SCRIPT

Frustrated Murder
People vs. Merin

CHARACTERS:
Ayn Sarsaba Prosecution Counsel
Anthony Prestoza Prosecution Counsel
Katherine Jane Manarang Complainant
Richard Alvin Nalupta Boyfriend of the Complainant (Prosecution Witness)
Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon Expert Witness
Analita Ocampo Defense Counsel
Helen Paulette Tapire Defense Counsel
Iris Victoria Merin - Accused
Leira Taruc Expert Witness
Catherine Bool- Nunez Officemate of Complainant (Defense Witness)
Joel Macalino

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________

COURT: Please state your name and other

PROSECUTION personal circumstances.

Direct Examination of Catherine Jane

Manarang by Prosecutor Anthony Prestoza
COURT: Call the case.
INTERPRETER: For hearing, Criminal Case No.
12345, People of the Philippines vs. Iris
Victoria Merin.
WITNESS: Catherine Jane Manarang, 28 years
of age, single, a Certified Public Accountant
of the Accounting Division of Nestle
Philippines and a resident of Unit 143 Astral
Apartment Padre Faura St. Ermita, Manila.
COURT: Your witness.

COURT: Appearances. PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: The witness is

being presented to testify on the fact that
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: For the the accused bought the rat killer and that the
government. substance that poisoned her was from the
grapefruit juice which the accused prepared.
ATTY. TAPIRE: For the defense. May we proceed Your Honor?

COURT: Ready? COURT: Proceed.

PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: Ready Your Honor. Q: Catherine Jane Manarang, will you please
tell this Honorable Court where you were on
COURT: Call your witness to the witness October 17, 2007 at around 8 oclock in the
stand. morning?
A: I was in our apartment at Unit 143 Astral
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: May I call on Apartment Padre Faura St. Ermita, Manila.
Catherine Jane Manarang.
Q: Who lives in that apartment?
COURT: Swear in the witness. A: I and my best friend, Iris Victoria Merin.

INTERPRETER: Do you swear to tell the truth,
all the truth and nothing but the truth in this
case?
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
Q: Who was with you at that particular time
of the day?
A: I was alone because I did not report for
work to prepare for my engagement party.
Q: How did you prepare for the party?
A: I decided to clean the house.
Q: And what particular areas of the house did
you clean?
A: I cleaned the living room and the CR first.
Then I cleaned the dirty kitchen. Because I
remembered Iris said something like
Dumadami na yung mga rodents sa dirty
kitchen.
Q: The last place you cleaned was the dirty
kitchen?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: What did you do in order to solve the
problem on the rats?
A: I used a rat killer, Your Honor.
Q: Who bought the rat killer?
A: Iris bought it because she told me that she
noticed that there were rats in the place.
Q: Have you actually seen any rats in your
place?
A: No. Actually, it made me wonder I just
relied on the word of Iris. Besides, in our
lease agreement, there was a stipulation that
it shall be the owners responsibility to
conduct quarterly pest control measures.
Q: I am showing to you this document
previously marked as Exhibit A. Please go
over this document and tell this Honorable
Court if this is the lease agreement you are
referring to.
A: Yes, this document is the lease
agreement.
Q: Whose signature is this above the printed
name Catherine Jane Manarang which is
appearing on page 2 of this contract of
lease?
A: My signature, sir.
Q: And this signature belongs to whom?
(Prosecutor Prestoza pointing at the right
portion of the document)
A: Our lessor, Mr. Rhandell Matuloy.
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: Which for purposes
of identification, Your Honor, I would like to
request the marking of the signature
appearing above the printed name of
Catherine Jane Manarang as Exhibit A-1.
COURT: Mark it.
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: And the signature
appearing above the printed name of
Rhandell Matuloy as the lessor be marked as
Exhibit A-2.
COURT: Mark it.
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: We would also like
to request for the marking of stipulation no.8
in this lease agreement as Exhibit A-3.
COURT: Mark it.
Q: Was there consistent compliance by the
owner?
A: Yes.
Q: What happened next?
A: After cleaning, I rested because I got tired.
I remembered that before Iris left that
morning for work, she told me not to forget
to drink the grapefruit juice she prepared for
me.
Q: Where did you find the grapefruit juice?
A: Inside the ref.
Q: If that pitcher containing the grapefruit
juice will be shown to you, will you be able to
recognize it? (lawyer takes the pitcher
showing it to the victim)
A: Yes, thats the one.
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: For the record, the
pitcher, previously marked as Exhibit B was
recognized by the victim as the pitcher
containing the grapefruit juice prepared by
the accused for the complainant.
Q: When did you drink the said beverage?
A: Before I went to Starbucks.
Q: How many glasses were you able to drink?
A: I drank about 2 glasses.
Q: Can you estimate the amount of juice you
drank?
A: A glass would contain about 300-350 mL
of liquid. So, that would make about 600-700
mL.
Q: What else did you do on that day?
A: I went out to meet Iris for our usual coffee
break in Starbucks at 3 oclock in the
afternoon. We spent the whole afternoon
together until we decided to go home for the
party.
Q: Did you feel anything at that time?
ATTY. OCAMPO: Objection, Your Honor!
Question is leading.
COURT: Sustained.
Q: What happened at Starbucks?
A: While were eating, I complained to Iris
that my head was aching.
Q: Did your friend say anything?
A: She told me that I was just tired.
Q: What time did you leave Starbucks?
A: 5 oclock.
Q: What time did you arrive in your
apartment?
A: We arrived at about 5:30 oclock in the
late afternoon. The dinner party was set at 6
oclock that evening.
Q: What happened later?
A: The guests arrived. We entertained them.
Q: Was your fiance with them?
A: Yes.
Q: What happened next?
A: I approached Iris and chatted with her.
Q: What did you feel at that time?
A: My headache worsened. I began to feel
nauseous and I vomited. I felt so weak that I
lost my balance.
Q: Did anyone come to help?
A: Yes, Iris caught me before I hit the floor.
Q: Did you notice anything else?
A: Before I totally lost consciousness, I saw
that Iris was smiling while she held on to me.
Q: So, if the accused is inside this courtroom,
would you be able to identify and point to
her?
A: Yes, Sir. (Victim pointed to the accused.)
There.
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: That is all, Your
Honor.
COURT: Cross?
ATTY. OCAMPO: Yes, Your Honor.
Cross Examination of Catherine Jane
Manarang by Atty. Analita Ocampo
Q: Miss Witness, you testified that in the
lease contract, the lessor had the
responsibility to conduct pest control
measures. How often is this pest control
conducted?
A: Quarterly, Your Honor.
Q: And during what months did the lessor
conduct these pest control measures?
A: February, May, August, and November of
every year, Your Honor.
Q: Miss Witness, you testified that in cleaning
the dirty kitchen, you used a rat poison to kill
the rats there. Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: How did you use the rat poison?
A: I took the pack out of the box. Then I put
some into my hand. I put the rat poison in
some rice and then I put the rice on the floor
so that the rats could eat them.
Q: You did not use any gloves to protect your
hands or your skin?
A: No, Your Honor.
Q: Miss Witness, did you know that a rat
poison could also poison humans if
accidentally swallowed?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: So, even if you knew that, you still did not
use any protection for your hands?
A: Yes, because I planned to wash my hands
after I cleaned the dirty kitchen.
Q: After cleaning the dirty kitchen?
A: Yes, Your Honor.

