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 Larraaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan,
Alberto Cao, 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 Larraaga, 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 TANAWAN, CARCAR, CEBU LAST JULY 18, 1997 WAS NEVER CONCLUSIVELY
ESTABLISHED THUS THE NEED FOR ITS EXHUMATION FOR DNA
TESTING;[4]
RULING
RUSIAS 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. Fortuns 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.
RUSIAS 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.