G.R. Nos.

138874-75 July 21, 2005 kidnapping and serious illegal detention and are sentenced to suffer the
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA;
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs. (3) In Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, appellant JAMES ANTHONY
FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias "PACO"; JOSMAN AZNAR; UY, who was a minor at the time the crime was committed, is likewise
ROWEN ADLAWAN alias "WESLEY"; ALBERTO CAÑO alias found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of
"ALLAN PAHAK"; ARIEL BALANSAG, DAVIDSON VALIENTE kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape and is
RUSIA alias "TISOY TAGALOG"; JAMES ANTHONY UY alias hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA; in
"WANGWANG"; and JAMES ANDREW UY alias "MM", Accused- Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, he is declared guilty of simple kidnapping
Appellants. and serious illegal detention and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
TWELVE (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period,
RESOLUTION as MINIMUM, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in its
medium period, as MAXIMUM;
PER CURIAM:
(4) Appellants are ordered to pay jointly and severally the heirs of Marijoy
At bar are four (4) motions for reconsideration separately filed by and Jacqueline, in each case, the amounts of (a) ₱100,000.00 as civil
appellants (1) Francisco Juan Larrañaga, (2) Josman Aznar, (3) Rowen indemnity, (b) ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages, (c) ₱150,000.00 as
Adlawan, Alberto Caño and Ariel Balansag, and (4) James Anthony Uy moral damages, and (d) ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
and James Andrew Uy, assailing our Decision dated February 3, 2004
convicting them of the crimes of (a) special complex crime of kidnapping Three (3) Justices of the Court maintain their position that RA 7659 is
and serious illegal detention and (b) simple kidnapping and serious unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless,
illegal detention, the dispositive portion of which reads: 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.
"WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Cebu
City in Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-45303 and 45304 is AFFIRMED with In accordance with Article 83 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended
the following MODIFICATIONS: by Section 25 of RA No. 7659, upon the finality of this Decision, let the
records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President
(1) In Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, appellants FRANCISCO JUAN for the possible exercise of Her Excellency’s pardoning power.
LARRAÑAGA alias ‘PACO;’ JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN
ADLAWAN alias ‘WESLEY;’ ALBERTO CAÑO alias ‘ALLAN SO ORDERED."
PAHAK;’ ARIEL BALANSAG; and JAMES ANDREW UY alias ‘MM,’
are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime Appellants anchor their motions on the following grounds:
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape and
are sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH by lethal injection; A. LARRAÑAGA

(2) In Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, appellants FRANCISCO JUAN "I

LARRAÑAGA alias ‘PACO;’ JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN
ADLAWAN alias ‘WESLEY;’ ALBERTO CAÑO alias ‘ALLAN THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN BARRING LARRAÑAGA AND THE
PAHAK;’ ARIEL BALANSAG; and JAMES ANDREW UY alias ‘MM,’ NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (NBI) REGIONAL
are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple DIRECTOR FLORENCIO VILLARIN FROM TESTIFYING;
II THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN REJECTING THE DEFENSE
OF APPELLANT AZNAR.
THE POLICE PLANTED EVIDENCE ON APPELLANTS;
IV
III
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH
LARRAÑAGA SUFFICIENTLY PROVED HIS ALIBI; PENALTY ON THE APPELLANTS."2

IV C. ADLAWAN, BALANSAG, CAÑO

THE TRIAL COURT PREVENTED THE INTRODUCTION OF KEY "I

DEFENSE EVIDENCE;
PROSECUTION WITNESS RUSIA IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE A
V STATE WITNESS UNDER PARAGRAPHS (D) AND (E), SECTION 17
OF THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
THE CORPSE FOUND IN THE RAVINE WAS NOT THAT OF MARIJOY;
AND II

VI RUSIA’S TESTIMONY AND THAT OF THE OTHER PROSECUTION

WITNESSES WERE INCREDIBLE, INCONSISTENT, AND
PROSECUTION WITNESS RUSIA WAS A COACHED WITNESS."1 UNWORTHY OF BELIEF.

