimen nga iak-akusa da kenyam?

MARIO: Yes, Your honor.

JUDGE: What is your plea?

IF WALANG COMMENT JUDGE

COC: aminem detoy?

MARIO: HAAN/Not guilty, Judge.

COC: Your honor, after having arraigned in Ilocano, the language he

fully understands and speaks, the accused pleaded not guilty to the crime
charged.

PRE-TRIAL

Stipulation of Facts
GRACY: Your honor, may we proceed with the proposals for
admission.

Judge: Proceed.

GRACY: We propose the following:

1. The identity of the accused that whenever he is called Mario, he is

the same Mario A. Dumaual charged in the information;

D: We admit.

2. That the incident transpired at Pascual St., San Jose, Baggao,

Cagayan;

D: We deny.

3. That the stabbing incident led to the death of the victim, Nancy G.
Castillo;

D: We admit.

4. That the accused stabbed the victim which led to her instantaneous
death;

D: We deny.

5. That the accused Mario A. Dumaual confessed before a competent

and independent counsel about stabbing the victim and a written
extrajudicial confession is duly executed;

D: We deny.

That's all your honor.

DI: For the defense, your honor, we propose the following proposals:

1. That Mario A. Dumaual was diagnosed having Intellectual

Disability Disorder

D: We deny.

2. That the Accused is watching at home at the time of the commission

of the crime
D: We deny.

3. That the confession extracted from the accused is inadmissible

D: We deny.

Issues
JUDGE: Issues.
LOU: For the prosecution, your honor, we submit this issue:
1. Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of murder.

AA: For the defense, your honor, we adopt the same issue and add this
issue:
1. Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of the Accused is
inadmissible

Documentary Exhibits
JC: For the people, your Honor, we pray for the marking of the
following documentary exhibits:
Exhibit A - Complaint Affidavit of complainant Patrick G. Castillo
Exhibit B - Joint Investigators Affidavit
Exhibit C - Certificate of Death of Nancy G. Castillo
Exhibit D - Affidavit of Atty. Allan Ferrer
Exhibit E - Affidavit of Angelica B. Reyes
Exhibit F - Affidavit of Johnny B. Manahan
Exhibit G - Written Extrajudicial Confession of Mario A. Dumaual
Exhibit H - Medico Legal Report of Dr. Leni R. Montes
Exhibit I - Investigation Report of PNP Baggao Station
Exhibit J - Police Blotter
Exhibit K- Video recording of the first confession of Accused Mario A.
Dumaual
Exhibit L- Photograph of the crime scene

JC: That would be all your honor.

KING: For the accused, your Honor, we pray for the marking of the
following documentary exhibits:
Exhibit “1” - Psychiatric Evaluation Report dated December 20, 2019
Exhibit “2” - Psychiatric Evaluation Report dated November 07, 2020
Exhibit “3” - Counter-Affidavit of Mario Dumaual
Exhibit “4” - Affidavit of Maritess Dumaual
Exhibit “5” - Certificate of Live Birth of Mario Dumaual
Exhibit “6” and series - prescription of Mario’s medication
Exhibit “7” - Affidavit of Raul Manansala

That would be all, your Honor.

Witnesses

JUDGE: Witness for the prosecution

GRACY: Your honor, we will present the following witnesses:

1. Investigating police - Police Master Sergeant/Duty Investigator

John Vincent De Luna
2. Atty. Allan B. Ferrer - Lawyer who assisted Mario during the
extrajudicial confession
3. Angelica B. Reyes - neighbor of the victim who first found her
lifeless body
4. Johnny Manahan - the gay friend of the victim
5. Dr. Leni Montes - Doctor who performed the autopsy
6. Patrick G. Castillo - father of the victim, executed the complaint
affidavit

***If sisitahin ni Judge - - stipulate that the testimonies of Angelica

Reyes, Johnny Manahan and Dr. Leni Montes

- If the defense counsel would agree, the presentation of these

witnesses will be dispensed with

LOU: Your honor, may we ask from the defense counsels if they would
like to admit the stipulations of the witnesses namely Angelica Reyes,
Johnny Manahan and Dr. Leni Montes.
Defense: We are willing to stipulate with the counter-stipulation that
they do not have personal knowledge as to the time Nancy died.

- Pwede accdg Atty. Tza, pero most of the time during trial

JUDGE: For the D, we present the ff witnesses:

AA:

1. Dr. Elaine T. Battung - Psychiatrist

2. The accused himself, Mario A. Dumaual
3. Marites Dumaual - Mother of the Accused, Mario A. Dumaual
4. Raul Manansala - Neighbor of the Accused

That would be all, your honor.

Lou: May I be heard, your honor. For the initial presentation of

prosecution’s witness, may we pray that a subpoena be issued to PMS
John Vincent De Luna of PNP Baggao

TRIAL

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF THE INVESTIGATING/POLICE

OFFICER BY PROSEC.

LOU: Your honor, may I call Mr. John Vincent De Luna to the witness
stand
JUDGE: Swear the witness.
COC: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole the truth, and nothing
but the truth?
Witness: i do.
COC: Please state your name, age and other personal circumstances.
Witness: I am John Vincent De Luna, 38 years old, married and
presently residing at Barangay Poblacion (Centro), Baggao, Cagayan.

COC: Your honor, the witness is John Vincent de Luna, 38 y/o, married
and a resident of Poblacion Centro, Baggao, Cagayan. The witness is
now ready, your honor.
Counsel: Proffer, your Honor?

Judge: Proceed.

LOU: Your Honor, the testimony of Police Master Sergeant John Vincent
De Luna is being offered to prove that:

1. He is a member of the Philippine National Police;

2. He is a Police Master Sergeant;
3. He is the Investigator-on-Case (IOC)/ Duty Investigator tasked to
conduct the crime scene investigation;
4. **He was on duty on November 5, 2020
5. Upon receiving a report at the police station, the Police Master
Sergeant, along with another police officer, went to the place of the
alleged incident to conduct ocular inspection and investigation;
6. A confession was extracted during their investigation from the
accused;
7. The procedures of the arrest of the accused were properly
observed.
8. And other material allegations in the case.

That would be the gist of his testimony, your honor.

JUDGE: Comment counsel?

Defense: We do not admit the proffered testimony your honor, we will

cross-examine the witness.

Your honor, the witness executed an affidavit which will be used as his
direct testimony and may we know from the defense counsel if she can
admit the existence, genuineness, and due execution of the said affidavit
with reservation to ask additional direct examination questions.

Defense: We could admit the existence, genuineness, and due execution

of the said affidavit and we conform to its use as his direct testimony.
** if ayaw ni madam - ipa identify still ang affidavit. Original plan:

Lou: Mr witness, do you recall having executed any affidavit in

relation to this case?
JC: Yes
 If this affidavit will be shown to you will you be able to identify
it?
JC: Yes

Attached to the records of this case is an affidavit. Can you go

over it and tell if this is the same affidavit you were referring to?
Yes

Do you affirm and confirm the contents of your affidavit?

JC: Yes

LOU: May I proceed, your honor?

LOU: Good afternoon Mr. Witness, what is your profession?

JC: I am a member of the Philippine National Police, ma’am

LOU: Can you please state your current position, mr witness?

JC: I am a Police Master Sergeant, ma’am

LOU: Where are you assigned Mr. Witness?

JC: I am currently assigned at Baggao Police Station, ma’am.

LOU: And how long have you been in service with the Philippine
National Police?

JC: Twelve (12) years, ma’am.

LOU: What are your principal duties and functions, if any?

JC: I am currently the Investigator-on-Case (IOC)/ Duty Investigator. I
am duly designated to conduct the inquiry of the crime by following a
systematic set of procedures. I assume full responsibility over the crime
scene during the conduct of crime scene investigation;

LOU: Where were you on November 5, 2020, mr. witness??

JC: Im at Baggao Police Station, ma’am
LOU: Do you recall any incident worthy of note that transpired during
that day?
JC: We received a report from Mr. Patrick Castillo about his daughter,
NANCY G. CASTILLO (Nancy) who was found by their neighbor named
ANGELICA REYES (Angelica) partly naked, lying along the road of
Pascual St., San Jose, Baggao, Cagayan, allegedly stabbed

LOU: What did you do after you received the report in your office?