Q: Not right after you put the poison into the
rice, as you have said earlier?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: You testified that you drank the grapefruit
juice. What was the color of the juice?
A: Yellow.
Q: When you drank the juice, what was its
taste?
A: It was sour, a bit bitter, Your Honor.
Q: Bitter?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Hindi ka ba nagtaka at mapait yung juice
na ininom mo?
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: Objection: Your
Honor! My witness cannot understand
Filipino.
COURT: Let the question be translated for
the witness.
INTERPRETER: Did you not wonder why the
juice was bitter?
A: No, Your Honor. The grapefruit juice really
has a slight bitter taste, perhaps because it
was so sour.
Q: You testified that before the accused left
the house, she told you not to forget to drink
the juice. Has she done this even before the
incident happened?
A: Yes, Your Honor. Both of us used to do
that. We often leave food and drinks for each
other.
Q: So, when she told you not to forget to
drink the juice, it was nothing new to you,
because both of you had that habit.
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: You testified that at 3 pm on October 17,
2007 you met with the accused at a coffee
shop. When you were with the accused, did
you notice anything different about her?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: What was that?
A: When I complained about my headache,
she just told me that I was just tired.
Q: Were you not really tired after cleaning
the entire house?
A: Yes, I was quite tired, Your Honor.
Q: You also said that at the party you felt
nauseous, and then you vomited and fell to
the floor. Is that right?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: When you were already at the floor, were
you still conscious?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Was your sight still clear?
A: A bit blurry, Your Honor.
Q: So you cannot see clearly at the time you
fell to the ground?
A: Yes, because I was so dizzy.
Q: So you cannot possibly say that Iris was
really smiling when she held you?
A: Im not sure Your Honor.
Q: Miss Witness, have you ever visited a
psychiatrist?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: When was this?
A: Around August 2006, Your Honor.
Q: Why did you go to such psychiatrist?
A: I needed treatment for my depression,
Your Honor.
Q: What was the cause of your depression?
A: My parents died of a terrible accident, and
I blamed myself for their death.
Q: Who was the doctor who treated you?
A: Dr. Leira Taruc.
Q: Where is her clinic located?
A: At the Medical Center Manila.
Q: What did this Dr. Taruc do to treat you?
A: I went through psychological counseling
sessions, Your Honor.
Q: Were this counseling sessions reduced
into writing?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Is this document the record of the
treatment you went through under Dr.
Taruc? (Atty. Ocampo showing the summary
discharge report to the complainant)
A: Yes, Your Honor
ATTY. OCAMPO: For the record, the
complainant has identified Exhibit 1 which
was previously marked as Summary
Discharge Report at the Medical Center
Manila.
Q: Who prepared this medical report?
A: It was Dr. Taruc who prepared the report,
Your Honor.
Q: Miss Witness, did anything happen before
you visited your psychiatrist?
A: I committed suicide.
Q: Did your psychiatrist prescribe any
medication?
A: Yes, she gave me anti-depressant pills.
Q: Are you still taking these medications?
A: Not anymore, Your Honor.
ATTY. OCAMPO: No further questions.
COURT: Re-direct?
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: No, Your Honor.
We will call on our next witness.
COURT: Miss Witness, You may step down.
Call your next witness.
Direct Examination of Richard Nalupta by
Prosecutor Anthony Prestoza
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: Im calling on Mr.
Richard Alvin Nalupta.
INTERPRETER: Do you swear to tell the truth,
all the truth and nothing but the truth in this
case?
WITNESS: Yes Sir.
COURT: Please state your name and other
personal circumstances.
WITNESS: Ritchie Nalupta, 30 years of age,
single, head security officer of the Security
Services Division of Nestle Philippines and a
resident of 299 Aguado St. San Miguel
Quiapo, Manila.
COURT: Your witness.
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: This witness, Your
Honor, Richard Nalupta is presented to
testify on the fact that the accused secretly
fell in love and could possibly be obsessed
with him and may likewise began to hate the
complainant secretly. May we proceed, Your
Honor?
COURT: Proceed.
Q: Do you know the complainant?
A: Yes.
Q: How are you related to her?
A: She is my fiance.
Q: Do you know the accused?
A: Yes.
Q: How is she related to the complainant?
A: She is the childhood friend of the
complainant; officemate; and they live in the
same apartment.
Q: Were you aware that the accused likes
you?
ATTY. OCAMPO: Objection, Your Honor.
Counsel is speculating.
Q: Do you visit the complainant in their
apartment?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: How often do you visit the complainant?
A: During weekdays, whenever I drop her
after work, and during weekends.
Q: Whenever you visit the complainant in
their apartment, are there any persons
around?
A: Yes, sometimes, Iris was there.
Q: When you visit the complainant during
weekend, was the complainant always there?
A: Not always, Your Honor.
Q: What do you mean when you said that the
complainant was not always there?
A: Shes not there because she went out.
Q: And whenever that happens, who do you
find at their apartment?
A: Iris, Your Honor.
Q: Mr. Witness, what do you do whenever
you visit the complainant at their apartment
and she is not around?
A: I wait for her to come back, Your Honor.
Q: Where or in what particular part of the
apartment do you wait?
A: At the living room, Your Honor.
Q: And while waiting, what normally
transpires?
A: I watch the tv or listen to music.
Q: You said earlier that whenever the
complainant is not around during your visit,
Iris was at the apartment, is that right?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: So there were times that only you and the
accused were in the apartment, while you
were waiting for the complainant?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: What transpires whenever you and the
accused are alone in the apartment?
A: The accused flirts with me, Your Honor.
Q: What do you mean when you said she was
flirting with you?
A: She wears revealing clothes, she says I
love you jokingly, mga ganun.
Q: Do you recall how many times these have
happened?
A: Many times, Your Honor.
Q: What do you tell the accused every time
she flirts with you?
A: I dont mind her jokes.
Q: Does your fiance know of these
instances?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Why?
A: Because I told her a few times about it.
Q: What did your fiance say?
A: She said: Dont mind her. Shes crazy.
Q: Mr. Witness, please examine this text
message, and tell the Court if you recognize
it?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Why do you recognize it?
A: Because I received that text message
from the accused on August 15, 2007.
