People v.
Larrañaga special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
Special Complex Crime: Kidnapping with murder or homicide
or rape
NOTE:
In resolving the instant motions, the SC have embarked on the
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 the element of
reasonable doubt so seriously sought by appellants is an ignis
fatuus which has eluded any intelligent ratiocination of their
submissions. As in this case, there was clear culpability which
demands retribution.
ISSUE: WON the Motion for Reconsiderations shall be granted
in favor of the accused
FACTS:
4 motions for reconsideration separately filed by appellants (1)
Francisco Juan Larraaga, (2) Josman Aznar, (3) Rowen
Adlawan, Alberto Caño and Ariel Balansag, and (4) James
Anthony Uy and James Andrew Uy, assailing the SC 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.
Larrañaga, Aznar, Adlawan, Caño, Balansag and James
Andrew Uy = found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
detention with homicide and rape and are sentenced to suffer
the penalty of DEATH by lethal injection;
The same were found guilty of the crime of simple kidnapping
and serious illegal detention and are sentenced to suffer the
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA;
On the other hand, James Anthony Uy, who was a minor at the
time the crime was committed, is likewise found guilty of the
special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with homicide and rape and is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA; moreover, he
is declared guilty of simple kidnapping and serious illegal
detention and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of TWELVE
(12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period, as
MINIMUM, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in
its medium period, as MAXIMUM.
Motion for Reconsideration was filed, with the following
issues:
first, in according credence to Rusia's testimony (since Rusia
has a bad reputation);
second, in rejecting appellants' alibi;
third, in holding that the trial court did not violate their right to
due process when it excluded the testimony of other defense
witnesses; and
fourth, in holding that the body found in Tan-awan, Carcar was
not that of Marijoy.
HELD:
Except for the motion filed by appellants Uy brothers1 with
respect to James Andrew's alleged minority, SC finds all
the motions bereft of merit.
First issue: The 􏰅filing of a motion for 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 issues previously raised and thoroughly determined and
evaluated in our Decision being questioned.
Appellants vigorously contend that SC 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 witnesses2.
1
That JAMES ANDREW S. UY was, like his brother, a minor at the time
the offense allegedly happened.
2 and he heard voices of "quarreling male and female" emanating from the
Dacillo and Mario Minoza witnessed Jacqueline's 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 􏰅nd a vehicle for hire on the evening of July 16, 1997. Alfredo
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. 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.
Second Issue: Appellants likewise claimed that SC should have
not sustained the trial court's rejection of their 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 testifed on affrmative 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.
Moreover, in the case at bar, 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
Duarte saw Rowen when he bought barbeque and Tanduay at Nene's Store
while the white van, driven by Caño, was waiting on the side of the road
van.
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. Not even Larrañaga who
claimed to be in Quezon City satisfed 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 (4) airline companies plying the route.
Larrañaga's presence in Cebu City on July 16, 1997 was proved
to be not only a possibility but a reality as 4 witnesses identifed
Larrañaga as one of the two men talking to Marijoy and
Jacqueline on the night of the incident.
3rd issue: The exclusion of Professor Jerome Bailen and Atty.
Florencio Villarin, NBI, Regional Director, as defense
witnesses was correct.
Prod. Bailen is not a finger print expert but an archeologist; his
report consists merely of the results of his visual inspection of
the exhibits already several months old. Neither can the Court
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 because such cannot be classifiedas
newly-discovered evidence warranting belated reception.
Obviously, Larrañaga could have produced it during trial had
he wished to.
4th issue: First, Inspector Edgardo Lenizo, 18 a fingerprint
expert, testited 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.
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.
On the minority issue of James Andrew:
James Andrew was only 17 years and two hundred 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 already
18. On March 18, 1999, appellants filed a Manifestation of
Erratum correcting in part the Formal Offer of Additional
Evidence by alleging that James Andrew was only 17.
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, SC finds 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 Andrew's
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.

Insofar as James Anthony is concerned, the SC maintains his

conviction and penalty, there being nothing in his motion
which warrants a reconsideration.