JC: About 7:00 in the morning of the same date after the initial
interview with PATRICK, I, together with PSsg. Juan Dela Cruz,
immediately proceeded at Pascual St., San Jose, Baggao, to conduct an
ocular investigation where the incident transpired involving victim
NANCY.

LOU: What did you do when you arrived at the place of the crime
scene?

JC: We cordoned said area by using crime-scene tape to preserve the

crime scene and/or to protect/prevent the evidence from being
contaminated. Subsequently, on or about 7:30 am,the SOCO personnel
arrived at the crime scene;

LOU: What did you do next, if any?

JC: We took photographs of the scene, took several overview images of

the surrounding areas from multiple angles and point of view so that
we can show the scene preserved in an unaltered condition;

LOU: Aside from you, the other police officer, and the SOCO
personnel, who else was there at the crime scene?
JC: The victim’s parents were there mourning/crying. A man named
Johnny Manahan also arrived at the crime scene 20 minutes after the
ocular inspection.

LOU: And who is this Johnny Manahan?

JC: He introduced himself as the gay friend of the victim

LOU: What did he do at the crime scene?

JC: He mourned and he comforted the victim’s father and after a while
he approached us

LOU: What did you do when he approached you?

JC: We interviewed him and asked if he knew something about Nancy’s

whereabouts on November 4, 2020

LOU: What did he say, if any?

JC: He narrated that he was with the victim the night before at 7pm and
they parted ways when she alighted from the tricycle where they were
both riding in a welding shop about 50 meters from where she was
found the next day. He said that he did not see where Nancy was headed
to or who the person she went to meet.

LOU: After hearing his narration, what did you do next?

JC: We immediately went to the welding shop mentioned by Johnny.

LOU: When you arrived at the said welding shop, what did you do?

JC: upon arriving at the shop, we approached the two men present there
namely Raul and Mario

LOU: And what were they doing at the welding shop?

JC: Raul is a welder at the welding shop and Mario was just sitting at a
plastic chair

LOU: What did you do after finding them at the welding shop?
JC: We interviewed each of them about the reported incident in the
area.

LOU: What was their answer, if any?

JC: Raul answered: “I do not know what you are talking about ''. while
Mario remained silent.

LOU: What was your response, if any?

JC: We informed them that we are police officers and we are to

investigate based on a report of stabbing a certain person named Nancy
G. Castillo.

LOU: What happened next?

JC: Raul insisted that he knew nothing about the incident. Mario A.
Dumaual, who was previously silent, started to talk and suddenly
confessed that he was the one who stabbed Nancy.

LOU: You mentioned that a certain Mario Dumaual suddenly

confessed that he stabbed Nancy, kindly look around this court and
tell us if the said Mario Dumaual is present in the court today.

JC: Yes, ma’am He is present in the court today

LOU: And kindly point at him?

JC: ***ITURO MO SI DE LUNA /pointing to Mario

COC: your honor, the witness is pointing at a man wearing ____ clothes
in the 2nd row. Pls stand up, sir. Kindly tell us your name
Mario: - silent -
COC: Ilocano

LOU: What happened after Mario Dumaual suddenly confessed?

JC: I apprehended Mario and informed him his Miranda rights and
brought him to the police station for further questioning.
LOU: What happened at the police station?

JC: Mario was made to confess again, during which the interview was
video recorded.

LOU: Who video-recorded the confession?

JC: I did it, ma’am

LOU: What proof do you have, if any?

JC: I have a copy of the disc containing the video recording, ma’am

LOU: Attached in the records of the case is a disc containing the video
recording of the confession made at the police station, is it the same
disc recording you were referring to?

JC: It is the same, maam

LOU: Your honor, the disc containing the video recording of the
confession was previously marked as exhibit K, we pray that the same
marking be adopted.

Judge: proceed/noted/granted

LOU: Mr witness, what did you do next?

JC: Since it is our practice in the precinct that whenever a person is

about to confess for a crime, we are calling a lawyer to assist and
witness such confession and Mario was made to state again his
confession, this time with the assistance of a counsel.

LOU: What is the name of the counsel who assisted the accused in his
confession?

JC: Atty Allan Ferrer

LOU: And what did the accused confess at the police station?
JC: From the confession, we learned that Mario stabbed the victim. He
narrated that when he saw Nancy along the road, he abruptly stabbed
her twice in the chest and in her neck.

(PO: Kilala mo ba si Nancy

M: *silent* nangingiwi
PO: Inuulit ko, kilala mo ba si Nancy, nakita siyang namatay sa __
M: Ah ako yung pumatay *tumatawa*
PO: Paano mo pinatay si nancy?
M: Basta sinaksak ko siya
PO: Anong ginawa mo
M: Pagkakita ko sa kanya, sinaksak ko siya)
LOU: After he narrated, what happened next?

JC: The lawyer put into writing the confession. After that, he read the
contents of the confession and translated it into Ilocano dialect.
Records of the confession were all filed in the police investigation
report that we submitted to the prosecutor’s office of Cagayan for the
filing of murder charges against the accused, Mario A. Dumaual.

LOU: What proof do you have, if any?

JC: The police investigation report, ma’am

LOU: I have here the copy of the Police Investigation report, can you
go over it and tell this honorable court if that is the same Police
Investigation Report you are referring to?

JC: They are the same, ma’am.

LOU: Your Honor, this Police Investigation report was previously

marked as exhibit J. May we adopt the same marking?

JUDGE: noted/granted/proceed

LOU: Mr witness, what happened next?

JC: We informed the family of the victim and immediately assisted his
father in preparing a complaint affidavit for the proper filing of the case
against Mario.
LOU: No further questions, your honor.

Cross- Examination of Police Investigator;

King: Mr. Witness, you have testified a while ago that you conducted
investigation at Pascual St., San Jose, Baggao Cagayan correct;

JC: Yes, atty

King: And the purpose of the investigation is that there was an

incident of killing within that area, right?

JC: Yes, Atty.

King: At the crime scene there was one Johnny Manahan who
informed you that the victim alighted from a tricycle near the welding
shop right?

JC: Yes, Atty.

King: And because of that Mr witness, you proceeded at the said

welding shop immediately and then and there, you extracted from one
Mario dumaual a confession that he was the one who killed the victim
and immediately arrested him correct?

JC: Yes, Atty

King: Mr Witness Who were with you when you apprehended Mario
Dumaual?

JC: Pssg Juan Dela Cruz, Atty

King: After that Mr witness , you brought him to the Police Station for
profiling and further investigation, right?

JC: Yes, Atty.

King: And again, during that time, you made him confess twice
without the presence of counsel correct?

JC: No Atty, only the first confession in the police station that is
uncounseled but it was supported by video recording and the second
was made in the presence of a counsel.

King: During those two alleged confessions, he was not apprised of

his miranda rights before making a statement?

JC: On the second time he confessed at the police station, he was

apprised by the lawyer.

King: to whom did he confess during his first confession when you
were all at the police station?

JC: me and pssg juan dela cruz

King: you mentioned that the first confession inside the police station
was recorded. Correct?

JC: yes, atty

K: And before the recording started, you did not ask permission from
Mario that events which will transpire during and after the alleged
confession while inside the precinct will be recorded?

JC: yes, atty

King: Since you did not ask permission, you did not also inform him
of his right to privacy?

JC: yes, atty

King: You likewise mentioned that the second confession in the

precinct was with the presence and assistance of a counsel. Who called
the said counsel?

JC: I did, atty.

King: Before contacting Atty. Ferrer, did you not ask the accused if he
has a counsel of his own choice?

JC: no, atty.

King: Did you not call or at least tried contacting his family prior to
his alleged confession to ask whether they will engage the services of
a lawyer of their own choice?

JC: no, atty

That would be all Your Honor

Re-direct Examination

Lou: Mr. Witness, you mentioned earlier that you arrested the person
in question only after his confession, what led you to arrest him
without a warrant of arrest?

JC: I as the investigator have the belief that there is probable cause of
the crime committed by way of the confession made and can make
warrantless arrest.

