Testimony of ‘Crying Lady’ Enlivens Philippines’ ‘Trial of the Century’

The tiny courtroom might seat 150 if the wooden benches were packed, which has seldom happened in recent weeks. As a session approaches, newsmen, bailiffs and attorneys of both sides gossip and joke in the aisles.

This is the Sandiganbayan, the court that is hearing evidence in what has been fairly called “the trial of the century” in the Philippines. And while the courtroom in Manila’s old Executive Office Building might not seem to fit the circumstances, and the public is not gripped by the proceedings, the trial will stand out in the ledger of the authoritarian presidency of Ferdinand E. Marcos.

Twenty-six men stand accused in the 1983 assassination of Benigno S. Aquino Jr., the president’s foremost political opponent, and the killing of Rolando Galman, the shadowy character originally accused of murdering Aquino. Twenty-five are military men, including Gen. Fabian C. Ver, the armed forces chief of staff until he took leave to face charges of accessory to murder.

Galvanized Opposition

The prosecution says Aquino was killed in a military conspiracy, and that Galman was set up to take the blame. Both men died Aug. 21, 1983, in a hail of gunfire at Manila International Airport as Aquino returned to the Philippines after three years of exile in the United States.

The assassination galvanized opposition to Marcos’ two decades of rule. Hundreds of thousands of Filipinos, including the previously quiescent business class, took to the streets to protest the killing and to mourn for Aquino.

The demonstrations became more political as the months wore on and reached a crescendo last October, when a citizens’ fact-finding board reluctantly appointed by Marcos and headed by retired appellate Justice Corazon J. Agrava released its finding that Aquino and Galman died at the hands of the military.

The finding was a severe blow to Marcos’ presidency. “We had hoped to get to first base; we got to third,” Agapito (Butz) Aquino, younger brother of the slain opposition leader, said over dinner recently. “The people felt justice had been done with the finding of a military conspiracy. Demonstrations declined after that.”

“We still have hope that the Sandiganbayan will reach the same conclusion but . . . , “ Aquino said, raising his palms, his voice trailing off.

Skeptical of Court

“There is some (public) skepticism about the Sandiganbayan,” said Andres Narvasa, the general counsel for the Agrava Commission and its chief investigator. The prosecution case before the Sandiganbayan, a court which formerly heard only cases of official corruption, is built almost wholly on the evidence developed by Narvasa and his investigating team.

Trial observers say the government has launched a propaganda campaign of disparagement against the evidence, suggesting it is not sufficient for conviction.

“They are preparing the public to lessen the shock if the soldiers are acquitted,” Narvasa said.

The Agrava Commission findings were based on an intricate reconstruction of the crime scene through the use of photographs and audio tapes. Narvasa interprets the evidence as showing that Galman, a reputed gun-for-hire, could not have killed Aquino, as the military defense lawyers insist, and that the fatal shot had to have been fired by a soldier behind Aquino as he descended a flight of service stairs from the aircraft door to the airport tarmac. Aquino was shot before he reached the tarmac, Narvasa says, and the soldiers then shot Galman and said he was the assassin. The military says Galman was a Communist agent who was killed after he fired the shot that killed Aquino.

Eyewitness Emerged

Ver and seven other defendants charged as accessories are accused of sticking to the Galman-as-assassin story when evidence allegedly shows they knew otherwise. The lone civilian among the defendants is accused of participation in the conspiracy to involve Galman in the killing, although it is unclear exactly how the alleged setup worked.

The trial took a sharp turn earlier this month when what had been a circumstantial case was bolstered by the testimony of a reputed eyewitness to the shooting.

Rebecca Quijano, the witness, told the court that she saw Aquino descending the stairs. Looking out a window of the airplane, she said, “I saw a Metrocom (Manila military policeman) pointing a gun at the back of the head of Aquino. And at the same time a shot was fired.”

Quijano has been called “the crying lady” by the Manila press because of her tearful reaction at the assassination scene. As she left the airplane, she was asked by a newsman why she was sobbing. “They have killed Aquino,” she said. “Why are you not crying yet?”

After the assassination, Quijano dropped from sight. She did not testify before the Agrava Commission, and the trial started Feb. 21 without her name on the witness list. She said she was afraid to come forward and had remained in hiding, making at least one trip to visit relatives in California.

