Pp vs. Padillo Crim. Case No.

20081 and 20082

December 2, 2019

Witness: Michael Padillo

For the State: Prosecutor Aida I. Digaum-Langcamon
For the Accused: Atty. Rainero Z. Bautista

FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION ON ACCUSED MICHAEL

PADILLO BY ATTY RAINERO Z. BAUTISTA

The defense continued the direct examination on the witness by

asking series of questions relative to the witness’ arrest. The witness
reiterated that he was not able to reach the house of his brother because there
was a van who stopped while he was at the store. When asked if there were
barangay kagawads, media personnel and DOJ representatives during the
conduct of the inventory, the witness answered in the affirmative. However,
he added that the mentioned personalities arrived late, arriving only during
the inventory stage. Defense then ends its direct examination.

CROSS-EXAMINATION ON ACCUSED MICHAEL PADILLO BY

PROSECUTOR AIDA DIGAUM-LANGCAMON

The prosecution started its cross examination by asking the witness to

confirm its statement that barangay officials, media and DOJ were present
during the conduct of the inventory. The witness partially confirmed stating
that only the barangay officials arrived adding that they were fetched and
made to sign. He said that the barangay officials were not yet there during
the inventory and that they were fetched. The prosecution questioned the
witness’ understanding about inventory since said witness earlier stated
during the direct examination that the barangay officials, media and DOJ
were present during the conduct of the inventory. The witness affirmed that
the barangay officials, media and DOJ are indeed present during the
inventory.

The prosecution showed a picture (Exhibit I-2) to the witness and

asked him to confirm if the person wearing yellow shirts with prints and
blue cap and checkered short whom police officers identified as Michael
Padillo is him. The witness confirmed.

The prosecution further asked series of questions of which the witness

all affirmed, to wit; that he is from Baclayon, that he did come from
Baclayon that afternoon riding a motorcycle, that he did bring a cellphone,
that both the motorcycle and cellphone were seized by the police, that from
Baclayon going to the house of the wife of his brother in Mariveles there are
stores that will be passed by and yet he thought of buying cigarette only
when he was near the chapel.

The prosecution asked some clarifications as to why the witness

referred the house as the house of the wife of his brother. The witness
clarified that it is the house of his brother’s wife and that his brother is not
residing in Mariveles and the reason why he was going there is that his
brother was there during that time.

The prosecution asked again questions on the event of the witness’

arrest. The witness answered the series of questions respectively. He said
that he was poked with a gun by only one person out of four to five persons
who were in the van. He further said that the police officers who testified
were among of them. He also identified Police Officer Mencede as the one
who poked a gun. He recalled that when the van door opened, Mencede
disembarked and poked a gun on him and there were three to four persons
who went inside from the side door of the van. He further recalled that when
he disembarked from the motorcycle and was about to go to the store he was
accosted. The prosecution asked questions regarding the place of the arrest.
The witness affirmed that the store is just next to the chapel and it was along
the road and that he stopped at the side. He stopped in front of the chapel
which was stipulated as five to six meters from the store and affirmed that
there was no other vehicle ahead of him that stopped near the store. He also
said that he had not seen if there was anyone in the store however he thought
that there was somebody who heard because someone peeped when he
called for help but that person did not come out. He was able to observe that
the person tried to peep in the hole of the bars and screens at the front of the
store. He identified the person as female. He did not hear any statement from
that person and he did not know the name of that person.

The defense objected when the prosecution questioned the witness

why he did not file an answer despite being aware of the gravity of the
charges. The defense interposed that it is a misleading question since in
criminal case the accused need not file an Answer.

The cross examination continued by asking questions on the events of

the arrest. The witness answered that aside from being accosted and arrested,
he was also body searched. His cellphone was seized by the police but
during the inventory he was shown of drug items which are not his. He
asked the police what are those and beg not to plant evidence against him
because the Lord knows. When asked if he knew Mencede and Hinay prior
to the operation and if he had prior dealings with the police officers, the
witness answered in the negative respectively. The prosecution followed up
by asking if he could give any motif why the police officers planted
evidence against him to which he responded he did not know.

The cross examination continued. The witness affirmed that since the
person who was tending the store just peeped, he cannot say that the person
witnessed the incident of outright arrest. The witness further affirmed that
none will corroborate the outright arrest incident because the people who
stopped were driven away by the police. He added that when the police
officers were yet arresting him, they drove out the motorists but when the
evidence was already set up, it was then that they were allowed to stop
however he cannot identify any of the motorists because they only passed
by.
The prosecution ended its cross examination.