Carlo Valdez 11711612

LEGARES

People vs. Larrañaga

The case presented is People vs. Larrañaga. To sum it up short, Francisco “Paco” Juan
Larrañaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen “Wesley” Adlawan, Alberto “Allan Pahak” Caño, Ariel
Balansag, James “Wangwang” Anthony Uy, and James “MM” Andrew Uy were arrested on the
grounds that they kidnapped and raped the Chiong sisters (Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong). Based
on the film, “Give Up Tomorrow”, it is clearly seen that there is a bias towards Larrañaga proving
that he is innocent.

In the film it showed that, despite the prosecution’s case was weak and insufficient,
Larrañaga (with the 7 others) were convicted of the kidnapping and rape beyond reasonable doubt.
It is clear to see the documentary favoring Larrañaga because even at the end of the documentary
it said that it was made by a close friend of the Larrañaga’s. The facts shown on the documentary
were from the perspective and the side of the Larrañaga family. The documentary even brought
the friends of Paco that would prove his case of innocence. I believe the documentary was well
made because it is very persuasive as I did not know anything prior to watching the documentary.
After viewing the film, my position was that Larrañaga was innocent.

After reading the Supreme Court decision, my position had changed, but my stand would
become indecisive. The case had shown many facts that were not included nor mentioned in the
documentary. The witnesses that appeared in court for Larrañaga were his close friends and
teachers in which the courts deemed them to weaken his case, which is a valid argument. It can be
put in the context of a friend lying to his friend’s mom so the friend would not get in trouble.
Furthermore, the case introduced new witnesses that were never mentioned in the documentary.
These witnesses saw Larrañaga at the airport at the harassment he had done to the Chiong sisters
to bring them into their vehicle. There was also a complaint against Larrañaga from the parents of
a Rochelle Virtucio. The complaint mentioned that Larrañaga and five (5) other males tried to grab
her and two (2) other classmates to their vehicle. After escaping, Larrañaga immediately left
because he was paranoid that there may have been witnesses. The case also showed a possibility
that Larrañaga could be able to go Cebu because in the hearing, it was proven that it takes one (1)
hour to travel and that there are four (4) airlines that provide flights during the morning, afternoon,
and evening. A woman named Sheila Singson had also testified to seeing Larrañaga at Cebu on
the night of the crime at the Ayala Center. Another woman named Analie Konahap is said to have
seen the Chiong sisters conversing with two (2) men who later had been identified as Larrañaga
and Josman. The complaint does not prove that Larrañaga did the crime to the Chiong sisters, but
it proves that he is capable of committing such. Margarita Gonzales-Larrañaga also testified that
Paco was supposedly supposed to take a 7:00pm flight on July 17,1997 but found a 5:00pm flight
instead. This proves that Paco was indeed in Cebu at the day of the crime. Although, Paco claims
he flew back to Manila on the afternoon of July 17, 1997 but was not able to produce a ticket to
prove his claims. Salvador Boton, who is the security guard the Loyola Heights Condominium,
states that the name of Larrañaga is at the logbook at the evening of July 16,1997. Yet, his entry
was not placed in chronological order and was placed with a time earlier than other entries. All
this shows that there was an abundance of evidence and much more were purposely omitted.

The Supreme Court decisions and documentary “Give Up Tomorrow” are immensely
different. The purpose of a case and the Supreme Court decision is to seek the truth with no bias
at all. As discussed in class, a primary source are official issuances and instrumentalities that come
from the State whilst a secondary source merely explains, analyzes, and interprets the primary
source. After reading the case and viewing the documentary, the documentary interprets the case
as a miscarriage of justice. The documentary omits facts and evidence from the case which are
crucial in determining a decision. The documentary made it clear to the audience of the film to be
that Larrañaga is innocent because the film made it out to be that it is impossible for Larrañaga to
be in two places at once. But the case had presented facts that there was possibility that Larrañaga
was in Cebu and that he could have the ability to commit the crime because of the complaint from
the parents of Rochelle Virtucio.

After reading the case, I do not agree with the Supreme Court decision. But with that said,
I am also not convinced that Paco is innocent. Most witnesses present that Paco was in Manila at
the day of the crime and other in Cebu also claim they saw Paco in Cebu. Everything said is purely
circumstantial. Paco may have been seen talking to the Chiong sisters, yet it does not purely suffice
that he kidnapped and raped them. Various testimonies prove all different types of scenarios that
are possible on that day and yet there is no conclusive evidence. The testimony and even the
presence of Davidson “Tisoy Tagalog” Valiente Rusia should raise concern to all parties. As the
documentary has shown, Thelma Chiong was seen being kind and delivering presents to Rusia as
he gave valuable testimony that incriminated Larrañaga. But it is also troubling that he was given
such treatment from Thelma Chiong because he also stated that he was there at the time of the
crime. It raises the question of, “Why is Thelma Chiong being lenient with Rusia due to him giving
testimony, yet being at the scene of the crime being with Larrañaga?” To be convicted of such
heinous crimes, one must be guilty with “proof beyond reasonable doubt” and yet the case still
brings upon many questions. Article III Section 14. (2) states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved….”1 and Paco and the others were
detained for a long period of time without any conclusive evidence.

Although the Supreme Court has given their decision, the use of the secondary source is to
persuade those who watch it. It serves its purpose if it is able to change the minds of those who
view it. The value of secondary sources is that it is easy to access and easy to understand. It may
not have value towards the decision of the Supreme Court, but it brings on persuasive power to the
audience as the people have their own voice as well and it makes them somewhat informed on the
case and gives them power to voice their opinion. With the secondary source out and available,
the Supreme Court decision is effective and final.

1
Article III, Section 14. (2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
 REFERENCES

- “Give Up Tomorrow” Received from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UHQqM8f50Y

- G.R. No. 138874-75. February 4, 2004
- G.R. No. 138874-75. July 21, 2005