LOU: And you said in your testimony earlier that you called Atty.
Ferrer to assist Mario’s Confession, why did you do that?

JC: As I have said a while ago, under the law whenever a person is
about to confess for a crime, there must be a lawyer to assist and
witness such confession hence, we called Atty. Ferrer considering that
he is from Baggao, Cagayan

LOU: No further question, your honor

 RE-CROSS

AA: Did you not ask him if he knows a lawyer whom he wanted to
personally assist him and give his confession?

JC: No, Atty.

AA: So to be clear, you did not ask the accused if he had counsel of his
own choice?
JC: No, atty

AA: When you arrested the Accused at the welding shop, what
language did you use to inform Mario of the Miranda Rights?

JC: ilocano, atty

AA: Did you ask him if he understood what you have recited?

JC: yes, atty

AA: What did he tell you?

JC: He just stared at me.

Direct Exam for Atty. Allan Ferrer

Judge: swear the witness

COC: do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth?
W: I do.
COC: please state your personal circumstances
W: i am allan ferrer, 39 yrs old, married, and a resident of Baggao
Cagayan
COC: your honor, the witness is Allan Ferrer, 39 yrs old, and a resident
of Baggao, Cagayan.

Judge: proffer

Proffer: Your Honor, we offer the testimony of Atty. Allan Ferrer to

prove:

1. That he is a competent and independent counsel as required by the

Constitution;
2. That he apprised the accused of his Miranda rights in a language
known to him before the confession;
3. That he wrote the extrajudicial confession and read the contents of
the same before the accused in their Ilocano dialect;
4. That he assisted the accused when he affixed his thumb mark in
the written extrajudicial confession; and
5. Other material allegations relevant to the case.

That would be the gist of his testimony, your honor.

Judge: Comment counsels.

Defense: We do not admit the proffered testimony and we will reserve

our right to cross examine the witness, your honor.

Your honor, the witness executed an affidavit which will be used as his
direct testimony and may we know from the defense counsel if she can
admit the existence, genuineness, and due execution of the said affidavit
with reservation to ask additional direct examination questions.

Defense: We could admit the existence, genuineness, and due execution

of the said affidavit and we conform to its use as his direct testimony.
** if ayaw ni madam - ipa identify still ang affidavit. Original plan

W: Good afternoon, Atty. I am Allan B. Ferrer, a lawyer engaged in private

practice. I am a resident of San Jose, Baggao, Cagayan.

Pros: You said you are a lawyer engaged in private practice, how long
have you been practicing law?

W: I have been practicing law for 10 years now, Atty.

Pros: What particular practice of law do you do, Atty?

W: I am particularly in litigation, Atty.

Pros: Do you know the accused in this case?

W: Yes, Atty. I knew him because I was called to assist him in his extrajudicial
confession about a crime by the investigating police officer of Baggao Police
Station, Atty.

Pros: Mr. witness, you mentioned that you assisted in the extrajudicial
confession of the accused. I’m showing you a written EJC which is
attached to the records of this case, is this the same EJC you were
referring to?

W: Yes, Atty. That was the same EJC I was referring to.

Pros: Your honor, this written EJC was previously marked as Exhibit G.
May we pray for the same marking be adopted.

Judge: Mark it.

Pros: Thank you, your honor.

Pros: Going back to you, Atty. Of all lawyers, why did you assist the
accused in his supposed confession?

W: Because I am a resident of the barangay where the crime happened so the

Police Officers already know my reputation.

Pros: To be specific, who was the Police Officer who called you?

W: Police Master Sergeant John Vincent De Luna, Atty.

Pros: What was your answer when you were called, Atty?

W: I answered yes, Atty. I was called at around 9 am, and I said I will be at the
Police Station in 30 minutes.

Pros: After you arrived at the station, what happened next?

W: I was immediately approached by Police Master Sergeant De Luna and
provided me with a copy of the police blotter and investigation report, Atty.

Pros: What did you do with the police blotter and investigation report?

W: I read the contents, Atty.

Pros: What did you notice upon reading the contents of IR and PB?

W: I noticed that Mario confessed at the welding shop and then another
recorded confession inside the police station.

Pros: What did you do next, Atty?

W: I asked him who is this Mario and from where is he residing.

Pros: What happened next, Atty?

W: Police Master Sergeant De Luna introduced me to Mario A. Dumaual,

Atty.

Pros: After you were introduced to Mario, who was with him if any?

W: He was with the police officers who investigated the crime, Atty.

Pros: What happened next, Atty?

W: We proceeded to the interrogation room, and with the presence of the police
officers, I asked him if he would like me to assist him with what he would like to
say.

Pros: What was the answer of Mario, Atty?

W: He said yes, Atty. He would like me to assist him.

Pros: What did you do next, Atty?

W: I apprised him of his Miranda rights, Atty. I told him that whatever he will
say can be used against him. I also talked to him in Ilocano so that he can
understand what I am saying. I asked if he would like to proceed.
Pros: What did he say, Atty?

W: He said yes, Atty. He would like to proceed with the confession.

Pros: Who was with you in the investigation room, Atty?

W: I was with the accused, Police Master Sergeant De Luna, and PSsg Dela
Cruz, Atty.

Pros: So what happened next, Atty?

W: Mario proceeded with his confession, Atty.

Pros: While confessing, what did you do, if any?

W: Every time we proceed to the next question, I am asking Mario if he would

still like to continue. I repeated to him that anything he told before us can be
used against him, Atty.

Pros: What did he say?

W: He still chose to continue, Atty. Sometimes, he’s not answering and then I
will repeat the question.

Pros: What questions did you ask Mario, Atty?

W: I asked him what was his motive in killing Nancy. Then he told me he did
not know what came to him. He just said he killed Nancy.

Pros: While doing the confession, what did you observe, if any?

W: I observed that Mario is somewhat nervous. He kept rubbing his hands and
face. Although I notice he did not show any remorse while doing the confession.

Pros: How long did it take for the confession to finish, Atty?

W: It took an hour, Atty.

Pros: After he said the details of the killing, what did you do, if any?
W: I asked him if he would like to stop the interrogation, or if he needs
anything. But he said he just wanted to finish the confession.

Pros: So what happened next?

W: I put the confession into writing, after printing the said extra judicial
confession I read its contents again in the Ilocano dialect and asked him if he
really did everything that was written there and he admitted. After that, he
affixed his thumb mark on the written extrajudicial confession.

No further questions, your honor.

Cross Examination of Atty. Allan Ferrer

JUDGE: CROSS
Defense: with the kind permission of the court.
JUDGE: Proceed.
Defense: Thank you, your honor

Defense: mr. witness, when you arrived at the Police station, Mario was
alone, correct?

W: No, atty.

Defense: Who were those persons?

W: Only with 2 police officers.

Defense: when you first saw the accused, was he hysterical?

W: no, atty. he was just staring blankly, atty.

Defense: when you saw him staring blankly, you immediately

conducted the investigation?

Prosec: objection, your honor, misleading. the witness already testified

that when he arrived, the police officers introduced the accused first.

Defense: i was testing the credibility of the witness, your honor.

Judge: sustain, next question
Judge: denied, answer
Defense: mr witness, after you were introduced to the accused you
mentioned that Police Master Sergeant De Luna provided you a copy of
the police blotter and the investigation report, correct?
W: yes, atty.

Defense: and you also mentioned that you read all the contents therein?
W: yes, atty

Defense: so you were aware that the accused previously confessed to the
crime, correct?
W: yes, atty.

Defense: did you ask if there were any persons present aside from the
two police investigators when the accused allegedly confessed to the
commission of the crime?
W: yes, atty.

Defense: what was their answer?

W: no one witnessed aside from them

Defense: So just to be clear, it is only the accused and the two police
officers who were present at the time when he confessed at the welding
shop.

Defense: sino present nung nandun sila sa police station

Sila sila lng din

Defense: after you were introduced to the accused, you immediately

proceeded to the interrogation room, right?
W: yes, atty

Defense: so you did not ask the police officers to leave first so you can
have time alone with the accused?
W: no, atty, i did not.