B. AZNAR III

"I BIAS AND PREJUDICE AGAINST THE DEFENSE WERE GLARINGLY

DISPLAYED BY THE COURT A QUO WHICH GREATLY AFFECTED
THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE.
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE TRIAL
COURT DID NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED TO DUE
PROCESS OF LAW. IV

II THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS FOR THE CRIME

CHARGED HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT."3
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 D. JAMES ANDREW AND JAMES ANTHONY UY
RUSIA.
"I
III
ACCUSED JAMES ANDREW S. UY WAS, LIKE HIS YOUNGER reply "actually supports the undersigned counsel’s (Solicitor General’s)
BROTHER JAMES ANTHONY S. UY, A MINOR AT THE TIME THE position that Atty. Villarin’s Affidavit is utterly inadequate to prove his
OFFENSES AT BAR ALLEGEDLY HAPPENED LAST JULY 16, 1997; innocence or at least even acquit them on reasonable doubt," thus, "it
would be useless to call for new trial on the basis of such Affidavit." On
II March 29, 2005, Aznar filed a sur-rejoinder insisting that the Affidavit
should be given due consideration.
THE IDENTITY OF THE DEAD BODY OF THE WOMAN FOUND IN
TAN-AWAN, CARCAR, CEBU LAST JULY 18, 1997 WAS NEVER Except for the motion filed by appellants Uy brothers with respect to
CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THUS THE NEED FOR ITS James Andrew’s alleged minority, we find all the motions bereft of merit.
EXHUMATION FOR DNA TESTING;"4
At the inception, let it be emphasized that the filing of a motion for
In his supplemental motion for reconsideration dated March 25, 2004, reconsideration does not impose on us the obligation to discuss and rule
Larrañaga submitted a separate study of Dr. Racquel Del Rosario- again on the grounds relied upon by the movant which are mere
Fortun, Forensic Pathologist, to show that the examination conducted by reiteration of the issues previously raised and thoroughly determined and
the prosecution expert witnesses on the body found in Tan-awan, Carcar evaluated in our Decision being questioned. In Ortigas and Company
is inadequate. Limited Partnership vs. Velasco,8 we ruled that, "this would be a useless
formality of ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons
In a similar supplemental motion for reconsideration5, Aznar submitted to already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments
this Court the Affidavit dated February 27, 2004 of Atty. Florencio Villarin, advanced by the movant."
Regional Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, Central
Visayas, to show that: (1) the police investigation of this case was The foregoing principle applies squarely to the motions filed by
flawed; (2) he (Aznar) was arrested in 1997 not because of his appellants Larrañaga, Aznar, Adlawan, Caño and Balansag, it being
involvement in this case but because he had in his possession a pack of apparent that the points raised therein are not neoteric matters
shabu and firearms; and (3) David Rusia is not a credible witness. demanding new judicial determination. They are mere rehash of the
arguments set forth in their respective briefs which we already
On July 15, 2004, the Solicitor General filed a consolidated considered, weighed and resolved before we rendered the Decision
comment6 praying that the four (4) motions for reconsideration be denied sought to be reconsidered.
with finality, there being no new argument raised. He responded to
appellants’ assignments of errors by exhaustively quoting portions of our However, in view of the severity of the penalties for the crimes charged,
challenged Decision. we deem it necessary to stress once more our basis in convicting
appellants.
In his consolidated comment7 to Aznar’s supplemental motion for
reconsideration, the Solicitor General enumerated the grounds why Atty. The following is a précis of the issues submitted by appellants in their
Villarin’s Affidavit should not be given consideration. On February 15, motions:
2005, Aznar filed a reply alleging that the Solicitor General "read out of
context" certain portions of the Affidavit. He argued that the This Court erred –

Affidavit only exposes the flawed investigation of the Chiong case and first, in according credence to Rusia’s testimony;
that, at the time of his arrest, there was no evidence against him. On
March 4, 2005, the Solicitor General filed a rejoinder stating that Aznar’s second, in rejecting appellants’ alibi;
third, in holding that the trial court did not violate their right to due process of "quarreling male and female" emanating from the van. And
when it excluded the testimony of other defense witnesses; and lastly, Manuel Camingao and Rosendo Rio testified on the presence
of Larrañaga and Josman at Tan-awan, Carcar at dawn of July 17, 1997.
fourth, in holding that the body found in Tan-awan, Carcar was not that All these bits and pieces of story form part of Rusia’s narration. Now, with
of Marijoy. such strong anchorage on the physical evidence and the testimonies of
disinterested witnesses, why should we not accord credence to Rusia’s
In deciding a criminal case, the policy of the courts is always to look at testimony? Even assuming that his testimony standing alone might
the case in its entirety. The totality of the evidence presented by both the indeed be unworthy of belief in view of his character, it is not so when
prosecution and the defense are weighed, thus, averting general considered with the other evidence presented by the prosecution.
conclusions from isolated pieces of evidence. This means that
an appeal of a criminal case opens its entire records for review.9 II

