PEOPLE VS LARRAAGA

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

Principle:

In deciding a criminal case, the policy of the courts is always to look at the case in its entirety. The totality of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense are weighed, thus, averting general conclusions from isolated pieces of evidence.

On the night of July 16, 1997, victims Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong failed to come home on the expected time. Two days after, a young woman was found dead at the foot of a cliff. Her pants were torn, her t-shirt was raised up to her breast and her bra was pulled down. Her face and neck were covered with masking tape and attached to her left wrist was a handcuff. The woman was identified as Marijoy. After almost ten months, accused Davidson Rusia surfaced and admitted before the police having participated in the abduction of the sisters. He identified appellants Francisco Juan Larrañaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Caño, Ariel Balansag, James Anthony Uy, and James Andrew Uy as co-perpetrators in the crime. Rusia provided the following before the trial court:

1) That at 10:30 in the evening of July 16, 1997, he met Rowen and Josman and told him to ride with them in a white car. Following them were Larrañaga, James Anthony and James Andrew who were in a red car. Josman stopped the white car in front of the waiting shed where the sisters Marijoy and Jacqueline were standing and forced them to ride the car. Rusia taped their mouths while Rowen handcuffed them jointly.

2) That after stopping by a safehouse, the group thereafter headed to the South Bus Terminal where they met Alberto and Ariel, and hired the white van driven by the former. They traveled towards south of Cebu City, leaving the red car at the South Bus Terminal.

3) That after parking their vehicles near a precipice, they drank and had a pot session. Later, they started to rape Marijoy inside the vehicle, and thereafter raped Jaqueline.

4) That Josman intructed Rowen and Ariel to bring Marijoy to the cliff and push her into the ravine.The claims of Rusia were supported by other witnesses. He was discharged as an accused and became a state witness. Still, the body of Jacqueline was never found. The trial court found the other appellants guilty of two crimes of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalties of two (2) reclusiones perpetua.

CONTENTIONS OF THE ACCUSED

A. LARRAAGA

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN BARRING LARRAAGA AND THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (NBI) REGIONAL DIRECTOR FLORENCIO VILLARIN FROM TESTIFYING; (Dr. Racquel Del Rosario-Fortun, Forensic Pathologist showS that the examination conducted by the prosecution expert witnesses on the body found in Tan-awan, Carcar is inadequate)

THE POLICE PLANTED EVIDENCE ON APPELLANTS;

LARRAAGA SUFFICIENTLY PROVED HIS ALIBI;

THE TRIAL COURT PREVENTED THE INTRODUCTION OF KEY DEFENSE EVIDENCE; HE CORPSE FOUND IN THE RAVINE WAS NOT THAT OF MARIJOY; AND PROSECUTION WITNESS RUSIA WAS A COACHED WITNESS.[1]

AZNAR

1. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

2. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN (A) DISCHARGING DAVID RUSSIA AS STATE WITNESS; AND (B) CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS MAINLY ON THE BASIS OF THE TESTIMONY OF RUSIA.

3. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN REJECTING THE DEFENSE OF APPELLANT AZNAR.4. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY ON THE

APPELLANTS.[2]

ADLAWAN, BALANSAG, CAO

1. PROSECUTION WITNESS RUSIA IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE A STATE WITNESS UNDER

PARAGRAPHS (D) AND (E), SECTION 17 OF THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

2. RUSIAS TESTIMONY AND THAT OF THE OTHER PROSECUTION WITNESSES WERE INCREDIBLE, INCONSISTENT, AND UNWORTHY OF BELIEF.

3. BIAS AND PREJUDICE AGAINST THE DEFENSE WERE GLARINGLY DISPLAYED BY THE COURT A QUO WHICH GREATLY AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE.

4. THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[3]

JAMES ANDREW AND JAMES ANTHONY UY

1. ACCUSED JAMES ANDREW S. UY WAS, LIKE HIS YOUNGER BROTHER JAMES ANTHONY S. UY, A MINOR AT THE TIME THE OFFENSES AT BAR ALLEGEDLY HAPPENED LAST JULY 16, 1997;

2. THE IDENTITY OF THE DEAD BODY OF THE WOMAN FOUND IN TAN-AWAN, CARCAR, CEBU LAST JULY 18, 1997 WAS NEVER CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THUS THE NEED FOR ITS EXHUMATION FOR DNA TESTING;[4]

RULING

RUSIA’S TESTIMONY:

In deciding a criminal case, the policy of the courts is always to look at the case in its entirety. The totality of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense are weighed, thus, averting general conclusions from isolated pieces of evidence. This means that an appeal of a criminal case opens its entire records for review.

However, it must be stressed that Rusias testimony was not viewed in isolation. In giving credence to Rusias testimony, the trial court took into consideration the physical evidence and the corroborative testimonies of other

witnesses. Reinforcing his testimony is its corroboration by several other witnesses who saw incidents of what he narrate:

. Rolando Dacillo and Mario Minoza witnessed Jacquelines two failed attempts to escape from appellants near Ayala Center.

Benjamin Molina and Miguel Vergara recognized Rowen as the person who inquired from them where he could find a vehicle for hire on the evening of July 16, 1997.

Alfredo Duarte saw Rowen when he bought barbeque and Tanduay at Nenes Store while the white van, driven by Cao, was waiting on the side of the road and he heard voices of quarreling male and female emanating from the van.