Defense: and you all proceeded to the interrogation room all at once?
W: yes, atty.
Defense: so you did not ascertain whether the accused was coerced,
intimidated, or forced by the police officers prior to the alleged
confession?
W: no, atty, i did not

Defense: mr witness, you did not inform Mario that he was being
investigated for a heinous crime punishable by a long period of
imprisonment, correct?
W: no, atty

Defense: what do you mean by no?

W: i did not inform him, atty

Defense: and of course since you did not inform him that he was being
investigated, you also did not inform him that by his confession, he
would be admitting to the crime?
W: i did not, atty

Defense: mr. witness, you mentioned that the accused is somewhat

nervous. Despite his behavior, you still proceeded with the confession,
correct?
W: yes, atty.

Defense: again, mr witness, you also mentioned that when you asked if
the accused would like to stop the interrogation, he said nothing.
Correct?
W: yes

Defense: and yet, you kept extracting confessions from him, right?
W: yes atty

Defense: So, you did not even ask if he was feeling fine?
W: i did not, atty
Defense: now mr witness, before affixing his thumbmark, you did not
even inform him that he has the right not to affix his thumbmark?
W: i did not, atty

Defense: so you did not inform him that if he did not affix his thumb
mark all his confessions can not be used against him?
W: i did not, atty.
Defense: mr witness, before you assisted him in his alleged confession,
did you ask the accused if he had counsel of his own choice?
W: no, atty

No further questions, your honor.

REDIRECT EXAM TO ATTY. ALLAN FERRER

Pros: Atty. Ferrer, you mentioned during cross that you did not inform
Mario that he was being investigated for a heinous crime punishable by
a long period of imprisonment, why is that Mr. witness?

W: Atty. Because I already apprised Mario with his Miranda Rights, I

made sure that I spoke to him in their Ilocano dialect. I asked this one by
one, like what has been written in his extrajudicial confession. I also told
him that he is being indicted with the crime of murder.

Pros: How did you explain the crime of murder to the accused, Atty?

W: No but I told him that the crime is punishable by 20-40 years of

imprisonment. I asked again if he would still like to continue.

Pros: What did he say?

W: He said just yes in everything I said, Atty.

No more further questions, your honor.

RECROSS EXAMINATION OF ATTY ALLAN FERRER.

DC: you told mario that he is being indicted for a crime of murder, but
did you explain the gravity of the crime and the consequences of the
confession?

W: No.
Defense: Mr. witness, you mentioned that you apprised him of his
miranda rights, correct?

W: yes, atty.

Defense: Mr. witness, you also mentioned that you asked Mario if it’s
ok that you will assist him, still you did not try to ask if he has or he
wants a counsel of his own choice. Correct?

W: yes, atty.

No further questions, your honor.

No further questions, your honor.

GRACY: Our next witnesses, your honor, are Patrick G. Castillo,

Angelica Reyes, Dr Albert Canceran and Johnny B. Manahan

GRACY: : Your honor, may we ask from the defense counsels if they
would like to admit the stipulations of the witnesses as to their
supposed testimony..

The testimony of Mr. Patrick G. Castillo is being offered to prove that

he is the father of the accused and that he executed a complaint-affidavit
to charge MARIO DUMAUAL y Asistio for MURDER
The testimony of Mrs. Angelica Reyes is offered to prove that she was
the one who discovered the body of the victim partly naked, lying along
the road of Pascual St, san Jose, Baggao, and bathed in her blood.

The testimony of Johnny Manahan is offered to prove that he was with

the victim on November 4, 2020 at 7pm and that she alighted from the
tricycle where they were both riding in a welding shop about 50 meters
from where she was found the next day. And that he did not see where
Nancy was headed to or who the person she went to meet.

The testimony of Dr. Albert Canceran is offered to prove that he was the
one who prepared the medico-legal certificate with a finding that the
victim died due to hemorrhage as as result of stab wounds

DEFENSE COUNSEL: We are willing to stipulate with the counter-

stipulation that they do not have personal knowledge.
GRACY: Your honor, with the admission of the stipulations, we are
dispensing the presentation of the supposed witnesses

JC: Your honor, we are now ready to formally offer our exhibits

Judge: proceed

JC:
Exhibit A - Complaint Affidavit of complainant Patrick G. Castillo to
prove that Patrick Castillo was the one who executed the complaint
affidavit
Exhibit B - Joint Investigators Affidavit- to prove that PMS John Vincent
De Luna and Juan De la cruz executed a join investigators’ affidavit
Exhibit C - Certificate of Death of Nancy G. Castillo

Exhibit D - Affidavit of Atty. Allan Ferrer

Exhibit E - Affidavit of Angelica B. Reyes

Exhibit F - Affidavit of Johnny B. Manahan

Exhibit G - Written Extrajudicial Confession of Mario A. Dumaual

Exhibit H - Medico Legal Report of Dr. Leni R. Montes

Exhibit I - Investigation Report of PNP Baggao Station

Exhibit J - Police Blotter

Exhibit K- Video recording of the first confession of Accused Mario A.

Dumaual

Exhibit L- Photograph of the crime scene

 DIRECT EXAMINATION DEFENSE’ WITNESSES

A. PSYCHIATRIST

JUDGE: Swear the witness.

COC: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth?
DRA.: Yes, Judge.
JUDGE: Please state your name, and other personal circumstances.
DRA.: I am Dra. Elaine T. Battung, 37 years old, single, a licensed
psychiatrist at the Psychiatry Department, Cagayan Valley Medical
Center, and a resident of Ugac Sur, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.
COC: Your honor, witness is now ready.

PROFFER

AA: For the defense, we are ready to present our witness, your honor.
The testimony of the witness is offered for the following purposes:
1. To prove that she is an expert witness having specialized in the
field of Psychiatry;
2. To prove that she has already appeared in various limited mental
disorder cases with more or less 150 appearances;
3. To prove that she has personally examined and evaluated the
party in this case and has conducted series of examinations with
the Accused;
 4. To prove that she has found out that the Accused has an unsound
mental condition having been diagnosed to have been suffering
Intellectual Disability Disorder;
5. To identify documents particularly the Psychiatric Evaluation
Reports she have made relative to this case;
6. To testify on other matters relevant and incident in this case.

JUDGE: TRIAL.

AA: Good morning, madam witness. Doctor, where did you obtain
your degree in medicine?
DRA.: I obtained my degree in University of Sto. Tomas around year
2000 and finished my Post-Graduate Internship at the Manila Sanitarium
Hospital on 2001. In August 2001, I took and passed the Physicians’
Licensure Examination.

AA: What are your endeavors, if any, in the medical field thereafter?
DRA.: After passing the licensure examination, I was employed as a
Resident Physician at Potia District Hospital from 2002 to 2007. I went
to CVMC Department of Psychiatry from 2007 to present, Atty.

AA: Doctor, during your practice of your profession, what seminars

and lectures have you attended, if any, in relation to the development
of your knowledge in the field of your profession, particularly as a
psychiatrist?
DRA: During the practice of my profession, I attended several
conventions, seminars and lectures in relation to the development and
updating of my knowledge in my field of specialization. I attended the
conventions of the Philippine Psychiatric Association (PPA), of which I
am a Member. Aside from that, I also attended regular seminars and
lectures of the PPA and corporate-sponsored symposia and round-table
discussions.

AA: Since when have you been practicing as a psychiatrist?

DRA.: For almost 12 years, Atty.
AA: Doctor, in those twelve (12) years that you have been practicing
your profession, how many cases have you evaluated in relation to
Intellectual Disability Disorder?
DRA.: Around 150 cases, Atty.

AA: What is the nature of your work as a psychiatrist?

DRA.: As a psychiatrist, I deal with the diagnosis, treatment, and
prevention of mental and emotional condition and behavioral disorders
of patients.

AA: How do you treat your patients?

DRA.: There are methods and procedures we follow according to
patients’ needs.

AA: Do you know the Accused in this case, Doctor?

DRA.: Yes, Atty.

AA: How did you know him?

DRA.: On December 2, 2019, the Accused, Mario A. Dumaual, along
with his parents, consulted me with his psychiatric evaluation to
determine his psychiatric status. On November 6, 2020, they consulted
me again for psychiatric evaluation since he was indicted for a crime.