Q: This text message purports to have been
sent by the person owning this mobile
number, 09173237890. Do you recognize the
person who owned this number?
A: Yes, that is the mobile number of the
accused, Your Honor.
Q: How do you know?
A: Because the mobile number of the
accused is stored in my mobile phone, Your
Honor.
Q: Will you please read aloud the contents of
this text message?
A: Richie, kung hindi ka magiging akin,
walang makikinabang sayo! (Richie, if I
wont have you, no one else will!)
Q: Mr. Witness, kindly read the next text
message.
A: Akin ka lang, Richie. Mamamatay ang
kahit sinong aagaw sayo. (Youre mine,
Richie. Whoever tries to steal you from me
will die.)
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: Your Honor, for the
record, these text messages appearing on
the screen of the mobile phone of Mr.
Nalupta, previously marked as Exhibit C has
been identified by the witness.
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: This document is
the printed copy of the text messages
contained in the mobile phone of Mr.
Nalupta. We would like to request that it be
marked as Exhibit C-1.
COURT: Mark it.
Q: How often does she send you this kind of
text messages?
A: Almost everyday, Your Honor.
Q: What were you doing during the
engagement party?
A: I was entertaining our friends.
Q: Were you near the victim?
A: No. I was about 8 meters away from her.
Q: Who was with the victim when the
incident happened?
A: She was with the accused.
Q: What did you do when you learned of the
incident?
A: I rushed to her. She was already lying on
the ground.
Q: What did you do afterwards?
A: I called for an ambulance. We rushed her
to the hospital.
Q: How long did you stay with her at the
hospital?
A: About four hours. I waited for the doctor to
come out.
Q: When the doctor came out, what did he
tell you?
A: The doctor said my fiance was poisoned.
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: No further
questions, Your Honor.
COURT: Cross?
ATTY. OCAMPO: Yes, Your Honor
Cross Examination of Richard Nalupta by
Atty. Analita Ocampo
Q: Mr. Witness, you have testified that
whenever you and Ms. Merin are alone in the
apartment, she tried to flirt with you. Is that
right?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: What made you say that?
A: Well, I feel she made some advances.
( extra sweetness )
Q: How long have you known Ms. Merin?
A: I have known her ever since I began
courting my fiance since both of them live
in the same apartment. Thats about four
years ago.
Q: Would you consider Ms. Merin as your
friend?
A: Ummm. Yes.
Q: Mr. Witness, is it possible that the reason
why Ms. Merin treats you well and with extra
sweetness is because she considers you as a
close friend since you are the fiance of her
best friend?
A: Yes
Q: You also testified that Ms. Merin sent you
threatening text messages. What is you
proof that it was indeed my client who sent
you those messages?
A: I am sure Your Honor because I am
familiar with the way she constructs her
messages.
Q: Mr. Witness, does the complainant use
your mobile phone in sending text messages
to her friends?
A: Yes, sometimes
Q: How about you? Are there times when you
borrow the complainants cellular phone?
A: Yes, there are times I use her phone.
Q: So, is it possible that Ms. Merins phone
has also been borrowed by someone else
and it was not her who sent you those text
messages?
A: Yes its possible. But Your Honor Im
really sure she was the one who sent me
those messages.
ATTY. OCAMPO: No further questions, Your
Honor.
COURT: Re-direct?
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: No, Your Honor.
We will call on our last witness.
COURT: Call your witness.
Direct Examination of Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon
by Prosecutor Ayn Sarsaba
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: Im calling on Dr.
Juan Paolo Gascon.
INTERPRETER: Do you swear to tell the truth,
all the truth and nothing but the truth in this
case?
WITNESS: Yes.
COURT: Please state your name and other
personal circumstances.
WITNESS: Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon, 28 years of
age, single, emergency physician and a
resident of Robinsons Tower, Padre Faura St.,
Ermita, Manila.
COURT: Your witness.
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: This witness, Your
Honor, Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon, will testify on
the findings in the medico-legal report
prepared by him to prove the following: (i)
that the effective cause of the complainants
condition is chemical poisoning; (ii) that the
dose taken by the complainant is necessarily
fatal; and (iii) that the possible source of the
cyanide poison is the grape fruit juice
prepared by the accused. May we proceed,
Your Honor?
COURT: Proceed.
Q: You declared that you are a doctor of
medicine, Dr. Gascon, where did you finish
your medical degree?
A: Emilio Aguinaldo College, United Nations
Avenue, Manila.
Q: When did you graduate?
A: 1994?
Q: Are you a licensed physician?
A: Yes.
Q: When did you pass the doctors board
examination?
A: in 1995.
Q: Where are you presently connected?
A: Im presently connected with the
Philippine General Hospital located in Taft,
Manila.
Q: Since when have you been employed in
that hospital?
A: I have been employed there since 1998.
Q: What is your present designation?
A: Im presently an emergency physician in
said institution.
Q: Since you became a licensed physician,
have you attended seminars and undertaken
training in connection with the practice of
medicine? When and where?
A: Yes. I have attended several training
seminars on emergency medicine held here
and abroad. In fact, I have also been invited
as a guest speaker to give special lectures
on modern medical toxicology and the
medico-legal aspect of poisoning. To name a
few: One of the international medical
conferences Ive attended was in Switzerland
last October 2007 called Poisoning and Drug
Overdose by Dr. Barry Rumack and Dr. Allan
Hall who were internationally recognized
experts in internal medicine. Another would
be the one held just last January in Florida,
USA entitled Emergency Medicine: Practicing
According to the Evidence.
Q: Have you testified as a Medical expert in
cases before courts of justice?
A: Yes, mostly on medico legal cases.
Q: How many medico legal cases so far have
you testified? What kind of medico legal
cases have you testified?
A: For the past 5 years, around two hundred
(200) cases. Mostly homicide and murder
cases involving food and chemical poisoning,
medical malpractice cases and industrial and
vehicular accidents.
Q: Do you recall having attended on one
Catherine Jane Manarang at the Philippine
General Hospital?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you recall when was that doctor?
About what time?
A: About 6:30 in the evening of October 17,
2007.
Q: Do you recall how many days was she
confined to the hospital?
A: She was confined for one week.
Q: Why was she confined that long?
A: We made sure that the neurologic and
cardiovascular status has normalized and
acidosis and other metabolic abnormalities
have resolved before we discharged her.
Q: While in the hospital, did you continue
attending on her?
A: Yes.