I Appellants likewise claimed that we should have not sustained the trial
court’s rejection of their alibi. Settled is the rule that the defense of alibi is
Appellants vigorously contend that we should not have sustained Rusia’s inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive declarations of
testimony hook, line and sinker, owing to his tainted record and truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.11 Being evidence
reputation. However, it must be stressed that Rusia’s testimony was that is negative in nature and self-serving, it cannot attain more credibility
not viewed in isolation. In giving credence to Rusia’s testimony, the than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and
trial court took into consideration the physical evidence and the positive evidence.12 On top of its inherent weakness, alibi becomes less
corroborative testimonies of other witnesses. Thus, we find no reason plausible as a defense when it is corroborated only by relatives or close
why we should not uphold the trial court’s findings. friends of the accused.13

We reiterate our pronouncement in our Decision that what makes Rusia’s This case presents to us a balance scale whereby perched on one end
testimony worthy of belief is its striking compatibility with the physical is appellants’ alibi supported by witnesses who were either their relatives,
evidence. Physical evidence is one of the highest degrees of proof. It friends or classmates, while on the other end is the positive identification
speaks more eloquently than all witnesses put together.10 The presence of the herein appellants by the prosecution witnesses who were not, in
of Marijoy’s ravished body in a deep ravine at Tan-awan, Carcar any way, related to the victims. With the above jurisprudence as guide,
with tape on her mouth and handcuffs on her wrists certainly we are certain that the balance must tilt in favor of the latter.
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 Besides, a thorough examination of the evidence for the prosecution
of such nature and quality that only a witness who actually saw the shows that the appellants failed to meet the requirements of alibi, i.e.,
commission of the crimes could furnish. Reinforcing his testimony is its the requirements of time and place.14 They failed to establish by clear
corroboration by several other witnesses who saw incidents of what he and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for them to be
narrated. Rolando Dacillo and Mario Minoza witnessed Jacqueline’s at the Ayala Center, Cebu City when the Chiong sisters were abducted.
two failed attempts to escape from appellants near Ayala What is clear from the evidence is that Rowen, Josman, Ariel, Alberto,
Center. Benjamin Molina and Miguel Vergara recognized Rowen as James Anthony and James Andrew were all within the vicinity of Cebu
the person who inquired from them where he could find a vehicle for hire City on July 16, 1997.
on the evening of July 16, 1997. Alfredo Duarte saw Rowen when he
bought barbeque and Tanduay at Nene’s Store while the white van, Not even Larrañaga who claimed to be in Quezon City satisfied the
driven by Caño, was waiting on the side of the road and he heard voices 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 Your Honor please, this is a …. Inspector Era handed to this
that there are four (4) airline companies plying the route. One of the representation a copy of a Letter dated September 25, 1996,
defense witnesses admitted that there are several flights from Manila to addressed to the Student Affairs Office, University of San Carlos,P. del
Cebu each morning, afternoon and evening. Indeed, Larrañaga’s Rosario Street, Cebu City, and this is signed by Leo Abayan and
presence in Cebu City on July 16, 1997 was proved to be not only a Alexander Virtucio and noted by Mrs. Aurora Pacho,
possibility but a reality. Four (4) witnesses identified Larrañaga as one Principal, University of San Carlos, Girls High School, and for the
of the two men talking to Marijoy and Jacqueline on the night of July 16, record, I will read the content:
1997. Shiela Singson testified that on July 16, 1997, at around 7:20 in
the evening, she saw Larrañaga approach Marijoy and Jacqueline TO WHOM THIS MAY CONCERN:
at the West Entry of Ayala Center. The incident reminded her of
Jacqueline’s prior story that he was Marijoy’s admirer. Shiela confirmed We the parents and guardians of Rochelle Virtucio, a first year high
that she knows Larrañaga since she had seen him on five (5) school student of your University of San Carlos-Girls High School,
occasions. Analie Konahap also testified that on the same evening of are writing your good office about an untoward incident involving
July 16, 1997, at about 8:00 o’clock, she saw Marijoy and Jacqueline our daughter and another student of your school.
talking to two (2) men at the West Entry of Ayala Center. She
recognized the two (2) men as Larrañaga and Josman, having seen them
xxxxxx