AA: Doctor, please tell us what was the method or procedure that you
have conducted with the Accused during his first visit?
DRA.: It is a collaboration of the background history, mental status
examination, physical and Neurological Examination, Developmental
tests, personal interviews, and psychological examination, Atty. I also
prescribed medications and psychotherapy.

AA: How long did you conduct these procedures, Doctor?

DRA.: More or less 10 sessions.

AA: What are your observations during the tests, doctor?

DRA.: After evaluation, while he was advanced in age, he had a mental
development comparable to children between 11-13 years old.
Noticeably, his motor is impaired. He has little communicative skills,
but he has the ability to carry out simple self-care activities.

AA: What are your findings, doctor, with respect to the psychiatric
status of the Accused?
DRA.: Based on the personal and collateral interviews and psychiatric
evaluation I performed, I found out that the Accused showed
impairment in his mental functioning. The Accused had an apparent
mental defect - SEVERE INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY DISORDER as
Set by International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision (ICD-10)
by the World Health Organization (WHO), Atty.

AA: These medical findings that you had on the Accused, were these
reduced into writing? **what proof do you have if any
DRA.: Yes, Atty. I have made a psychiatric evaluation report on the
medical findings.

AA: Who personally prepares such writing, doctor?

DRA.: Me, Atty.

AA: Madam witness, I’m showing you a copy of a psychiatric

evaluation report. Would you tell this honorable court, if this is the
same psychiatric evaluation report, you were referring to?
DRA.: This is the psychiatric evaluation report, Atty.

AA: Your honor, the psychiatric evaluation report was previously

marked as “Exhibit 1”. May we adopt the same marking, your honor.
JUDGE. Mark it.
AA: Thank you, your honor.

AA: At the last page of the document, there appears a signature.

Whose signature is this, madam witness?
DRA.: That is my signature, Atty.
AA: Your honor I respectfully request that the signature appearing in
this document be marked as Exhibit 1-A.
JUDGE: Mark it.
AA: Thank you, your honor.

AA: With his last visit, what was the method or procedure that you
have conducted with the Accused?
DRA.: It was the same during his first visit, Atty.

AA: And what are your findings, doctor, with respect to the
psychiatric status of the Accused?
DRA.: He showed no signs of improvement. His symptoms were only
managed by medications.

AA: These medical findings that you had on the Accused, were these
reduced into writing?
DRA.: Yes, Atty. I have made a psychiatric evaluation report on the
medical findings dated November 7, 2020.

AA: Madam witness, I’m showing you a copy of a psychiatric

evaluation report. Would you tell this honorable court, if this is the
same psychiatric evaluation report, you were referring to?
DRA.: This is the psychiatric evaluation report, Atty.

AA: Your honor, the psychiatric evaluation report was previously

marked as “Exhibit 2”. May we adopt the same marking, your honor.
JUDGE. Mark it.
AA: Thank you, your honor.

AA: At the last page of the document, there appears a signature.

Whose signature is this, madam witness?
DRA.: That is my signature, Atty.

AA: Your honor I respectfully request that the signature appearing in

this document be marked as Exhibit 2-A.
JUDGE: Mark it.
AA: Thank you, your honor.

AA: After that, what did you do with such documents?

DRA.: I gave a copy to Mario’s parents.

AA: Doctor, you mentioned that you diagnosed the Accused having
Intellectual Disability Disorder on December 20, 2019 and the same
diagnosis on November 6, 2020. Can you explain the condition of the
Accused before this Honorable Court?
DRA.: He is with limited mental capacity who can perform tasks and
think only like a young child. And one with this condition is unaware of
his or her acts nor its consequences thereof. One with this condition
usually needs support and assistance on a daily basis.

His disorder would bring forth distress to him and compatibility is not
fully attained as he is unable to realize what is happening around them.
The disability is a trouble for one to learn and become an independent
person. They have below-average mental ability and lack of skills
necessary for day-to-day living. Having severe intellectual disability,
Mario needs extensive support and requires assistance on a daily basis
in a number of settings.

AA: Doctor, can it be treated or cured?

DRA.: It is not curable. Symptoms can only be reduced by medications
and psychosocial therapy.

AA: Doctor, please explain, why do you say that the said condition is
incurable?
DRA.: Intellectual Disability Disorders as Set by International
Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision (ICD-10) are chronic, with life-
long course and the behavior of the individual is already inherent to
him/her thus, making him/her unaware of such and seldom would
he/she go for treatment as he/she had perceived his/her behavior as
non-distressing to him/her. Besides, such personalities manifested are
tailored in a way to lessen feelings of anxiety and fear as consequences
of his/her psychiatric disorders, Atty.

AA: It was mentioned a while ago that the Intellectual disability

disorder of the Accused is severe? How did you say so?
DRA.: His personality disorders exhibited an enduring pattern of
behavior that deviated markedly from the social norms. The ability to
behave in accordance with social expectation cannot be expected. It is
severe as the Accused requires supervision and direction in social
settings, in other words, he is non-cognizant of what is happening
around him and could not carry out ordinary duties in his age.

AA: With said psychiatric status of the Accused, can you tell us the
percentage of possibility that one with this condition can or cannot
commit a crime?
DRA. I cannot tell, Atty. It would differ on a case to case basis
depending on patients’ internal and external factors.

AA: After knowing the findings, what did you do next?

DRA.: I prescribed medications and I advised his parents of the different
therapies on how they would help Mario manage his symptoms.

AA: From your assessment, what is your conclusion and

recommendation, doctor?
DRA.: Since the Accused is suffering from Intellectual Disability
Disorder, I recommend that the Accused, Mario A. Dumaual, be
declared as having advanced in age but his mental capacity is
comparable to that of a child 11-13 years old.
AA: No further questions, your honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION OF PSYCHIATRIST BY PROSEC

LOU: with the kind permission of the court

LOU: In your testimony, Ms. Witness, you defined the term
"intellectual disability disorder". Could you please explain this in
more simple terms for an ordinary person to understand?
W:

LOU: So a person with intellectual disability disorder is not

necessarily deprived of reason, am I right?
Limited mental capacity***
W: Yes, ma’am.

LOU: And you stated in your testimony, Ms. Witness, that you were
unable to determine if a person with an intellectual disability disorder
could achieve the mental state necessary to commit a crime, correct?

W: Yes,ma’am

LOU: So based on your explanation, is it now safe to conclude that a

person with intellectual disability disorder could potentially commit a
crime?
W: Potentially, maybe.

LOU: What do you mean by potentially maybe?

W: it would depend on unique personal experiences, environmental

influences and individual differences are also major factors for a
person with intellectual disability disorder to commit a crime.
Particularly in this generation, where social media is accessible to
practically everyone and can be significantly influenced by it. Or if a
person grew up in a difficult or violent setting.

LOU: What types of crime may people with intellectual disabilities

possibly commit?
W: Just like normal people would commit.. But the tendency is, they
do not know what they are doing. They are non-cognizant of the
consequences of their words and actions.

LOU: You also mentioned that the accused underwent about 10

counseling sessions, on what intervals were they conducted?
W: monthly, ma’am

LOU: You said in your testimony that the last time you conducted a
session with the accused was November 7, 2020, correct?
W: yes, ma’am

LOU: When assessing a patient, you also come to learn his behavior
prior to the said evaluation,right?
W: yes, ma’am

LOU: So you were able to know what he has been doing most of the
time a few days on or before November 4, 2020, correct?
W: Yes. he said that he watched a movie for consecutive days
.
LOU: At the time when you assessed the accused, did you ask him
what he had been doing on november 4, 2020?
W: Yes he was watching

LOU: Did he tell you the title of the movie that he was watching that
time?
W: Yes he repeatedly uttered cardo, cardo, cardo

LOU: Did he tell you what the movie was all about?
W: yes, ma’am

LOU: What did he tell you?

W: He said pinaltayan pinaltug
LOU: ms witness, you mentioned in your testimony that
environmental influences may trigger a person with intellectual
disability disorder to commit a crime, right?
W: Yes maam

LOU: And that includes media influences , correct?