Q: After her discharge, did you require her to
still see you for further medications?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Why?
A: I advised the patient to have a follow-up
within 7 to 10 days after discharge to
reevaluate and monitor for onset of delayed
neurologic manifestations.
Q: Did the patient see you for a follow-up
Doctor?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you find any neurologic complications
in said follow-up?
A: None.
Q: So Doctor, we are assured that the
patient, complainant herein, is in a healthy
state of mind?
A: Yes.
Q: Attached to the record of the case is a
Medico Legal Report issued by one Dr. Juan
Paolo Gascon, is this the one you are
referring to? (Exhibit D)
A: Yes.
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: For the record, the
witness has identified the document
previously marked as Exhibit D as the Medico
Legal Report issued by Dr. Juan Paolo
Gascon.
Q: There is a signature above the typewritten
name Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon, do you know
whose signature is this doctor?
A: It is my signature.
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: I respectfully
request Your Honor, that the signature
appearing in Exhibit D be marked as Exhibit
D-1.
COURT: Mark it.
Q: Doctor, please read this particular entry.
(Witness reading a portion of the medico
legal report)
A: The patient came in the emergency room
stretcher-borne, unconscious and in
respiratory distress. Her vital signs then
were: Blood pressure 80/50 mmHg, Cardiac
rate of 50 beats per minute, Respiratory Rate
of 12 cycles per minute and temperature of
37.8 degree Celsius. Patients skin was
flushed.
Q: Could you please explain this finding in
more simple terms for an ordinary person to
understand?
A: The patient clearly was in an unstable
condition, or in a very critical condition,
warranting an immediate medical
intervention, constant monitoring for any
sign of deterioration and further evaluation.
Q: Do you know what could have caused this
kind of condition?
A: My diagnosis at that time was there was
chemical poisoning.
Q: Why is the condition of Catherine Jane
Manarang attributable to poisoning rather
than to disease or some natural cause? Were
tests conducted confirming the existence of
poisoning?
A: We did Toxin Screening with the patients
blood. It revealed the presence of trace
amounts of cyanide in the blood, and since
cyanide is not normally found in our blood
and considering its chemical nature, it is
poisonous.
Q: So you are saying that the actual or
effective cause of the condition of the
patient is?
A: Chemical poison, which is harmful to the
body or deadly to humans.
Q: Did the symptoms which appear resemble
the typical symptoms of poisoning by the
alleged poison?
A: Yes. The symptoms of cyanide poisoning
are headache, nausea, vomiting, generalized
body weakness, loss of consciousness,
flushed skin, and unstable vital signs all of
which are present in this case.
Q: Doctor, what could be a possible source of
cyanide in this case?
A: Based on the history given to me by the
informant when the patient was brought to
the ER, possible sources of cyanide could be
any of the food or beverage the patient had
ingested on the day of the incident.
Q: History? What do you mean by that
Doctor?
A: We fill out a form called History and
Physical Examination. Contained here are the
General Data, Reason for the Consult or
Chief Complaint, the History of Present
Illness and the Past Medical History. Relevant
here is the History of Present Illness. This
refers to the events and activities of the
patient which transpired prior to the
consultation, from the onset of symptoms to
the time of consultation.
Q: Now, you mentioned about an informant.
Who was the informant of the patient in this
case, Doctor? Was it Miss Merin?
ATTY. TAPIRE: Objection, Your Honor, the
question is leading!
Q: Who was the informant of the patient in
this case?
A: It was Miss Iris Merin.
Q: Would you please tell the Court what it
was exactly that Miss Merin told you?
A: The informant told me that during their
coffee break on the day of the incident, the
food intake of the patient consisted of tuna
sandwich, fresh green salad, green tea
frappuccino, and during the party, she drank
coke zero.
Q: Now, my question to you is: Is it possible
Doctor that a grape fruit juice can be a
source of the cyanide poison?
ATTY. TAPIRE: Objection, the question is
leading.
Court: Sustained.
A: Actually, during the confinement of the
patient in the hospital for one week, said
patient mentioned to me that she also drank
grape fruit juice. It is possible that the grape
fruit juice could be the source of cyanide
considering that she ingested the same 3
hours before the onset of symptoms.
Q: What is the minimum lethal dose of
cyanide?
A: Fatal dose is the smallest dose known to
cause death: not the smallest amount which
will certainly cause death. Several scientific
studies have shown that the toxic threshold
dose is 50 to 100mg of cyanide in the human
body.
Q: In your opinion, was the dose taken by the
victim necessarily fatal?
A: An analysis of the patients blood would
tell us the amount or level of cyanide in the
blood. The patients blood was found to have
1.5 mg/dL cyanide content. Based from this
definitive finding, I can extrapolate that the
amount ingested by the patient is lethal or
fatal.
Q: Is that all, Doctor?
A: As previously stated, the symptoms of the
patient would eventually lead to cardio-
pulmonary arrest (death). If no prompt
intervention was done, the patient would
have died.
Q: What are you trying to tell us Doctor?
A: The severity of the symptoms may serve
as an indication of how lethal the dose of
cyanide is. Or that the effect of poisons in
the body is usually proportional to the dose
taken. The bigger the dose, the more severe
the symptoms will be.
Q: Doctor, do you have any other field of
expertise?
A: Yes. I am also an expert chemist and
toxicologist. I specialize in Forensic Medicine
and Toxicology specifically Poisoning and
Drug Overdose.
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: I will show you a
document, previously marked as Exhibit E.
This is the Toxicology Report from the NBI on
the results of their chemical analyses of the
sample taken from the grape fruit juice in the
pitcher and of the sample taken from the
rodenticide or rat killer, Rat-A-Rest, found in
the apartment of the complainant and
accused.
Q: As an expert, can you please interpret to
us the findings in this report?
A: This report reveals that the sample taken
from the grape fruit juice has been
contaminated with rodenticide. It also shows
that rodenticide has 50% cyanide
concentration. It also illustrates that the
grape fruit juice is hence contaminated with
cyanide.
Q: Doctor, have you formed an opinion?
A: It seems that the rodenticide has been
intentionally mixed into the grape fruit juice.
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: No more questions,
Your Honor.
COURT: Cross?
ATTY. TAPIRE: Yes, Your Honor.
Cross Examination of Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon
by Atty. Paulette Tapire
Q: Doctor, you have testified that you also
specialize in Toxicology specifically Poisoning
and Drug Overdose, hence, you are an
expert in that field, am I right?
A: Yes.
Q: Doctor, when does ingestion of the
cyanide poison cause the onset of symptoms
of cyanide poisoning?
A: Patients who ingest potentially fatal
amounts may not develop life-threatening
symptomatology for up to 1 to 2 hours
following exposure.
Q: Symptoms such as?
A: In patients who do not experience sudden
collapse, the initial signs and symptoms can
resemble those of anxiety or
hyperventilation syndrome. Early signs
include headache. Late signs of poisoning
are nausea, vomiting, loss of consciousness,
and a variety of cardiac effects.
Q: The patient-complainant also testified that
she drank two glasses of the alleged source
of the poison the grape fruit juice at
around 2:45 pm and the onset of the
symptoms of cyanide poisoning was about
6:00 pm. Thus, 3 hours had lapsed from the
ingestion of the alleged source (grape fruit
juice) before the symptoms developed, am I
right?
A: Yes.
Q: But you also said that symptoms of
cyanide poisoning are expected to develop 1
to 2 hours following ingestion?
A: Yes.
Q: If thats the case, dont you think there is
an inconsistency of the duration of ingestion
and onset of symptoms between the
patients actual case and the established
scientific findings of cyanide poisoning? With
this, does it not mean that the condition of
the patient can not be attributed to cyanide
poisoning but to some other cause?
A: Yes. That is possible.
Q: Are you sure?
A: I can say that it is possible that the
patients condition was not due to cyanide
poisoning.
Q: Doctor, about the source of the poison,
you only said possible sources, right?
A: Yes.
Q: By possible, you mean?
A: Probable or potential source of the poison,
Maam.
Q: That the grape fruit juice is just one
possible source of the cyanide poison?
A: Yes.
Q: And that there are other possible sources
of the cyanide as well?
A: Yes.
Q: So, is it safe to conclude, Doctor, that the
cyanide poison may have come from another
source considering that for that day, the
patients food intake comprised of different
food and beverages?
A: Yes, that is possible.
Q: Are you aware of the history of said
patient, that she had at one time in the past,
attempted to end her life due to depression?
A: Yes.
Q: That she has a history of one previous
suicidal attempt one year from the date of
the incident?
A: Yes.
Q: In your opinion, is said fact relevant to the
determination of the cause of the symptoms?
A: Yes. History of any previous suicidal
attempts, history of the patients mental
condition and history of business, marital
and social failures are taken into
consideration in cases of poisoning.
Q: Is it safe to conclude then that it is
possible that the poisoning is attributable to
suicide?
A: Yes, Your Honor.

