Trial Update
Case: People of the Philippines vs. Temogen “Cocoy” Tulawie, et. al.
Date of Hearing: April 2–3, 2014 (afternoon)
Trial Stage: Presentation of witnesses by the prosecution

April 2, 2014 Hearing

On the afternoon of April 2, 2014, the premises outside the court were packed by more than a hundred supporters from the camp of Gov. Abdusakur Tan. Inside the courtroom,private complainant Tan was accompanied by town mayors from Sulu, key public officials, secretary of departments and agencies of the government and his battery of lawyers while accused Tulawie was with the members of his family composed of his wife, mother,and childrenand with his lawyers.The hallway becomes noticeable by those who passed by since a heavy security detail was placed not only outside of the court but also in the stairs of the building aside from those regular guards from the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP). By the looks of it, any person would wonder who the famous personalities inside the courtroom were.

On this scheduled hearing the prosecution is tasked to continue with their presentation of their remaining witnesses. Private prosecutor presented private complainant Governor Abdusakur Tan. Before the conduct of the direct examination, the defense counsel requested private complainant Tan to swear before the Holy Qur’an which the latter answered that if there is a high priest inside the courtroom he would voluntarily do so. Since there was none, the latter momentarily hesitated but defense counsel instructed “Ameer”, the son of accused Tulawieto bring the Holy Qur’an and at the same time conduct the swearing of the Holy Qur’an. Private complainant then swore in the Holy Qur’an to speak the truth and not to declare any falsehood during the giving of his testimony.

The purpose of the presentation of Governor Tan is to further establish their claim that accused Tulawie was the one who mastermind the bombing incident that happened last May 9, 2009. He narrated the circumstances of the accused before the bombing incident and that accused failed his bid to run for a seat in Congressand that it impelled him (Tulawie) to plot for his (Governor Tan)assassination since private complainant Tan is a political power in the province of Sulu. Further, private complainant Tan maligned the memory, integrity and reputation of the father of accused Tulawie giving false accusations that accused’ father was a theft and robber during his lifetime. This prompted accused to vehemently react and show an outburst of emotions during the trial.

The cross-examination last long than the direct examinations since the defense counsel intends to buttress private complainant’s testimonies during the direct examination. The gist of the questions of the defense counsel was to extract from Tan his real intentions for implicating accused Tulawie in the bombing incident. The answers of private complainant Tan to the questions raised by defense counselwere not responsive. He tends to intelligently evade the questions by addressing them without really giving responsive answers to such. Moreover, Tan drag the issue to the rampant kidnapping in the Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-tawi (Basulta region) in the previous years and associate the said crimes to accused Tulawie. Basically, thetestimonies of Tan were not centered on the bombing incident of which the accused was indicted but the tenor of his answers focuses on the kidnapping incidents.
April 3, 2014 Hearing
The private prosecutor presented Police investigator Rex Himodo, one of the members of Crime Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) Region 9. During his presentation, the private prosecutor established the regularity of the execution of his judicial affidavit by marking the same. Subsequently, the prosecution tried to present the alleged original copy of the confession / sworn statement /affidavit executed by accused Muhammad SulaimanMuin and JuhanAlihuddin as a faithful reproduction of the copy of the case file found in court. However, the defense objected the same since there are discrepancies of the one presented in court as the alleged original and the copy of the court. Upon further inquiry as to the main tenor and contents of the alleged confession, the defense manifested that the one presented in court has the same contents with the copy of the court but the former contains little inconsistencies with respect to signatures found in the purported document. Hence, the defense did not agree that the said confession is a faithful reproduction of the copy found in the court file.

When it is the defenseturns to cross- examine the witness, the defense counsel inquires as to the surrounding circumstances of the alleged accused Muin and Alihuddin’sarrest and detention. The witness answered that the two accused (Muin and Alihuddin) were just turned over to them by the Patikul police force after they were arrested for the crime of illegal possession of firearms and explosives. Also, the defense further probes the validity and regularity of the execution of the alleged confession executed by the two accused. Along the questioning, it was found out that the lawyer who apparently assisted the two accused was a close friend of the witness police investigator. The validity of the due execution of the purported confession is now under question. At one point, the defense questioned witness Rex Himodo whether he convinced the two accused to confess their guilt. The witness surprisingly answered in the affirmative. This provoked the prosecution to object and asked the stenographer who recorded the proceeding to review the answer of witness and it was found out that indeed the witness answered in the affirmative. Moreover, the witness was asked if he knows a certain person named Muhammad Sali Said who happens to be one of the accused in this instant case and the witness answered in the negative.

In the middle of the hearing, counsels of both sides argued about how to proceed with the issue involving Muhammad Sali Said, one of the accused in this case. The issue was raised since the court inquires the public prosecutor as to the status of his (Muhammad Sali Said) admissibility to the witness protection program. The defense raised the fact that what was procured by the private prosecutor was a mere letter. The defense argued that it is mandated by law that before an accused is admitted as state witness under the Witness Protection Act, the Department of Justice shall first issue a certification to that effect. And a clear perusal of the records of this instant case, the requisite certification is absent. Hence, a timely objection of the defense was in order.

The public prosecutor intends to revive his previous motion, motion to discharge accused as state witness under the Rules of Court and at the same time withdraw his motion to withdraw information. This move by the prosecutor was affirmed and supported by the court. At the end of the arguments raised by counsels, the court ordered the private prosecutor to procure the requisite certification if ever there is one and the defense to submit a comment / opposition to the discharge of accused Sali Said as state witness under the Rules of Court.

The court set the next hearing on April 24-25, 2014. The prosecution will present their last four (4) witnesses; PakharMawan, SisamilMadjid, BalgavierJaujanIgasan and an EOD Bomb expert.

Source: Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)

All submissions are republished and redistributed in the same way that it was originally published online and sent to us. We may edit submission in a way that does not alter or change the original material.

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.