W: Yes ma’am

LOU: if a person with intellectual disability disorder is watching a

movie repeatedly about killing, will that influence and trigger him to
do violent acts?
W: Yes, it may

LOU: You also said in your testimony that you prescribed medications
to the accused. What is the effect on the patient if he missed a dose of
his medication?
W: He becomes hyperactive, but he is conscious of his actions.

LOU: When you say hyperactive, does it include violent reactions?

W: Yes, in some instances

LOU: No further questions, your honor.

REDIRECT

DI: Doctor, may we reiterate what procedures or tests have you

conducted with the accused?
W: It is a collaboration of the background history, mental status
examination, physical and Neurological Examination, Developmental
tests, personal interviews, and psychological examination, Atty. I also
prescribed medications and psychotherapy.

DI: You said personal interviews, with whom Doctor?

W: Accused and his parents, Atty.

DI: And what did you elicit from these interviews, Doctor?
W: He was well assisted and loved by his parents. His parents would
always assure that he is in a non-violent environment, since they
personally believe that his surroundings would greatly affect his
behavior.

No further questions, your honor.

LOU: NO MORE RECROSS YOUR HONOR

Judge: next witness

DIRECT EXAM OF MARIO DUMAUAL

COC: may we call to the witness stand, mario, the accused himself
Judge: swear the witness

Dianne: may I (we) be heard, your honor

Judge: proceed

Dianne: considering the condition of the accused and that the

language he speaks and fully understand is Ilocano, may we pray that
the questions be translated in Ilocano
Judge: granted

COC: Maikarim nga agsao ka iti kapupudwan ken pudno laeng?

Mario: wen.

Coc: Mario, mabalin mo nga ibaga nu ana iti nagan mo, manu tawen
mo, ken nu taga-ano ka?
Mario: siyak ni Mario Dumaual, 35 ti tawen ko, taga San Jose, Baggao
Coc: your honor, the witness is mario dumaual, 35 yrs old, filipino
citizen, single, and a resident of San Jose, Baggao, Cagayan.

Judge: proffer
Dianne: your honor, the testimony of Mario Dumaual is being offered
to prove that:
1. He is Mario Dumaual, the accused in this case;
2. That he has been visiting His Psychiatrist to….
3. At the time of the incident he was inside his room watching
television;
4. When the Police went to his house and made his alleged
confession, he wasn’t informed of his miranda rights;
5. On the third time that he confessed at the Police Station he wasn’t
assisted by a counsel of his choice;
6. And other material allegations relevant to the case;

That would be the gist of his testimony, your Honor.

Judge: Comment, counsel

Prosecutor GRACY: we do not admit the proffered statements and we

reserve our right to cross examine the witness

PLAN A KAPAG PUMAYAG SI ATTY MILA SA LEADING QUESTIONS

Defense: mr. witness, do you remember the counter affidavit you

executed in relation to this case?

Prosecutor: objection, leading

Defense: your honor, despite the advanced age of the accused, his
mental state is comparable to a child with age 11-13 yrs.
Considering that, we can treat him as a minor.

Pros: Your honor even an 11-13 y/o child can already comprehend,
the good defense counsel no longer needs to lead the witness. (Eme
hahaha)
INT: Mario, malagip mo kadi nu adda inaramid mo idi nga
dokumento maipanggep kdetoy nga kaso?
Mario: Wen, atty.
Int: yes, atty
(Madik ammu Attorney) ????

Defense: and at the bottom of the said counter-affidavit, that is

your name and signature, right?

INT: Mario, ditoy baba daytoy nga dokumento, nagan mo ken

pirmam detoy, haan kadi?
(Mr. witness, sa pangalawang pahina ng affidavit, may pirma sa taas
ng iyong pangalan, kaninong pirma ito)

Mario: wen, atty,siyak(Turo sa sarili)

Int: Yes, atty.

Counsel: May we put on record that the accused pointed to himself

when he was asked if the name and the signature appearing at the
bottom of the affidavit is his.

Defense: your honor, this counter-affidavit was previously marked

as exhibit 1. May we pray that the same marking be adopted.

Judge: granted

Defense: your honor, may we also pray that the name and
signature of Mario Dumaual be marked and bracketed as exhibit 1-
A.

Judge: mark it

Defense: mr witness, there were times when you often went to see
a doctor, right?
Mario: yes. Para makita si Doctor Pretty

Defense: who were you with when you often visited Doctor Pretty?
Mario: i’m with my Mother.

Defense: now mr. Witness, where were you on Nov 4, 2020 at 8

oclock in the evening?
Int: Mario, ayan mo idi maika-uppat iti November, 2020 iti alas otso
iti rabii?
Mario: adda nak kwartok, atty.
Int: I was inside my room, atty. (di ko maalala pero usually nasa
kwarto lang ako)

Defense: what were you doing at the time?

Int: malagip mo nu anat ububraem idi?
Mario: Agbuybuya nak tv, atty.
Int: I was watching tv at that time, atty

Defense: do you remember that time when policemen came to

your house
Int: malagip mo idi immay dagitay pulis dijay balay yo?
Mario: wen, atty
Int: yes, atty

Defense: they asked you about the death of a woman named Nancy
who was found near the welding shop, correct?
Int: dinamag da ka kadetay pannakatay ti maysa nga babai nga
agnagan iti Nancy nga iti bagi na ket nasarakan dijay asideg iti
welding shop yo?
Mario: Wen, atty
Int: Yes, atty

Defense: what did you say?

Int: ket anat imbagam?
Mario: Inbagak nga siyak ti nangbagkong kenyana
Int: I said I was the one who stabbed her

Defense: do you know who is nancy?

Int: Malagip mo nu sino ni Nancy?
Mario: saan, atty. madik amammo isuna
Int: no, atty. i don’t know her

Defense: why did you say that you stabbed her?

Int: Ket apay nga naibagam nga binagkong mo ni Nancy?
Mario: Masuron nak idin ta madi nak makaay-ayam isu imbagak nga
binagsol ko ni Nancy.
Int: I was irritated at that time and I could not enjoy playing with my
toys so I just told them I stabbed her

Defense: why were irritated at that time?

Mario: because they keep asking me questions

Defense: what did the policemen do to you after you told them that
you stabbed nancy?
Int: Ket anat inubra dagitay pulis idi malpas mo nga ibaga nga
binagkong mo ni Nancy?
Mario: Inpan dak dijay opis ti pulis
Int: they brought me to the police station.

Defense: before bringing you to the police station, did they say
anything about your certain rights?
Prosec: your honor, the question is too vague. May we know what
certain rights was the counsel is pertaining
Defense: do you recall if they inform you that you have the right to
remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against
you, that you have a right to a counsel of your own choice, that you
cannot afford a counsel, they will provide you one?
Mario: i don’t know that
Int:
Defense: when you were brought to the police station, who was
with you?
Int: Idi inkabil da kay dijay police station, sinno ti kadwam?
Mario:Dagitay pulis, atty
Int: I was with the police officers

Defense: where were your parents at that time?

Int: ayan da nanang ken tatang mo idi?
Mario: dik ammo, atty.
Int:i dont know

Defense: when you were at the police station, they recorded a

video of you correct?
Int: Idi adda ka dijay police station, invideo da ka, haan kadi?
Mario: wen, atty
Int: yes atty

Defense: and while recording, they wanted you to repeat saying

that you stabbed nancy, correct?
Int: Anat imbagam idi ividvideo da ka?
Mario: yes, atty

Defense: why did you repeat it?

Mario: imbaga da nga ulitek tay imbagak gapu ta madi da
naidokumento tay immuna nga inubrak
Int: they told me to repeat it again because they did not record my
first confession.

Defense: who are you with at the time they’re recording a video of
you?
Int: sino ti kadwam idi ividvideo da ka?
Mario: dagitay duwa nga pulis
Int: the 2 policemen
Defense: were you assisted by a lawyer during the video recording?
Int: adda kadwam idi nga abogado?
Mario:
Int: i dont know what a lawyer is

Defense: after they recorded a video of you, a person arrived

correct?
Int: malaksid kadagitay pulis, adda pay sabali nga immay?
Mario: adda immay nga tao ken immabay kenyak
Int: yes, atty

Defense: when that person came, what did he do?