ATTY. TAPIRE: No further questions, Your
Honor.
COURT: Re-direct?
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: Yes, Your Honor
Re-Direct Examination of Dr. Juan Paolo
Gascon by Prosecutor Sarsaba
Q: Doctor, is it possible that the onset of
symptoms for cyanide poisoning varies for
each person? Is it possible that said
symptoms may appear beyond the normal 1-
2 hour duration?
A: That is possible.
Q: Will you explain to us how that is
possible?
A: Some persons possess different levels of
sensitivity to certain substances. The body
may acquire tolerance to some substances.
Another would be: The body has a natural
defense against cyanide exposure in the
form of an endogenous enzyme, namely,
rhodanese. This enzyme catalyzes cyanide
complexing with sulfur, forming the much
less toxic ion thiocyanate. The availability of
sulfur constitutes the rate limiting factor in
natural cyanide detoxification. In the
absence of exogenous source of sulfur,
rhodanese activity is too slow to prevent
serious toxicity or death.
Q: Could you explain to the Court what you
mean by that Doctor?
A: Even though the normal duration is 1 to 2
hours, there are some cases in which the
signs and symptoms of cyanide poisoning in
a patient may be delayed and appear
beyond the normal duration. In the case of
the patient Miss Manarang, there was a one-
hour delay of appearance of symptoms
because as confirmed in her lab tests, her
body produces abnormal amounts of sulfur
and as Ive mentioned earlier, when there is
more sulfur in the body, the cyanide
detoxification in the body is hastened, thus,
the serious toxic effects of cyanide will be
diminished. Lastly, the food intake of the
patient may possibly contribute to such
effect.
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: No further
questions, Your Honor.
COURT: Re-cross?
ATTY. TAPIRE: No re-cross, Your Honor.
COURT: Mr. Witness, you may step down.
Formal Offer of Evidence by the Prosecution
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: Your Honor, we are
now resting the case for the prosecution.
COURT: How do you intend to submit your
formal offer?
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: We can now offer
our evidence, Your Honor.
COURT: Proceed
PROSECUTOR SARSABA:
Exhibit A is the Contract of Lease
being offered to prove that there is a
stipulation on the quarterly conduct of pest
control measures by the lessor.
Exhibit A-1 and A-2 are the
signatures of Catherine Jane Manarang as
lessee and Rhandell Matuloy as lessor to
prove that these two persons were the
contracting parties to the lease agreement.
Exhibit A-3 is the stipulation
regarding the pest control measures to prove
that the lessor undertakes to conduct the
quarterly pest control measures.
Exhibit B is the pitcher from which a
sample was taken and subjected to chemical
analysis for the purpose of proving the fact
that the source of poison was the grapefruit
juice prepared by the accused contained in
the pitcher.
Exhibit C consists of text messages to
prove that the accused nurtured feelings for
the complainants boyfriend.
Exhibit C-1 consists of printed copies
of the text messages to corroborate to the
fact that the accused had been sending
several text messages to the complainants
boyfriend to manifest her obsession.

