Tag: witness
Survivor & witness Abrazado’s account of the plane crash (For the family & friends of Sec. Jesse Robredo)
“ “(T)he display panel suddenly blinked and displayed: ‘Check engine.’ “ “
This is the account of the plane crash survivor and witness, deceased DILG Sec. Jesse Robredo’s aide, Senior Insp. June Paolo Abrazado, as storified by Jonas Cabiles Soltes in Masbate for the Philippine Daily Inquirer and Asia News Network.
Blog admin excerpted the storification, re-arranged the paragraphs for a chronological presentation, took the factual reports in the storification and removed interpretive conclusions from the writer, as follows (green font texts are direct quotes from Abrazado):
“Abrazado said when the group took off from Cebu, Robredo was rushing to go home because the Naga Airport would not allow a plane to land if they left Cebu at 2pm. They would be diverted to Legazpi City.
“ “Secretary Robredo was able to talk to the one in charge of the Naga Airport tower, and he got a go signal. But we still took off at 3pm,” he said.
“Abrazado said he noticed that the plane looked old but he said the pilot told them that it was in good condition.
“ “I noticed that the copilot looked like a trainee and that he was a foreigner,” he said.
“ “After we took off from Cebu and while we were in the air, xxx the display panel suddenly blinked and displayed: ‘Check engine,’ ‘” he said.
“ “The pilot told us that there was a problem and they could not proceed to Naga. Then Secretary Robredo told the pilot to just return to Cebu.”
“ “I felt the plane turn and I started coordinating with our staff in Cebu and asked them to book a Cebu-Manila ticket,” he said. “Secretary Robredo was relieved that we were returning to Cebu but we noticed that the flight was taking longer than expected.”
“Then, Abrazado said, the right engine suddenly shut down and he and Robredo got worried. “
“Still, the plane was running well, he said, although the pilots were trying to restart the engine that malfunctioned. The copilot even had a very relaxed demeanor when he turned to them at the back, he said.
xxx
“ “While we were still up in the air, the display panel that also displayed a directional map kept on flashing: ‘aviation expires 18 or November 28 2010.’ I can see from the panel a distance notification that said 20 to 26 miles. I don’t know what the expiration message meant. I wanted to inform the secretary about it but I did not want him to worry. I just made the secretary laugh by saying that there were many cases when a plane was flying with only one engine functioning,” he said.
xxx
“ “We asked the pilot if we were nearing Cebu and we were informed that we would be making an emergency landing in Masbate Airport instead,” Abrazado said.
xxx
“ “I wondered why the pilot chose to land in Masbate when he said we were returning to Cebu. In fact, I was able to reserve a plane ticket from Cebu to Manila.”
xxx
“He said he tried to coordinate with the Legazpi Airport staff to provide a chopper as Robredo had an urgent engagement in Naga.
“ “While I was doing that, the plane was flying very close to the surface of the sea and I thought the plane was just making a final approach to the runway. I said to myself, we can survive this. I said even when the plane makes a water landing, I can manage to bail out and save my boss,” he said.
xxx
“He said that the pilot was looking for the runway to make an emergency landing while the plane, which already lost its right engine, was flying very low over the city.
“ “There’s the runway! There’s the runway!” Abrazado quoted Bahinting exclaiming as they approached the airport.
xxx
“ “We were relieved when we saw the runway. Then when we were about to relax, we began to be aware of the problem,” he said.
xxx
“But the aircraft missed the runway, glided to the left and headed toward the residential area of Barangay (village) Ibingay, he said.
xxx
“The aide said the plane began to swoop nose down when the pilot glided it to the right. “It was then that the pilot lost control of the plane.”
xxx
“ “(I)t wobbled, “nosed up and nosed down,” and finally plunged into the sea, he said.
“ “The sound of the crash was indescribable. I can’t explain it. But it was like the explosion of a bomb,” he said. “My initial reaction was to hug Secretary Robredo,” he said.
“Abrazado said he lost consciousness after that.
xxx
“He was knocked out when the plane crashed into the water and Robredo disappeared from his sight when he regained his senses.
xxx
“ “When I regained consciousness, seawater was already rushing into the plane and the right side of the plane appeared to have disintegrated,” he said.
“ “But the door of the plane remained locked by a latch. There was a piece of wood that apparently pierced the glass pane of the plane. And the water kept rushing in,” he said.
“Abrazado said he looked around but could not see Robredo.
“ “We were seated beside each other. I did not know if it was me or he who got displaced. I just reached for my seatbelt because seawater was flooding the inside of the plane. I saw light coming in and I tried to surface. I did not know which part of the plane the light was coming from. I was rattled. I was losing my mind. I tried many times to unfasten my seatbelt but it seemed I could not even move my hands. When I unbuckled it, I squeezed myself out from the plane. I had drank seawater mixed with gasoline and I became dizzy.”