Int: Idi immay detoy nga tao, anat inubra na?
Mario: inyam-ammo na bagbagi na
Int: he introduced himself

Defense: do you know who was that person, mr witness?

Int: amammom detoy nga tao?
Mario: haan, atty
Int: i dont know him.

Defense: after he introduced himself, what did he tell you?

Int: malpas na nga ibaga nu asino isuna, adda kadi pay imbaga na
kenyam?
Mario: nagadu ibagbaga na, madik naawatan
Int: They were saying/talking a lot, i wasn’t able to understand a
thing. (Or he was)

Defense: you just answered yes because you did not understand
them, right?
Int: idi madim naawatam tay ibagbaga na, anat imbagam kenyana?
Mario: wen
Int: yes.
Defense: they presented a paper and asked you to affix your
thumbmark, right?
Int: adda kadi inpresentar da kenyam nga papel ken pinag-
thumbmark da ka? (Thumbmark: ideppel ta tammudo kaso baka
hindi magets ng bata so thumbmark na lang ehe)
Mario: wen atty
Int: yes, atty

Defense: you did not understand the contents of the paper

presented to you, right?
Int: naawatam met lang tay papel nga impakita da kenyam?
Mario: haan, atty
Int: no, atty

Defense: did you affix your thumb mark?

Int: nag-thumbmark ka metlang?
Mario: wen
Int: yes

Defense: that person who assisted you asked you to affix your
thumb mark, right ?
Mario:yes

No further questions, your honor.

(PLAN B IF DI PUMAYAG SA LEADING)

Defense: mr. witness, do you remember executing an affidavit
(document) in relation to this case?
Int: (Mr. Witness, may naaalala ka bang ginawa mong dokumento)
Mario:
Int: yes, atty
(Madik ammu Attorney

Defense:
Int:
Int: yes, atty
(Oo, Atty)
Defense: what is this affidavit (document), mr witness?
(Ano ito)

Mario: I executed a counter-affidavit

(Counter-affidavit)

Defense: If this document will be shown to you, will you be able to

identify it?

Mario:

Defense: attached to the records of this case is a counter-affidavit. Can

you go over this document and tell this honorable court if this is the
same counter-affidavit you were referring to.
(Kalakip sa talaang ito ay isang counter-affidavit. Maari mo bang sabihin
sa hukuman na ito kung ito ang parehong counter-affidavit na
tinutukoy mo?)

Mario: yes, atty, this is the same counter-affidavit I was referring to.
(Opo, Atty. Ito yung tinutukoy ko)

Defense: your honor, this counter-affidavit was previously marked as

exhibit 1. May we pray that the same marking be adopted.
Judge: granted

Defense: mr witness, at the second page of the same affidavit there

appears a signature above the name of Mario Dumaual whose signature
is this?
(Mr. witness, sa pangalawang pahina ng affidavit, may pirma sa taas ng
iyong pangalan, kaninong pirma ito)

Mario: it is my name and signature, atty

(Turo sa sarili)

Counsel: May we put on record that the accused is pointing to himself

when he was asked who’s signature is appearing above his name at
the affidavit

Defense: your honor, may we pray that the name and signature of Mario
Dumaual be marked and bracketed as exhibit 1-A.
Judge: mark it

Defense: mr. Witness, when were you on Nov 4, 2019 at 8 oclock in the
evening?
(Mr. Witness, nasaan ka noong Nobyembre 4, 2019, alas otso ng gabi)
Mario: I was inside my room, atty.

Defense: what were you doing at the time?

Mario: I was watching tv at that time, atty

Defense: how about on Nov 5, 2019 at 8 am, when were you at that time?
Mario: I was at our welding shop.

Defense: while you were at the welding, what transpired if any?

Mario: 2 policemen went there and asked me about the death of nancy.

Defense: when the policemen asked you about the death of nancy, what
did you say, if any?
Mario: I said I was the one who stabbed nancy

Defense: why did you say that you stabbed nancy?

Mario: they kept on asking me questions. I was irritated at that time
because I could not enjoy playing with my toys so I just told them I
stabbed nancy

Defense: after telling them that you stabbed nancy, what happened next,
mr witness?
Mario: they just told me that they had to bring me to the police station

Defense: before bringing to the police station, what information did they
tell you, if any?
Mario: i dont remember, atty

Defense: when you were brought to the police station, who was with
you?
Mario: I was with the police officers

Defense: how about your parents?

Mario: i dont know
Defense: when you were at the police station what happened, if any?
Mario: they recorded a video of me and wanted me to repeat what I
have just told them.

Defense: what did you say while the video was recording?
Mario: that I was the one who stabbed nancy

Defense: who are you with at the time they’re recording a video of you?
Mario: the same 2 police officers who went to our house

Defense: who else

Mario: none, atty

Defense: what happened next, mr witness?

Mario: a person came and seated next to me.

Defense: who is this person, if you know, mr witness?

Mario: i dont know him.

Defense: when that person came, what happened?

Mario: he introduced himself, but i could not even recall why he was
there.

Defense: after introducing that person, what happened next, if any?

Mario: ang dami nila sinasabi hindi ko maintindihan.

Defense: when they were saying something, how did you respond, if
any?
Mario: i just said yes.

Defense: and then what happened, mr witness?

Mario: they presented a paper and they asked me to affix my thumb
mark.

Defense: did you understand the paper presented to you?

Mario: no, atty

Defense: and then what happened?

Mario: i just affixed my thumb mark para matapos na kasi gusto ko na
umuwi at maglaro.
No further questions, your honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MARIO

Pros: Mr. witness, do you know why you are here?

W: Yes, Atty.

Pros: You are here because you confessed that you killed Nancy, is it
not?

W: Yes po.

Pros: You mentioned in your testimony that on November 4, at 8pm you

were watching tv ALONE in your room, correct? (Nabago ba to? Parang
may alone kasi dati dito haha)

Defense: objection, your honor, the witness did not mention that he was
watching tv alone. He just said that he was watching tv at that time.

Pros: you mentioned in your testimony that on Nov. 4, 2020 at 8pm, you
were watching tv in your room, correct?

W: Yes Atty.

Pros: who was with you?

W: ako lang mag isa

Pros: What were you watching during that time?

W: cardo dalisay. Favorite ko po yun

Pros: cardo dalisay, is that a cartoon movie?

W: Hindi po. Masaya po, patayan.

Pros: Aside from you watching TV alone in your room, what else did
you do?

W: I went to the CR.

Pros: You went to the CR alone correct?

W: Yes.

Pros: Is your CR found outside the house?

W: Yes.

Pros: How long have you been in the CR?

W: I cannot remember exactly but I stayed a bit long before coming back
inside my room.

Pros: I see. But you remember watching TV alone in your room on

November 4 at 8pm and you went to the CR outside your house for a bit
long. Correct?

W: Yes.

Pros: You mentioned in your testimony that police officers went to your
welding shop, correct?

W: Yes.

Pros: When you saw the police officers approached you, you were
afraid, is it not?

W: No, Atty.

Pros: Mr. Witness, you mentioned in your testimony, you were

repeatedly asked if you killed Nancy and all your answers were in the
affirmative, correct?

W: Yes, Atty.

Pros: You understood when they asked you if you killed nancy, correct?

W: No, Atty. sinabi ko lang yun kasi pinaulit sa akin

Pros: You mentioned that you were introduced to a person

W: Yes

Prose: he assisted you in your confession, right?

W: yes, atty

Pros: You were asked by Atty. Allan Ferrer, you remember him, correct?
W: No.

Pros: You remember that time when Nancy was killed, correct?

W: Yes.

Pros: So you remember that you killed Nancy, correct?

W: *no answer*

Your honor may we put on record that the witness did not answer.

Pros: Everything I asked you, you understood, right?

W: Yes, Atty.

No further questions, your honor.

REDIRECT

AA: Why did you say that you killed Mario?

M: Kasi ang kulit ng mga pulis. Para tumigil na sila magtanong.

AA: When you were asked if you would still like to continue telling that
you really stabbed Nancy, why did you say yes?