Re-enacted Shooting

She finally surfaced when she was arrested here on minor fraud charges in December. Later she agreed to testify for the prosecution, a dramatic appearance in which, at the direction of the court, she re-enacted the shooting, pointing her finger at the back of the head of a court official.

“She’s credible, a good witness,” said Narvasa, the Agrava Commission counsel. “Her story has been entirely consistent.”

She was so well prepared, Narvasa suggested, that defense lawyers declined to cross-examine her, throwing the court into a legal wrangle last week over its decision to allow her recall to the stand once the original opportunity for cross-examination had been passed.

The prosecution is appealing the decision, saying she has returned to hiding, fearing for her safety. Defense lawyer Rodolfo Jimenez called her refusal to reappear “intriguing.”

The fraud charges and an accusation of car theft were filed against Quijano in 1981, and most have been dropped since her arrest, according to attorneys for the 32-year-old businesswoman.

To Attack Credibility

Defense lawyers are expected to attack her credibility if she is recalled. They told the court they have “certain documents” that indicate irregularities in her travel papers on trips abroad. The defense team is also expected to question her direct testimony.

Attorney Antonio Colonel, who represents Ver, said, “She self-destructed (on the stand). Her allegation contradicted the physical evidence.” Interpretations of the evidence will be the key to the trial.

The argument over whether Quijano should be recalled brought some momentary excitement to the little courtroom. One of Quijano’s lawyers, Clarence Guerrero, entered the room in good spirits as he prepared to support the appeal, prompting a news cameraman to remark, “Ah, the smiling counsel of the crying lady.”

“All stand,” a court official called, and the three-judge panel entered, taking their seats in front of the red-velvet paneling of the bench.

The presiding justice is Manuel Pamaran, a well-groomed, high-voiced man who once had a reputation as a “hanging judge.” He can be animated in the give-and-take of the courtroom, his eyebrows dancing like the late Sen. Sam J. Ervin’s.

Slammed His Gavel

He also displays a temper. When Quijano’s lawyers asked for a five-minute consultation to discuss the petition against recall, Pamaran assented, adding a light remark.

Guerrero, Quijano’s lawyer, broke into laughter.

Nearly splintering his gavel on the bench, Pamaran declared: “You will stop laughing, attorney Guerrero. You are in court!”

Guerrero, seated, apologized, and the justice barked: “And you will stand when addressing the court.”

One of the points of opposition skepticism about the trial is the government-appointed court itself. Some say that the pace of the proceedings is too fast. It has been called the “Pamaran Express.”

Others consider the pace too slow. If it’s the latter, it’s all right with Agapito Aquino. “The longer it goes on, the lower Ver sinks (with another man running the armed forces). So let it go on.”

Impartiality Questioned

The political opposition raises other points that it says cast doubt on the impartiality of the trial:

--A major complaint has been Marcos’ seeming support for the defendants, at least for Ver. The president hailed the armed forces chief, his cousin and confidant, when he took leave to face the charges. Marcos talked then of the “alleged evidence.” In February, he stunned the opposition by saying Ver would be restored to his post if acquitted. “At least he had the graciousness to say ‘if,’ ” said Narvasa.

--Under Philippine law, none of the defendants are required to appear in court, and seldom do.

--The military defendants, some directly accused of murder, have been confined to barracks rather than housed in jail. One was recently married in custody.

--A few, including Ver, are free on bail. Ver has made a number of appearances in Manila on the government circuit.

--Several witnesses who appeared before the Agrava Commission have disappeared (and two military witnesses have died, one in an auto accident and the other, a man in his 30s, of a heart attack). However, two of the missing witnesses have recently resurfaced. One has testified and the other is scheduled to take the stand.

Legal observers expect the trial to end no sooner than August. It’s uncertain what the defense will be, but the observers believe the prosecution case is strong enough, particularly with Quijano’s testimony, that one will be presented.

But public interest clearly has waned and is likely to be further distracted in the months ahead as the opposition continues its maneuvers for the 1986 local elections and the 1987 presidential vote, and earlier elections could be called. The trial is an issue in the political ferment here, but not the only one.