Exhibit D is the Medico Legal Report
issued by Dr. Juan Paolo Gascon to prove the
following: (i) that the effective cause of the
complainants condition is chemical
poisoning; (ii) that the dose taken by the
complainant is necessarily fatal; and (iii) that
the possible source of cyanide poison is the
grapefruit juice prepared by the accused.
Exhibit D-1 is the signature of Dr.
Juan Paolo Gascon to be a part of his
testimony that he was the attending
physician of the complainant.
Exhibit E is the Toxicology Report of
the National Bureau of Investigation to prove
the chemical analysis of the sample taken
from the pitcher for qualitative and
quantitative determination of the poison.
Exhibit F is the Box of Rat Killer to
prove the source of the poison which was
bought by the accused.
COURT: Any comment?
ATTY. OCAMPO:
As to Exhibits A, A-1, A-2 and A-3 we admit
the existence and authenticity, Your Honor.
As to Exhibit B, we admit its
existence but not its purpose.
As to Exhibits C and C-1, we can only admit
as to the existence of the text messages but
not its authenticity.
As to Exhibit D and D-1, we admit the
existence and authenticity, Your Honor.
As to Exhibit E, we admit its authenticity and
genuineness.
As to Exhibit F, we admit its existence but
not its purpose.
COURT: Acting on the formal offer of exhibits
of the prosecutor and comments thereon by
the defense counsel, the Court resolves to
admit all the exhibits offered by the defense
counsel specified in the offer.
DEFENSE
Direct Examination of Dr.Leira Taruc by Atty.
Helen Paulette Tapire
ATTY. TAPIRE: For the defense, we are ready
to present our first witness, Your Honor.
COURT: Proceed.
INTERPRETER: Do you swear to tell the truth,
all the truth and nothing but the truth in this
case?
WITNESS: Yes Maam.
COURT: Please state your name and other
personal circumstances.
WITNESS: I am Dr. Leira Leonor Taruc, 35
years old, single, a licensed psychiatrist at
the Psychiatry Department, Medical Center
Manila, and a resident of 123 Krusada St.
Quaipo, Manila.
ATTY. TAPIRE: Your Honor, the witness is
presented to testify on the medical records
of the complainant who underwent several
counseling sessions under her supervision
and to prove the mental and emotional
instability of the complainant. May we
proceed, Your Honor?
COURT: Proceed.
Q: When were you admitted to the practice
of medicine?
A: In 1995, Your Honor.
Q: From what university or college did you
graduate and when?
A: I graduated from the University of Santo
Tomas in the year 1994.
Q: Did you graduate with honors?
A: Yes, Latin Honors Your Honor.
Q: Do you have any post-graduate degree?
A: Yes, Your Honor. I finished my Master of
Psychiatry degree at the University of
Melbourne in 1998.
Q: Since when have you been practicing as a
psychiatrist?
A: For almost 10 years, Your Honor.
Q: What is the nature of your work as a
psychiatrist?
A: As a psychiatrist I deal with the diagnosis,
treatment and prevention of mental and
emotional illness and behavioral disorders of
patients.
Q: How do you treat your patients?
A: I listen and talk to patients about their
mental, emotional or behavioral problems
and assess the status of these disorders. I
also prescribe medications, cognitive
therapy, behavioral therapy or psychological
counseling depending on the patients
needs.
Q: Do you know the complainant in this
case?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Why do you know her?
A: She was my patient at the Psychiatry
Department of Medical Center Manila.
Q: When was this?
A: August 16, 2006.
Q: For what reason did she come to your
clinic?
A: She consulted me about her condition.
Q: Was the consultation out of her own
volition?
A: No. She was advised by her friend.
Q: Doctor, what procedures or tests did you
conduct on the complainant during the
consultation?
A: I conducted physical examinations. I
asked her to tell something about her, her
work, her family, and other personal
relationships. I just listened to whatever she
said. While she was talking, I observed her
demeanor, the way she spoke, and her
gestures.
Q: What did you notice about the
complainant while she was talking to you?
A: At first, the patient was apparently
normal. But when she began talking about
her family, particularly her parents, she
began to sob, and then she cried. Her hands
were trembling. She blamed herself for the
death of her parents.
Q: What matters were revealed to you by the
complainant in the course of the
consultation?
A: The physical examinations revealed
sleeping apnea, insomnia, hypertension, and
migraines.
Q: As to her emotional condition?
A: The patient is suffering from major
depression, without psychotic features.
Q: Did you talk to anyone else regarding the
patients emotional condition?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Who else did you talk to about her
emotional condition?
A: I spoke to her friend, the one who advised
the patient to seek help. This was part of the
analysis of the patients condition.
Q: Any other tests that you conducted on the
patient?
A: No more, Your Honor.
Q: Doctor, from the examinations and
observations, what did you conclude about
the complainants condition?
A: The patient from suffered from single
episode depression.
Q: Will you explain to this Court what that
condition meant?
A: Single episode depression or SED is a type
of major depression that occurs once, as a
result of a single psychological trauma. In
the case of the patient, based on our
conversations, the only traumatic event
which caused the depression was the terrible
accident and death of her parents.
Q: What made you conclude that the patient
was suffering from this condition?
A: The symptoms of SED, which include
insomnia, loss of appetite, which may, or
may not lead to weight loss, mood swings
and hypnotic spells, matched with the results
of the patients physical examination.
Q: How did you treat the patient?
A: The patient was admitted to the hospital
as inpatient.
Q: How long did she stay at the hospital?
A: One month, Your Honor.
Q: And what methods or procedures did you
use to treat the patient?
A: I conducted supportive counseling, Your
Honor.
Q: Will you tell this Honorable Court what
supportive counseling meant?
A: Supportive counseling helps ease the pain
of depression and addresses the feeling of
hopelessness that accompanies the
depression. In the case of the patient, I talk
to her about what happened to her during
the past week. If the patient mentioned a
negative event, I ask her what she felt, why
she felt that way and how she should have
viewed the negative situation.
Q: And the counseling sessions were at what
intervals?
A: Once a week, Your Honor.
Q: Did you prescribe any medication to the
patient?
A: Yes, I prescribed anti-depressant pills.
Q: When did you discharge the complainant/
patient?
A: September 16, 2006, Your Honor.
Q: The medical findings that you had on the
complainant, were these reduced into
writing?
A: Yes, Your Honor, I have made a psychiatric
assessment on the medical findings.
Q: Did you personally prepare the said
writing?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Does this document have any relation to
the report that you have prepared? (Showing
the psychiatric assessment)
A: That is the report that I have prepared,
Your Honor.
ATTY. TAPIRE: For the record, the witness has
identified this document previously marked
as Exhibit 2 as the psychiatric assessment
record of Catherine Jane Manarang.
Q: In the last page of this document, there
appears a signature. Whose signature is this,
Miss Witness?
A: That is my signature, Your Honor.
ATTY. TAPIRE: I respectfully request, Your
Honor, that the signature appearing in this
document be marked as Exhibit 2-A.
COURT: Mark it.
Q: Doctor, who ordered the discharge of the
complainant?
A: I ordered the discharge, Your Honor, upon
request of the complainant?
Q: Were there any conditions upon the
discharge of the complainant?
A: In my discharge summary, I stated that
although the patient is being discharged, she
is to continue treatment as an outpatient.
Q: Did the patient comply with the condition?
A: No, Your Honor. She did not return to the
hospital after the discharge.
Q: Doctor, when the complainant was
discharged, what was her condition?
A: There was an improvement in her
condition in general, although she is not
completely stable yet.
Q: What do you mean she is not completely
stable yet?
A: While she manifested improvement, there
is a possibility of relapse.
Q: Do you mean to say, Doctor, that the
patients condition may recur?
A: If unguarded, Your Honor.
Q: Unguarded?
A: If the patient does not follow the
treatment plan, the possibility of relapse is
high.
Q: Do you mean to say, Doctor, that, in the
case of the complainant, there is a possibility
of a relapse, considering she did not return
to you for further treatment?
A: Yes, Your Honr.
Q: And should there be a relapse, would
another suicide be also a possibility?
A: That is possible, Your Honor.
ATTY. TAPIRE: No further questions, Your
Honor.
COURT: Cross?
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: Yes, Your Honor.
 A: If the patient is under several medications
Cross Examination of Dr. Leira Taruc by and they are not followed, a relapse is highly
Prosecutor Ayn Sarsaba possible. And if the patient does not submit
Q: Doctor, you testified that you treated the to further counseling sessions when
complainant for single episode depression. Is required, a relapse is also possible.
that true?
A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: Was the complainant under medication
when she was discharged?
Q: When you discharged the complainant, A: Yes, but only for anti-depressant, Your
what was her condition? Honor.
A: She was emotionally stable.
Q: So in your opinion, is the possibility of a
Q: What made you conclude that the patient relapse high or low?
was emotionally stable? A: I cannot tell, Your Honor.
A: During our last counseling session, there
were no longer signs of the SED. She no Q: Would that also mean that, in the case of
longer showed signs of mood swings. She no the complainant, such relapse may not
longer cried when I asked her about the happen?
death of her parents. She said she would not
blame herself anymore. ATTY. TAPIRE: Objection, Your Honor, the
question is leading.
Q: You also testified that your relationship
with the complainant lasted for one month. COURT: Sustained.
Will you tell this Honorable Court why it
lasted only for such period? PROSECUTOR SARSABA: No further
A: The patient responded well during our questions, Your Honor.
counseling sessions. The anti-depressant
pills which I have prescribed also worked COURT: Re-direct?
positively on her.
ATTY. TAPIRE: No, Your Honor. We will call on
Q: The anti-depressant pills that you our last witness.
prescribed; do they have any side effects?
A: I asked the patient what she felt after COURT: Miss Witness, You may step down.
taking the medication. She said she felt Call your last witness.
drowsy, which is a normal side effect of anti-
depressants.