“As he floated away, he saw the plane bobbing up, with its tail the only visible part above the water. The tail, he said, was perpendicular to the surface.
“ “Then I could not move my hands again. I was still wearing my shoes and pants. I said to myself that I would die because I could not even move my arms. I assumed that my arms were broken,” he said.
“Then he saw his bag floating. “I summoned all the physical strength I could to reach for the bag. My face was aching. My body was failing me. I grabbed the bag and it kept me afloat long enough until a fisherman came to rescue me.”
“Abrazado said for about 15 minutes he was shouting and calling for help while the bag he was holding on for dear life was also slowly sinking.
“ “When I was rescued by a fisherman, I looked back at the plane. I saw no one from the plane was following me. I could only see what looked like debris,” he said.
“He said he told the fisherman to rush him to the Masbate police office. But the fisherman told him that a rescue team was waiting.
“Abrazado’s nose was bleeding by then.”
Amiel Roldan, “Ang Huling Hari”, Print, 44 x 44 cms., 2000. Kulay-Diwa Gallery of Philippine Contemporary Art. Rightclicked and downloaded with express permission (thanks much!) from the webmaster at www.kulay-diwa.com
I saw only bits and parts of Senate hearing, more like small bits here and there; and saw parts of the testimony of the new arrival, the “witness” Dante Madriaga. I didn’t have any background information on him and this is just based on what i saw at the hearing.
Every lawyer likes his/her witness to be well-mannered. You’d like your witness to say “you honor” when he/she is addressing the judge, no matter what you think of the judge; or if in the vernacular, to use “oho” or “opo” or “ho” or “po”; you don’t like your witness to talk to the judge like he was talking to his drinking buddies during a streetcorner (kanto) drinking session. That’s why the purpose of a witness-prep is not so much to tell your witness what to say (we don’t; we don’t tell them what the substance of their testimony should be) but just to make the witness comfortable and make him/her learn how to comport himself/herself on the witness stand. You’d also like your witness to be lucid in their narration and you’d like their testimony to more or less have a certain flow. You’d also like your witness to know how to write down his/her thoughts or to be coherent during your interviews so it would be easier to help him construct his/her affidavit. Laypeople might think all that is form; it’s not; the demeanor of a witness becomes part of the substance because it is considered by the judge in weighing whether the witness should be believed.
This witness came forward on national TV with no antecedent events behind him. People don’t know him from Adam; and literally the participants in the ZTE contract negotiations don’t know him; have never seen him before. Since he is coming out of the woodwork, whoever presented this witness or whoever allowed him to testify, should have made some effort to make him lay out his background with the use of documentary evidence like his appointment papers, his payslips, his drafts of contracts, his memos, his previous employment papers, etc. That more or less establishes where he came from. I do not know if it’s a good idea for the Senate committees to just let anybody pop out there and give him a big portion of the time and humour him with “searching” questions when it hasn’t been established yet where he came from; unless we are letting him take up space because there’s nothing else to do with the time.
It is not a good sign that he is not known to all the other “participants” like Chairman Romy Neri, Chairman Ben Abalos, Joey de Venecia, Jun Lozada, and the other government officials (Lito Atienza, Avelino Razon, Manny Gaite); wittingly or unwittingly all these participants are corroborating each other in parts of their testimony; they’re testifying on the same events, but just conveying different meanings for the acts testified on.
In the testimony of the new arrival, the most useful information that could be gotten from him are the names: Leo San Miguel, Ruben Reyes, et al; and the information is useful if those persons could be brought to the Senate. (I don’t have any comment for the rest of the testimony.)
Also, if your witness is being presented as an ordinary witness and not an expert witness, you don’t like him/her to “overreach”. If he/she is being presented as an ordinary witness, you just want him/ her to testify on what he/she saw or what was said in his/her presence (only as to the fact that it was said and not necessarily the truth of what was said). An expert witness on the other hand can, based on his/her studies, give an opinion or analysis on situations similar to the case or on the case itself. You don’t like your ordinary witness to “overreach” or to say, “Sa palagay ko sa First Couple nga napunta ang kalahati nyan” (“In my supposition, half of that went to the First Couple”) or “Sa tingin ko, alam ko, noon pa nya alam yan” (“In my view, i know, she’d known that a long time”). It gives the impression that the witness is playing to the gallery and giving statements that he/she thinks would please the judge and those listening to his/her testimony. Not good. Even during witness-prep or the interviews, statements like that are annoying so the lawyer usually asks the witness to backtrack and state what he/she saw, or to describe what he/she saw.
Unless the persons he named could be presented, that’s about it.