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 That last Monday at around 5:00 PM, Rochelle and other
Shiela and Analie. In addition, Rosendo Rio, a businessman from classmates, Michelle Amadar and Keizaneth Mondejar, while on
Cogon, Carcar, declared that he saw Larrañaga at Tan-awan at about their way to get a ride home near the school campus, a black Honda
3:30 in the morning of July 17, 1997. The latter was leaning against the Civic with five young male teenagers including the driver, suddenly
hood of a white van.15 And over and above all, Rusia categorically stopped beside them, and simultaneously one of them, which was
identified Larrañaga as one of the participes criminis. later identified as FRANCISCO JUAN LARRANAGA, a BSHRM I
student of your school, grabbed Rochelle by her hand to try to get
Rochelle to their vehicle. She resisted and got away from him.
Taking the individual testimonies of the above witnesses in relation with
Sensing some people were watching what they were doing, they
that of Rusia, we are convinced that Larrañaga was indeed in Cebu City
hurriedly sped away.
at the time of the commission of the crimes and was one of the principal
perpetrators thereof.
We are very concerned about Rochelle’s safety. Still now, she is
At this juncture, it bears mentioning that this case is not the first time that
suffering the shock and tension that she is not supposed to
Larrañaga was charged with or complained of pruriently assaulting
experience in her young life. It is very hard for us parents to think
young female students in Cebu. Months before the abduction of Marijoy
about what she’d been through."16
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 The presence of such complaint in the record of this case certainly does
school, thus, showing his impudence. We quote a portion of the transcript not enhance Larrañaga’s chance of securing an acquittal.
of stenographic notes dated September 23, 1998, thus:
III
"ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:
Larrañaga and Aznar bewail our refusal to overturn the trial court’s Sixth. Atty. Villarin admitted in paragraph 36 of his affidavit that: ‘x x x I
exclusion of Professor Jerome Bailen and Atty. Florencio Villarin, NBI, did not take this against [Supt. Labra] for preempting our next move
Regional Director, as defense witnesses. Professor Bailen was properly to get Juzman Aznar as we were already placing him under
excluded. First, he is not a finger-print expert but an archaeologist. surveillance because I knew [Supt. Labra] did it in his honest desire
And second, his report consists merely of the results of his visual to help solve the crime x x x.’ Clearly, this statement is not an
inspection of the exhibits already several months old. Anent Atty. indictment of the investigation that the police undertook in the subject
Villarin’s failure to testify before the trial court, suffice it to say that his crimes.
belated Affidavit, which Aznar submitted via his supplemental motion for
reconsideration dated May 5, 2004, raises nothing to change our findings Seventh. Paragraphs 37 to 40 are nothing but personal tirades against
and conclusions. What clearly appears in said Affidavit is a man trying to alleged influence peddling by Mrs. Thelma Chiong, mother of the victims,
impress people that he was the one responsible for solving the Chiong and the purportedly undue promotions of the lawyers and police officers
case and for that, he deserves a promotion. The trial court, at the onset, who unearthed the evidence against accused-appellants and
must have seen such immateriality in his intended testimony. Indeed, we successfully prosecuted the latter. In executing the affidavit, it appears
agree with the Solicitor General’s observation that such Affidavit "is that Atty. Villarin would want to impress that he, rather than those
neither helpful nor encouraging to Aznar’s cause." We quote his keen promoted, deserved the promotion.
reflection on the matter:
Eighth. Atty. Villarin’s inability to testify in the criminal cases was not due
"xxxxxx solely to the prosecution’s action. Whether he ought to testify or not was
an argument openly discussed in court. Hence, for the resulting inability,
Third. Atty. Villarin’s affidavit, in paragraphs 19 and 20 thereof, Atty. Villarin has no one to blame but the defense lawyers who did
acknowledged that the body found in the Carcar ravine was that of everything to make a mockery of the criminal proceedings.
Marijoy. This assertion immediately conflicts with accused-appellant
Aznar’s claim in his Motion for Reconsideration that the corpse was not And lastly, there is nothing in Atty. Villarin’s affidavit of the quality of a
Marijoy’s. Surely, something is amiss in accused-appellant Aznar’s "smoking gun" that would acquit accused-appellants of the crimes they
recollection of his defense. 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
Fourth. Atty. Villarin confirmed in paragraph 24 of his affidavit that instant case. Indeed, judging by the substance of his affidavit, he