Direct Examination of Kate Nunez by Atty.

Q: Are there any other side effects?
A: Other anti-depressants make a patient
restless and anxious. But the effects really
vary from one person to another. In the case
of the complainant, the only effect was
drowsiness.
Analita Ocampo
ATTY. OCAMPO: May I call on our next
witness, Miss Kate Nunez.
INTERPRETER: Do you swear to tell the truth,
all the truth and nothing but the truth in this
case?

Q: You testified that a relapse is possible if WITNESS: Yes Maam.

the patient does not continue treatment after
discharge, is that true? COURT: Please state your name and other
A: Yes, Your Honor. personal circumstances.

Q: How high are the chances of a relapse? WITNESS: I am Kate Nunez, 32 years old,
A: It depends, Your Honor. married, an officemate of the complainant
and a resident of 345, Paco, Manila.
Q: Depends on what?
ATTY. OCAMPO: The witness is being
presented to testify on the character and
suicidal tendencies of the complainant. May
we proceed, Your Honor?
COURT: Proceed.
Q: Do you know the complainant?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Why do you know her?
A: I work with her at the accounting
department at Nestle Philippines.
Q: How long have you been officemates?
A: About two years.
Q: How would you describe her as an
officemate?
A: She is a quiet person, a loner.
Q: In the two years that youve known the
complainant, was there any untoward
incident which involved her?
A: None sir.
Q: Was there any time that you noticed
something different about the complainant?
A: Yes.
Q: What was that?
A: I saw her one time at the comfort room,
she was crying while staring at the mirror.
Q: What did you do when you saw her
crying?
A: I asked her if something wrong happened.
Q: What was her answer?
A: She said, I wanna die!
Q: What did you tell her after she said those
words?
A: I asked her again what happened
Q: And what was her answer?
A: She did not say anything, she just stared
at me.
Q: What was your reaction?
A: I said, Come on, you can tell me your
problems.
Q: Did this kind of incident happen again?
A: Yes. Two days after, the same incident
happened in the comfort room.
Q: What did you do during that second
incident?
A: None. I did not ask her anymore because I
know she wouldnt tell me anyway.
Q: Do you remember what transpired
afterwards?
A: After about three days, I learned of the
complainants attempt to commit suicide.
Q: Miss Witness, on June 22, 2006, did you
receive an e-mail from the complainant?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Who was the sender of that e-mail?
A: It was Catherine, Your Honor.
Q: How do you know?
A: Because she used her signature, Your
Honor.
Q: Miss Witness, please examine this writing,
and please tell the Court if you recognized it?
A: That is the e-mail sent by the
complainant, Your Honor.
ATTY. OCAMPO: For the record, the witness
has identified this document previously
marked as Exhibit A as the printed copy of
the e-mail sent by the complainant.
Q: Can you tell the Court what the e-mail
contained?
A: It says: Dear Kate, my parents didnt
deserve to die that way. I am so stupid, I
should have died with them. I wanna die
now!
Q: How sure are you that this is the same e-
mail which you received from the
complainant?
A: Because her signature appears at the
bottom of the e-mail, Your Honor.
Q: This signature appearing here, is this the
signature of the complainant?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
ATTY. OCAMPO: Your Honor, it is respectfully
requested that the signature appearing in
this Exhibit 3 be marked as Exhibit 3-A.
ATTY. OCAMPO: No further questions.