And lastly, Manuel Camingao and Rosendo Rio testified on the presence of Larraaga and Josman at Tan-awan, Carcar at dawn of July 17, 1997. All these bits and pieces of story form part of Rusias narration

Even assuming that his testimony standing alone might indeed be unworthy of belief in view of his character, it is not so when considered with the other evidence presented by the prosecution.

ALIBI:

Settled is the rule that the defense of alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. [11] Being evidence that is negative in nature and self-serving, it cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence.[12] On top of its inherent weakness, alibi becomes less plausible as a defense when it is corroborated only by relatives or close friends of the accused.[13] Testimony of witnesses:

Shiela Singson testified that on July 16, 1997, at around 7:20 in the evening, she saw Larraaga approach Marijoy and Jacqueline at the West Entry of Ayala Center. The incident reminded her of Jacquelines prior story that he was Marijoys admirer. Shiela confirmed that she knows Larraaga since she had seen him on five (5) occasions. Analie Konahap also testified that on the same evening of July 16, 1997, at about 8:00 oclock, she saw Marijoy and Jacqueline talking to two (2) men at the West Entry of Ayala Center . She recognized the two (2) men as Larraaga and Josman, having seen them several times at Glicos, a game zone, located across her office at the third level of Ayala Center. Williard Redobles, the security guard then assigned at Ayala Center, corroborated the foregoing testimonies of Shiela and Analie. In addition, Rosendo Rio, a businessman from Cogon, Carcar, declared that he saw Larraaga at Tan-awan at about 3:30 in the morning of July 17, 1997.

Taking the individual testimonies of the above witnesses in relation with that of Rusia, we are convinced that Larraaga was indeed in Cebu City at the time of the commission of the crimes and was one of the principal perpetrators thereof.

Exclusion of Professor Jerome Bailen and Atty. Florencio Villarin, NBI, Regional Director

First, he is not a finger-print expert but an archaeologist. And second, his report consists merely of the results of his visual inspection of the exhibits already several months old.

ON CONTENTION THAT THE BODY FOUND WAS NOT OF MARIJOY

First, Inspector Edgardo Lenizo,[18] a fingerprint expert, testified that the fingerprints of the corpse match those of Marijoy.[19] Second, the packaging tape and the handcuff found on the dead body were the same items placed on Marijoy and Jacqueline while they were being detained. [20] Third, the body had the same clothes worn by Marijoy

on the day she was abducted.[21] And fourth, the members of the Chiong family personally identified the corpse to be that of Marijoy[22] which they eventually buried.

MINORITY

The entry of James Andrews birth in the Birth Certificate is not legible, thus it is extremely difficult for us to determine the veracity of his claim. However, considering that minority is a significant factor in the imposition of penalty, we find it proper to require the Solicitor General (a) to secure from the Local Civil Registrar of Cotobato City, as well as the National Statistics Office, a clear and legible copy of James Andrews Birth Certificate, and thereafter, (b) to file an extensive comment on the motion for reconsideration filed by James Andrew and James Anthony Uy, solely on James Andrews claim of minority.

WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration filed by appellants Francisco Juan Larraaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Cao and Ariel Balansag are hereby DENIED. The Solicitor General is DIRECTED (a) to secure from the Local Civil Registrar of Cotobato City, as well as the National Statistics Office, a clear and legible copy of James Andrews Birth Certificate, and (b) within ten (10) days therefrom, to file an extensive comment on the motion for reconsideration filed by James Andrew and James Anthony Uy, solely on James Andrews claim of minority. The motion is likewise DENIED insofar as James Anthony Uy is concerned.

BAR Q:

LARANAGA, AZNAR, ADLAWAN, BALANSAG, and CAO were accused and convicted by the lower court of the crime of (a) special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape; and (b) simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

During the hearing, David Russia, one of the accused, surfaced and admitted before the police having participated in the abduction of the sisters and identified herein petitioners as perpetrators of the crime.

It is now the contentions of the accused that:

NBI Regional Director Dr. Fortun’s testimony that prosecution expert witness on the identification of the found dead body is inadequate.

Defense of Alibi Minority

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTENTIONE BE GIVEN CREDIT.

RULING:NO.RUSIA’S TESTIMONY:

Rusias testimony was not viewed in isolation. Reinforcing his testimony is its corroboration by several other witnesses who saw incidents of what he narrate.

ALIBI:

Settled is the rule that the defense of alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters. [11] Being evidence that is negative in nature and self-serving, it cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence.[12] On top of its inherent weakness, alibi becomes less plausible as a defense when it is corroborated only by relatives or close friends of the accused

Exclusion of Professor Jerome Bailen and Atty. Florencio Villarin, NBI, Regional Director

First, he is not a finger-print expert but an archaeologist. And second, his report consists merely of the results of his visual inspection of the exhibits already several months old.

ON CONTENTION THAT THE BODY FOUND WAS NOT OF MARIJOY

First, Inspector Edgardo Lenizo,[18] a fingerprint expert, testified that the fingerprints of the corpse match those of Marijoy.[19] Second, the packaging tape and the handcuff found on the dead body were the same items placed on Marijoy and Jacqueline while they were being detained. [20] Third, the body had the same clothes worn by Marijoy on the day she was abducted.[21] And fourth, the members of the Chiong family personally identified the corpse to be that of Marijoy[22] which they eventually buried.

MINORITY

we find it proper to require the Solicitor General (a) to secure from the Local Civil Registrar of Cotobato City, as well as the National Statistics Office, a clear and legible copy of James Andrews Birth Certificate, and thereafter, (b) to file an extensive comment on the motion for reconsideration filed by James Andrew and James Anthony Uy, solely on James Andrews claim of minority.