accused-appellant Francisco Larranaga was a suspect in the subject would not be testifying in case a new trial is held on anything that
crimes. Evidently, this statement completely supports this Honorable has not been said and rejected heretofore, except his own
Court’s findings in its Decision dated February 3, 2004. unsubstantiated opinions (i.e. not facts as required by evidentiary
rules), his self-congratulatory remarks, and his unmitigated
Fifth. In paragraph 30 of Atty. Villarin’s affidavit, he stated that: ‘The frustration over failing to get a promotion when almost everyone
arrest of Juzman Aznar was the major breakthrough in the else did."17
investigation of the case because witnesses came out and
identified Juzman Aznar as one of those allegedly seen talking to Neither can we entertain at this late stage Dr. Fortun’s separate study to
the victims on the night they disappeared.’ Hence, accused-appellant show that the examination conducted on the body found in Tan-awan,
Aznar was in the beginning already a first-grade suspect in the Chiong Carcar is inadequate. Such study cannot be classified as newly-
sisters’ celebrated abduction and killing. discovered evidence warranting belated reception. Obviously, Larrañaga
could have produced it during trial had he wished to.
IV 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
Knowing that the prosecution’s theory highly rests on the truth of Rusia’ Statistics Office, a clear and legible copy of James Andrew’s Birth
testimony, appellants endeavor to destroy it by claiming that the body Certificate, and thereafter, (b) to file an extensive comment on the
found at the foot of a deep ravine in Tan-awan, Carcar was not that of motion for reconsideration filed by James Andrew and James Anthony
Marijoy. We must reiterate the reasons why we cannot give our assent Uy, solely on James Andrews’ claim of minority.
to such argument. First, Inspector Edgardo Lenizo,18 a fingerprint expert,
testified that the fingerprints of the corpse match those of Insofar as James Anthony is concerned, we maintain his conviction and
Marijoy.19 Second, the packaging tape and the handcuff found on the penalty, there being nothing in his motion which warrants a
dead body were the same items placed on Marijoy and Jacqueline while reconsideration of our Decision.
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 In resolving the instant motions, we have embarked on this painstaking
the Chiong family personally identified the corpse to be that of task of evaluating every piece and specie of evidence presented before
Marijoy22 which they eventually buried. They erected commemorative the trial court in response to appellants’ plea for the reversal of their
markers at the ravine, cemetery and every place which mattered to conviction. But, even the element of reasonable doubt so seriously
Marijoy. As a matter of fact, at this very moment, appellants still fail to sought by appellants is an ignis fatuus which has eluded any intelligent
bring to the attention of this Court any person laying a claim on the said ratiocination of their submissions. Verily, our conscience can rest easy
body. Surely, if the body was not that of Marijoy, other families who had on our affirmance of the verdict of the trial court, in light of appellants’
lost someone of similar age and gender as Marijoy would have surfaced clear culpability which demands retribution.
and claimed the body. The above circumstances only bolster Rusia’s
narration that Rowen and Ariel pushed Marijoy into the deep ravine, WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration filed by appellants
following Josman’s instruction "to get rid" of her. Francisco Juan Larrañaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto
Caño and Ariel Balansag are hereby DENIED. The Solicitor General
On the issue raised by appellants Uy brothers that James Andrew was is DIRECTED (a) to secure from the Local Civil Registrar of Cotobato
only seventeen (17) years and two hundred sixty two (262) days old at City, as well as the National Statistics Office, a clear and legible copy of
the time the crimes were committed, the records bear that on March 1, James Andrew’s Birth Certificate, and (b) within ten (10) days therefrom,
1999, James Andrew’s birth certificate was submitted to the trial court as to file an extensive comment on the motion for reconsideration filed by
part of the Formal Offer of Additional Evidence,23 with the statement James Andrew and James Anthony Uy, solely on James Andrews’ claim
that he was eighteen (18) years old. On March 18, 1999, appellants filed of minority. The motion is likewise DENIED insofar as James Anthony
a Manifestation of Erratum correcting in part the Formal Offer of Uy is concerned.
Additional Evidence by alleging that James Andrew was only seventeen
(17) years old.24 SO ORDERED.

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

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