COURT: Cross?
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: No cross-
examination for the witness, your honor.
Direct Examination of Iris Victoria Merin by
Atty. Helen Paulette Tapire
ATTY. TAPIRE: For the defense, we are ready
to present the accused, Your Honor.
COURT: Proceed.
INTERPRETER: Do you swear to tell the truth,
all the truth and nothing but the truth in this
case?
WITNESS: Yes Maam.
COURT: Please state your name and other
personal circumstances.
WITNESS: Iris Victoria Uy Merin, 28 years of
age, single, food toxicologist at the Research
and Development Division Nestle Philippines,
and a resident of Unit 143 Astral Apartment
Padre Faura St. Ermita, Manila.
COURT: Your witness.
ATTY. TAPIRE: Your Honor, the testimony of
the witness is being offered to controvert the
material allegations of the information
against Iris Victoria Merin and to testify that
due to the complainants mental and
emotional state, her perspective of the
situation cannot be relied upon. May we
proceed, Your Honor?
COURT: Proceed.
Q: Miss Witness, are you the same Iris
Victoria Merin who is the accused in this
case?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Do you know the complainant?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Do you know her personally?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: How are you related to her?
A: She is a childhood friend. We work in the
same company and we live in the same
apartment.
Q: Iris Merin, please tell this Honorable Court,
where were you on October 17, 2007 at
around 6pm?
A: I was at the engagement party of
Catherine and Richard.
Q: Can you recall what happened during that
engagement party?
A: I was chatting with Catherine while having
a drink. We were in the kitchen then.
Afterwards, I saw her holding her abdomen
and vomiting.
Q: What were you drinking that time?
A: I was drinking margarita, she was drinking
Coke zero.
Q: Then what happened?
A: She dropped to the ground. She was so
pale and sweaty. She lost her consciousness.
Ritchie called for an ambulance and then we
brought her to the nearby hospital.
Q: How long did you stay at the hospital?
A: I stayed there overnight.
Q: Before the incident happened, where were
you?
A: I was at the Starbucks with Catherine.
Q: At around what time was that?
A: It was around 3pm. It was my coffee break
then.
Q: Did Catherine go to work that day?
A: No, Your Honor.
Q: Would you know why?
A: She told me she would take a leave
because she needed to prepare for their
engagement party.
Q: Did you go to work that day?
A: Yes.
Q: What time did you leave the house?
A: I left the house 6:30 am.
Q: So could you positively say that you had
no idea about what transpired on that day,
October 17, 2007, before the incident at the
engagement party happened?
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: Objection, Your
Honor! The question is leading.
COURT: Sustained.
Q: When you left the house, what was
Catherine doing?
A: She was still sleeping, Your Honor.
Q: Miss Witness, were you aware that the
complainant suffered from a major
depression?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Would you know the reason why she
suffered from that depression?
A: Because she couldnt accept the untimely
death of her parents. She blamed herself for
their death.
Q: When did her parents die?
A: Around May of 2006.
Q: After the death of the complainants
parents, what happened to the complainant?
A: She became insomniac. There were nights
that she couldnt sleep. She also drank liquor
more often. She began to lose weight. There
were also mood swings, particularly in the
afternoon. There were times that she would
just cry. Sometimes she just keeps quiet and
not talk to me.
Q: Did the complainant remain that way?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: For how long did she remain that way?
A: I think around two months, before she
attempted to end her life.
Q: When did she attempt to commit suicide?
A: Around July or August 2006, Your Honor.
Q: After she committed suicide, what
happened?
A: She sought the help of a psychiatrist.
Q: Did you advise her to seek medical help?
A: No, Your Honor, because I was afraid
shed say I think shes crazy.
Q: Did you do anything to help her?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: What did you do to help her in her
condition?
A: I was always talking to her, asking her
how she feels, I kept telling her not to be
depressed anymore. I also told her to stop
drinking.
Q: After she sought the help of a psychiatrist,
what happened?
A: Catherine recovered from the depression.
She was sleeping well and was no longer
drinking often.
Q: No more signs of the depression were
present?
A: Hmm, sometimes she suddenly kept quiet.
There were times I caught her crying silently.
ATTY. TAPIRE : No further questions, Your
Honor.
COURT: Cross?
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: Yes, Your Honor.
Cross Examination of Iris Victoria Merin by
Prosecutor Anthony Prestoza
Q: In the direct examination, you told this
Honorable Court that you work as a food
toxicologist, how long have you been
practicing this profession?
A: 7 years.
Q: What is your specialization?
A: I specialize in chemical analysis of food
composition and toxicity of food contents.
Q: So, you have knowledge of different kinds
of chemicals and food substances?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you familiar with rodenticide?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Is it poisonous?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Do you think it can kill a person?
A: Depending on the amount, Your Honor.
Q: Do you use rodenticide?
A: Yes, we use them for killing house rats.
Q: Do you have a rodenticide at home?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Do you recognize this box of rat killer,
previously marked as Exhibit F?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Was this the package that contained the
rat killer?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Were you the one who bought this?
A: No. It was Catherine who bought it
because she intends to clean the apartment
and to eliminate the rats at home.
Q: Miss Witness, were you aware of the
provision in the lease contract which said
that it is the responsibility of the lessor to
conduct quarterly pest control measures?
A: Yes, Your Honor. In fact, I was surprised
why Catherine bought rodenticide, well in
fact our lease agreement provides that we
should report any complaints we have to the
lessor.
Q: How long have you been staying with the
complainant in the same apartment?
A: About 8 years now, Your Honor.
Q: Do you have any other companion in the
apartment where you and Catherine stay?
A: None
Q: Does this mean that either only you or
Catherine prepares the food and drinks that
may be found in the apartment.
A: Yes. Except those which are ready to eat
or drink. And sometimes if a close female
relative from the province decides to stay for
a while in the city, we allow her to stay in the
apartment.
Q: The night before Catherine was poisoned,
were there any other person staying with
you in the apartment?
A: None sir.
Q: So during that time, all the drinks and
food inside the apartment were either
prepared by you or Catherine?
A: Most probably, Your Honor.
Q: Are you aware of the findings of the
doctor who attended Catherine that she was
poisoned around 6 hours earlier before she
was brought to the Hospital?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Where were you during that time?
A: I was in the office. I have work.
Q: On the day of the incident, what time did
you wake up?
A: The usual. 5:30 AM.
Q: Did you wake up earlier than Catherine?
A: Yes, Your Honor
Q: During that time, did you notice any
grapefruit juice in the ref?
A: Yes. We always have some stock of juice.
Q: You testified that you and the complainant
were childhood friends. Were you not
concerned during the time that she suffered
from depression?
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: Objection, Your
Honor, counsel is speculating.
(Pag overruled, ANSWER: I was concerned
about her, but knowing her, she would not
tell me how she feels because she liked
keeping things to herself)
(Pag sustained, reform the question to:
WHAT DID YOU DO TO HELP THE
COMPLAINANT DURING THE TIME SHE WAS
SUFFERING FROM DEPRESSION? Answer: I
was always talking to her, asking her how
she feels, if she was okay or not.)
Q: Miss Witness, do you know the fiance of
the complainant?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: How did you come to know him?
A: He is the head security officer of the
company where I and Catherine work.
Q: Does he visit your apartment regularly?
A: Yes, I think so.
Q: Do you entertain him when he visits your
place?
A: Not at all. I usually give the couple some
privacy.
Q: Did you like him?
A: No, Your Honor.

Q: Did you nurture any affection towards
him?
A: No, Your Honor.
Q: Are you not jealous of your best friend?
A: No, Your Honor.
Q: Did you not develop any ill feelings
towards your best friend when you learned
that she and Ritchie is getting married?
A: No, Your Honor. In fact, Im happy for the
both of them.
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA: No further
questions, Your Honor.
COURT: Re-direct?
ATTY. TAPIRE: No, Your Honor.
COURT: Miss Witness, You may step down.
Formal Offer of Evidence of Defense
ATTY. OCAMPO: Your Honor, we are now
resting the case for the defense.
COURT: How do you intend to submit your
formal offer?
ATTY. OCAMPO: We can now formally offer
our evidence Your Honor.
COURT: Proceed.
ATTY. OCAMPO:
Exhibit 1 is the Summary Discharge
Report to prove the complainants admission
for treatment at the Medical Center Manila.
Exhibit 2 is the Psychiatric
Assessment issued by Dr. Leira Taruc to
prove mental and emotional condition of the
complainant at the time she was admitted
for psychiatric treatment.
Exhibit 2-A is the signature by Dr.
Leira Taruc as part of her testimony attesting
to the fact that she was the psychiatrist of
the complainant at Medical Center Manila.
Exhibit 3 consists of printed copies of
the electronic mails sent by the complainant
to witness Kate Nunez to prove the mental
and emotional instability of the complainant
and her suicidal tendencies.
Exhibit 3-A is the printed copy of the
electronic signature of the complainant to
prove the authorship of the electronic mails
sent by her.
COURT: Any comment, Prosecutor Sarsaba?
PROSECUTOR PRESTOZA:
As to Exhibit 1 and 1-A, we can admit its
existence and authenticity, Your Honor.
As to Exhibit 2 and 2-A, we can only admit
the existence but not the authenticity and
truthfulness Your Honor.
Court: Acting on the formal offer of exhibits
of the defense counsel and comments
thereon by the public prosecutor, the Court
resolves to admit all the exhibits offered by
the defense counsel specified in the offer.
COURT: Any rebuttal-evidence, Fiscal?
PROSECUTOR SARSABA: No rebuttal
evidence, Your Honor.
COURT: Considering that the public
prosecutor will not present rebuttal
evidence, the court gives the parties 30 days
from today within which to file their
respective memoranda. The case shall be
deemed submitted for decision after the
lapse of the said period, even without the
said memorandum.
COURT: Order.