Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
138874-75
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:
appellants (1) Francisco Juan Larraaga, (2) Josman Aznar, (3) Rowen Adlawan,
Alberto Cao and Ariel Balansag, and (4) James Anthony Uy and James Andrew
Uy, assailing our Decision dated February 3, 2004 convicting them of the crimes
of (a) special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
and (b) simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention, the dispositive portion
of which reads:
(4) Appellants are ordered to pay jointly and severally the heirs of
Marijoy and Jacqueline, in each case, the amounts of (a) P100,000.00 as
civil indemnity, (b) P25,000.00 as temperate damages, (c) P150,000.00
as moral damages, and (d) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Three (3) Justices of the Court maintain their position that RA 7659
is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless,
they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and
the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.
SO ORDERED.
A. LARRAAGA
II
III
IV
B. AZNAR
II
III
IV
I
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.
II
III
IV
to this Court the Affidavit dated February 27, 2004 of Atty. Florencio Villarin,
show that: (1) the police investigation of this case was flawed; (2) he (Aznar) was
arrested in 1997 not because of his involvement in this case but because he had in
his possession a pack of shabu and firearms; and (3) David Rusia is not a credible
witness.
comment[6] praying that the four (4) motions for reconsideration be denied with
Decision.
the time of his arrest, there was no evidence against him. On March 4, 2005, the
Solicitor General filed a rejoinder stating that Aznars reply actually supports the
reasonable doubt, thus, it would be useless to call for new trial on the basis of
such Affidavit. On March 29, 2005, Aznar filed a sur-rejoinder insisting that the
Except for the motion filed by appellants Uy brothers with respect to James
reconsideration does not impose on us the obligation to discuss and rule again
on the grounds relied upon by the movant which are mere reiteration of the
involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or
Larraaga, Aznar, Adlawan, Cao and Balansag, it being apparent that the points
raised therein are not neoteric matters demanding new judicial determination.
They are mere rehash of the arguments set forth in their respective briefs which
sought to be reconsidered.
However, in view of the severity of the penalties for the crimes charged,
motions:
third, in holding that the trial court did not violate their right to due
fourth, in holding that the body found in Tan-awan, Carcar was not that of
Marijoy.
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
testimony hook, line and sinker, owing to his tainted record and
reputation. However, it must be stressed that Rusias testimony was not viewed
in isolation. In giving credence to Rusias testimony, the trial court took into
witnesses. Thus, we find no reason why we should not uphold the trial courts
findings.
evidence. Physical evidence is one of the highest degrees of proof. It speaks more
eloquently than all witnesses put together.[10] The presence of Marijoys ravished
body in a deep ravine at Tan-awan, Carcar with tape on her mouth and
Tan-awan. Indeed, the details he supplied to the trial court are of such nature
and quality that only a witness who actually saw the commission of the crimes
witnesses who saw incidents of what he narrated. Rolando Dacillo and Mario
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
dawn of July 17, 1997. All these bits and pieces of story form part of Rusias
narration. Now, with such strong anchorage on the physical evidence and the
Rusias testimony? Even assuming that his testimony standing alone might
II
Appellants likewise claimed that we should have not sustained the trial
courts rejection of their alibi. Settled is the rule that the defense of alibi is
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
appellants alibi supported by witnesses who were either their relatives, friends or
classmates, while on the other end is the positive identification of the herein
appellants by the prosecution witnesses who were not, in any way, related to the
victims. With the above jurisprudence as guide, we are certain that the balance
At this juncture, it bears mentioning that this case is not the first time
female students in Cebu. Months before the abduction of Marijoy and Jackie, the
happened just near the gate of Rochelles school, thus, showing his
ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
Your Honor please, this is a . Inspector Era handed to this representation
a copy of a Letter dated September 25, 1996, addressed to the Student
Affairs Office, University of San Carlos,P. del Rosario Street, Cebu
City, and this is signed by Leo Abayan and Alexander Virtucio and
noted by Mrs. Aurora Pacho, Principal, University of San Carlos, Girls
High School, and for the record, I will read the content:
xxxxxx
The presence of such complaint in the record of this case certainly does not
III
Larraaga and Aznar bewail our refusal to overturn the trial courts
exclusion of Professor Jerome Bailen and Atty. Florencio Villarin, NBI, Regional
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. Anent Atty. Villarins failure to testify before the trial court, suffice it
to say that his belated Affidavit, which Aznar submitted via his supplemental
motion for reconsideration dated May 5, 2004, raises nothing to change our
findings and conclusions. What clearly appears in said Affidavit is a man trying
to impress people that he was the one responsible for solving the Chiong case
and for that, he deserves a promotion. The trial court, at the onset, must have
seen such immateriality in his intended testimony. Indeed, we agree with the
Neither can we entertain at this late stage Dr. Fortuns separate study to show
IV
Knowing that the prosecutions theory highly rests on the truth of Rusia
testimony, appellants endeavor to destroy it by claiming that the body found at
the foot of a deep ravine in Tan-awan, Carcar was not that of Marijoy. We must
reiterate the reasons why we cannot give our assent to such argument. 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. They erected commemorative markers
at the ravine, cemetery and every place which mattered to Marijoy. As a matter
of fact, at this very moment, appellants still fail to bring to the attention of this
Court any person laying a claim on the said body. Surely, if the body was not
that of Marijoy, other families who had lost someone of similar age and gender
as Marijoy would have surfaced and claimed the body. The above circumstances
only bolster Rusias narration that Rowen and Ariel pushed Marijoy into the deep
ravine, following Josmans instruction "to get rid" of her.
On the issue raised by appellants Uy brothers that James Andrew was only
seventeen (17) years and two hundred sixty two (262) days old at the time the
crimes were committed, the records bear that on March 1, 1999, James Andrews
birth certificate was submitted to the trial court as part of the Formal Offer of
Additional Evidence,[23]with the statement that he was eighteen (18) years old.
the Formal Offer of Additional Evidence by alleging that James Andrew was
Now, James Andrew begs leave and prays that this Court admits at this
stage of the proceedings his (1) Certificate of Live Birth issued by the National
Statistics Office, and (2) Baptismal Certificate. He prays that his penalty be
The entry of James Andrews birth in the Birth Certificate is not legible, thus it is
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
our Decision.
task of evaluating every piece and specie of evidence presented before the trial
court in response to appellants plea for the reversal of their conviction. But, even
fatuus which has eluded any intelligent ratiocination of their submissions. Verily,
our conscience can rest easy on our affirmance of the verdict of the trial court, in
Francisco Juan Larraaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Cao and Ariel
from the Local Civil Registrar of Cotobato City, as well as the National Statistics
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
SO ORDERED.