M: Umoo nalang ako para makaalis na ako. Dami nilang tanong e.

Naiinis na ako.

AA: Why did you say that you were not afraid when you’re with police
officers?

M: Kasi hindi naman ako bad. Mabait ako e

AA: The night when the crime happened, why did it take a bit long to
come back inside your room?

M: Tumae ako sa cr.

No further questions, your honor.

RECROSS- no more recross, your honor

JUDGE: next witness

Third witnes: MARITES A. DUMAUAL (MOTHER NI MARIO)

Defense: your honor, the testimony of Marites Dumaual is being

offered to prove that;
1. The accused has been suffering mental problem
2. That his son has been diagnosed with intellectual disability
disorder and as a consequence a diminished discernment of what
is right from a😕🧐wrong;
3. She will identify the evaluation report issued by psychiatrist;
4. Likewise identify the medicine prescribed by psychiatrist

That would be all your Honor

1. KING: Maam do you recall having executed any affidavit in

relation to this case?
W: Yes

2. If this affidavit will be shown to you will you be able to identify

it?
W: Yes

3. Attached to the records of this case the affidavit can you go over
it and tell if this is the same affidavit you were referring to?
Yes

4. At the lower portion of the affidavit there appears a signature

above the name Marites A Dumaual whose signature is this?
Yes
5. Do you affirm and confirm the contents of your affidavit?
W: Yes
7. Your Honor we pray that the name and signature of Marites A
Dumaual be marked as exhibit 4
Your honor, the affidavit of the witness will be utilized as her direct
testimony, may we be allowed to ask further questions?

8. How are you related to Mario Dumaual?

W: He is my son atty

9. You mentioned in your affidavit that your son has been showing
a mental problem which causes him to do things he is not aware of
for a long time. May we be specific Madam Witness how long is the
time you were telling?

W: Since he was 20 years old he is showing signs of memory problems,

he finds it hard to remember things, he has trouble speaking and
understanding social rules, and is even unaware of his surroundings.

10. You also mentioned the same that you have been committing
him for regular medical treatment. Do you have any evidence to that
effect?
W: Yes, medical prescriptions

11. I’m showing to you the medical prescriptions can you go over
the same and tell this honorable court these are the receipts you were
referring to?
W: Yes

12. Your Honor the medical prescriptions were previously marked

as exhibit 6 and series we adopt the same marking

13. Madam Witness you just mentioned that he has been suffering
the mental problem since he was 20 years old, during that time what
were the reactions from your son, if any?
W: He was acting like a child, he does not care everything and
sometimes he makes violent reaction if he does not get something he
wants
14. And if your son does those actions you mentioned, what do you
do?
W: We have to give him medicines

15. What are those medicines for?

W: To make him calm

20. Madam Witness you also mentioned in your affidavit that you
son was diagnosed with having severe intellectual disability disorder
as a consequences to discern what is right from wrong on December
19, 2019, do you have evidence to his affect?
W: Yes. Evaluation report issued by the Psychiatrist
22. I’m showing you the evaluation report issued by a psychiatrist
can you go over it and tell if this is the same evaluation you were
referring to?
Yes

23. Your Honor, the evaluation report was previously marked as

exhibit 1.

24. Since you have mentioned that your son has been taking
medicines prescribed by the Doctor, what changes transpired if there
any?
W: Pinapakalma most of time, nagiging antukin siya pinapatulog sya

27. Despite of a long period of time regarding the situation of your

son why were you able only to send him to a psychiatrist only on
December 19, 2019?
W: Because, the symptoms of his unknown condition at that moment are
getting severe and grave.

29. How long has he been taking the said medicine?

Almost a year atty.

30. What changes transpired if any?

W: A little atty, he is improving, however he has the same behavior and
we still have to take care of him because sometimes he makes reactions
not compatible to his age.

31. madam witness on November 4 , 2020 in the evening where were

you?
W: Nasa Bahay atty

32. How about your son where was he?

W: Nasa kwarto nanonood ng tv

33. On the said date Madam Witness what did you do?
W: Nagluluto po atty.

34. And at the same day and time what did you hear if any?
Wala na. The sound of the television

35. On November 5 2020 in the morning where were you?

We went to town plaza atty. to buy some goods

36. What time did you go to the plaza?

I believe its 5:30 in the morning atty.

37. Who was with you?

My husband, atty

38. Where is Mario at that time?

W: In our house

37. What time did you get home?

9 am atty.

38. And when you arrived at your house what happened if any?
We were surprised because my neighbors were in front of our house and
that we were informed that Nancy was found dead near our welding
shop
39. After you were informed of the said death of Nancy what did
you do?
I went inside our home and I was also informed by my worker Raul
Manalsala that my son was brought by two policemen to the police
station because he was a suspect in the killing of Nancy.

Cross Examination OF MARITESS

JC: Madam witness, how far do you think your house is from the place where the
crime took place?

I am unsure, sir

JC: From where you are sitting, how far do you believe it is?

From here to the gate outside, sir

JC: May we know your honor, if the counsel for the accused agrees that the
distance from here to the gate is more or less 50 meters?

Defense counsel: we agree

JC: Now madam witness, it will only take you approximately two minutes to walk
from here to the gate, correct?

Yes, maam

JC: Where were you on November 4, 2020, at 8:00pm?

I'm at our house.

JC: Who else was in your house at that time?

Mario

JC: At that very moment, what was Mario doing?

He was in his room watching television.

JC: And what were you doing at that time?

I was frying tilapia for dinner, sir

JC: How many tilapia were you frying?

From what I remember, About 5 pcs, sir

JC: So it took you 30 minutes to fry, correct?

Probably sir

JC: So during your 3o minutes of frying, you were all eyes to what you have been
cooking, correct?

Yes

JC: So at that point, while frying, you were unaware of what Mario was doing,
correct?

Yes

Jc: Ms. Witness, you said in your testimony that mario was taking
Medicines to make him calm, corrrect?
- Yes It’s true.
Jc: And he is taking the medicines to control his aggressive tendencies,
Right?
- Yes, It’s True.
Jc: You also mentioned in your testimony that your son has been
taking medicines for 14 years, correct?
- Yes. It’s true.
Jc: And in spite of it, he still has tendencies to act violently even after
taking the prescribed medicines, correct?
- Yes. Sometimes

No further questions, your honor.

Re-Direct
K- You mentioned in your testimony that the medicine you give to
your son helps him to calm down. May I know Miss Witness how
many times you give him medicine in a day?
W- once a day
K- After you give him medicine what do you usually do?
W- I can do house work
K- What about your son what he usually does after he takes medicine
W- he watches TV and play
K- Miss Witness being a mother who takes care of Mario,what do you
observe every time he takes his medicine
W- okay naman po atty kasi nakaka pagtrabaho naman ako ng maayos
K- May you tell Ms witness when does the effect of medicine last
long?
W- it’s good until the next following morning atty as i’ve said the
medicine also helps him sleep that’s why i need to give him at 7.am in
the morning

NEXT WITNESS
DC: Your honor, our next witness is Mr. Raul Manansala, neighbor of
the accused. Your honor, we offer his testimony to corroborate the
testimonies of Marites Dumaual, mother of the accused.

Defense: we don't have any witnesses, your honor.

Defense: your honor, we are now ready to formally offer pur exhibits.

Exhibit “1” - Psychiatric Evaluation Report dated Dec 20, 2019

Purpose: to prove that Mario has been diagnosed of severe IDD
Exhibit “2” - Psychiatric Evaluation Dated Nov 7, 2020
Purpose: to prove that Mario is still suffering from severe IDD
Exhibit “3” - Counter Affidavit of the accused
Purpose: to form part of the direct testimony of the accused
Exhibit “4” - Affidavit of Maritess Dumaual
Purpose: To form part of the direct testimony of Maritess Dumaual
Exhibit “5” - Certificate of Live Birth of Mario Dumaual
Exhibit “6” - medical prescriptions
Purpose: Toprove Mario was taking medications
Exhibit “7” - Raul Manansala
Purpose: To corroborate the testimonies of Mario and Maritess
Dumaual
Prosecutor’s comment: we admit