Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

People vs.

Francisco Juan Larranaga (2005)

Summary Cases:

● People vs. Francisco Juan Larranaga, et al.

Subject: Appeal of criminal case opens the entire records for review; Rusia's testimony is upheld as it is
corroborated by the physical evidence and testimony from other witnesses; Alibi not proven; Defense
witnesses were properly excluded; Body found in the ravine was that of Marijoy; James Andrews' claim
of minority;

Facts:

The present case involves four motions for reconsideration separately filed by appellants Francisco Juan
Larrañaga et al., assailing the 2004 Decision convicting them of the crimes of (a) special complex crime
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and (b) simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
Appellants were sentenced with 'death by legal injection' for the first crime and 'reclusion perpetua' for
the second crime.

The appellants claim that the Court erred (1) in according credence to Rusia's testimony, (2) in rejecting
appellants' alibi; (3) in holding that the trial court did not violate their right to due process when it
excluded the testimony of other defense witnesses; and (4) in holding that the body found in Tan-awan,
Carcar was not that of Marijoy.

Held:

Appeal of criminal case opens the entire records for review

1. 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.

Rusia's testimony is upheld as it is corroborated by the physical evidence and testimony from
other witnesses

2. Appellants contend that we should not have sustained Rusia's testimony hook, line and sinker, owing
to his tainted record and reputation. However, it must be stressed that Rusia's testimony was not viewed
in isolation. In giving credence to Rusia's testimony, the trial court took into consideration the physical
evidence and the corroborative testimonies of other witnesses. Thus, we find no reason why we should
not uphold the trial court's findings.

3. What makes Rusia's testimony worthy of belief is its striking compatibility with the physical evidence.
Physical evidence is one of the highest degrees of proof. It speaks more eloquently than all witnesses
put together. The presence of Marijoy's ravished body in a deep ravine at Tan-awan, Carcar with tape on
her mouth and handcuffs on her wrists certainly bolstered Rusia's testimony on what actually took place
from Ayala Center to 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 could furnish.

4. Reinforcing his testimony is its corroboration by several other witnesses who saw incidents of what he
narrated. Rolando Dacillo and Mario Minoza witnessed Jacqueline's two failed attempts to escape from
appellants near Ayala Center. Manuel Camingao and Rosendo Rio testified on the presence of
| Page 1 of 3
Larrañaga and Josman at Tan-awan, Carcar at dawn of July 17, 1997. All these bits and pieces of story
form part of Rusia's 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 not proven

5. 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. 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. 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.

6. A thorough examination of the evidence for the prosecution shows that the appellants failed to meet
the requirements of alibi, i.e., the requirements of time and place. They failed to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for them to be at the Ayala Center, Cebu City when
the Chiong sisters were abducted. What is clear from the evidence is that Rowen, Josman, Ariel, Alberto,
James Anthony and James Andrew were all within the vicinity of Cebu City on July 16, 1997.

7. Not even Larrañaga who claimed to be in Quezon City satisfied the required proof of physical
impossibility. During the hearing, it was shown that it takes only one (1) hour to travel by plane from
Manila to Cebu and that there are four airline companies plying the route. Indeed, Larrañaga's presence
in Cebu City on July 16, 1997 was proved to be not only a possibility but a reality. Four (4) witnesses
identified Larrañaga as one of the two men talking to Marijoy and Jacqueline on the night of July 16,
1997. Shiela Singson testified that on July 16, 1997, at around 7:20 in the evening, she saw Larrañaga
approach Marijoy and Jacqueline at the West Entry of Ayala Center. The incident reminded her of
Jacqueline's prior story that he was Marijoy's admirer. In addition, Rosendo Rio, a businessman from
Cogon, Carcar, declared that he saw Larrañaga at Tan-awan at about 3:30 in the morning of July 17,
1997. The latter was leaning against the hood of a white van And over and above all, Rusia categorically
identified Larrañaga as one of the participes criminis. We are convinced that Larrañaga was indeed in
Cebu City at the time of the commission of the crimes and was one of the principal perpetrators thereof.

8. It bears mentioning that this case is not the first time that Larrañaga was charged with or complained
of pruriently assaulting young female students in Cebu. Months before the abduction of Marijoy and
Jackie, the parents of a certain Rochelle Virtucio, complained about Larrañaga's attempt to snatch their
young daughter and drag her in a black, stylish Honda Civic. It happened just near the gate of Rochelle's
school, thus, showing his impudence.

Defense witnesses were properly excluded

9. Professor Bailen was properly excluded. 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.

10. Anent Atty. Villarin's failure to testify before the trial court, suffice it to say that his belated Affidavit,
which Aznar submitted via his supplemental motion for reconsideration, raises nothing to change our
findings and conclusions. There is nothing in Atty. Villarin's affidavit of the quality of a "smoking gun" that
would acquit appellants of the crimes they have been convicted. For he did not finish the police
investigation of the subject crimes; this is the long and short of his miniscule role in the instant case.
Indeed, judging by the substance of his affidavit, he would not be testifying in case a new trial is held on
anything that has not been said and rejected heretofore, except his own unsubstantiated opinions (i.e.
| Page 2 of 3
not facts as required by evidentiary rules), his self-congratulatory remarks, and his unmitigated
frustration over failing to get a promotion when almost everyone else did.

11. Neither can we entertain at this late stage Dr. Fortun's separate study to show that the examination
conducted on the body found in Tan-awan, Carcar is inadequate. Such study cannot be classified as
newly-discovered evidence warranting belated reception. Obviously, Larrañaga could have produced it
during trial had he wished to.

Body found in the ravine was that of Marijoy

12. Appellants claim 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
Lenizo, a fingerprint expert, testified that the fingerprints of the corpse match those of Marijoy. 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. Third, the body had the same clothes worn by Marijoy
on the day she was abducted. And fourth, the members of the Chiong family personally identified the
corpse to be that of Marijoy which they eventually buried. 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 Rusia's narration that Rowen and Ariel pushed
Marijoy into the deep ravine, following Josman's instruction "to get rid" of her.

James Andrews' claim of minority

13. The Uy brothers assert 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
Andrew's birth certificate was submitted to the trial court as part of the Formal Offer of Additional
Evidence, with the statement that he was eighteen (18) years old. On March 18, 1999, appellants filed a
Manifestation of Erratum alleging that James Andrew was only seventeen (17) years old.

14. Now, James Andrew 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 reduced, as in the case of his brother James Anthony.

15. The entry of James Andrew's 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 to secure a clear and legible copy
of James Andrew's Birth Certificate, and thereafter, 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.

| Page 3 of 3

Вам также может понравиться