PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
versus
FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias "PACO"; JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias "WESLEY"; ALBERTO CAÑO alias "ALLAN PAHAK"; ARIEL BALANSAG, DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA alias "TISOY TAGALOG"; JAMES ANTHONY UY alias "WANGWANG"; and JAMES ANDREW UY alias "MM",
G.R. Nos. 138874-75
July 21, 2005
PONENTE: HILARIO DAVIDE, Jr.
FACTS
On the night of July 16, 1997, Larrañaga and seven others kidnapped the Chiong sisters near the west wing entrance of Ayala Center Cebu, the two [women] were raped but only Marijoy's body was found while the other sister's body, was never found.
The accused [appellants] were charged and later on convicted of the crimes of of (a) special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention [Larrañaga, Aznar, Adlawan, Caño, Balansag; and (James Andrew) Uy] ; and (b) simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention [Larrañaga, Aznar, Adlawan, Caño, Balansag; (James Andrew) Uy; and (James Anthony) Uy]
The case was centered on the testimony of a co-defendant, David Valiente Rusia who only appeared 10 months after the incident. In exchange for immunity, he [Rusia] testified against his codefendants, he claimed that he was with Larrañaga in Ayala Center, Cebú early in the evening of July 16.
Larrañaga raised in his defense that he was in Quezon City and not in Cebu at the time when the crime is said to have taken place, some thirty five witnesses, including his friends and teachers, testified under oath to prove this, however, all were rejected by the court; he further contended that the body found in the ravine was not Marijoy's but somebody else's. While, Aznar, Adlawan, Balansag and Caño, on the other hand, questioned Rusia’s testimony for being incredible, inconsistent, and unworthy of belief.
ISSUES
Whether 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 that of Marijoy.
RULING
1. The trial court took into consideration not only Rusia's testimonies but also the physical evidence and the corroborative testimonies of other witnesses for being strikingly compatible. Physical evidence being one of the highest degrees of proof is give more weight than all witnesses put together. Even assuming that his testimony standing alone might indeed be unworthy in view of his character, it is not so when corroborated with other evidence.
2. It is a well settled rule that the defense of alibi is inherently weak for being a negative evidence and self-serving, it cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence. Moreover, alibi becomes LESS credible when it is corroborated only by relatives or close friends of the accused. In the case at bar, the accused failed to meet the requirements of alibi. Larrañaga failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be at Ayala Center Cebu during the abduction. His claimed of being in Quezon City at that time, failed to satisfy the required proof of physical impossibility. It was shown that it takes only an hour to travel by plane from Manila to Cebu and that there were four airlines flying the route. Indeed, Larrañaga’s presence in Cebu City on the night of July 16, 1997 was proved to be not only a possibility but a reality.
3. Prof. Bailen, was properly excluded for being not a finger-print expert but an archaeologist; and that his report consists merely of the results of his visual inspection of the exhibits already several months old. While, the affidavit of Atty. Villarin of the NBI was found to be not testifying in the said for it only contains his own unsubstantiated opinions, his self-congratulatory remarks, and his unmitigated frustration over failing to get a promotion when almost everyone else did. Lastly, Dr. Fortun’s separate study cannot be classified as newly-discovered evidence warranting belated reception because Larrañaga could have produced it during trial had he wanted to.
4. Inspector Edgardo Lenizo, a fingerprint expert, testified that the fingerprints of the corpse match those of Marijoy's; that 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; that the recovered body had the same clothes worn by Marijoy on the day she was abducted; and that the members of the Chiong family personally identified the corpse to be that of Marijoy's.
versus
FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias "PACO"; JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias "WESLEY"; ALBERTO CAÑO alias "ALLAN PAHAK"; ARIEL BALANSAG, DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA alias "TISOY TAGALOG"; JAMES ANTHONY UY alias "WANGWANG"; and JAMES ANDREW UY alias "MM",
G.R. Nos. 138874-75
July 21, 2005
PONENTE: HILARIO DAVIDE, Jr.
FACTS
On the night of July 16, 1997, Larrañaga and seven others kidnapped the Chiong sisters near the west wing entrance of Ayala Center Cebu, the two [women] were raped but only Marijoy's body was found while the other sister's body, was never found.
The accused [appellants] were charged and later on convicted of the crimes of of (a) special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention [Larrañaga, Aznar, Adlawan, Caño, Balansag; and (James Andrew) Uy] ; and (b) simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention [Larrañaga, Aznar, Adlawan, Caño, Balansag; (James Andrew) Uy; and (James Anthony) Uy]
The case was centered on the testimony of a co-defendant, David Valiente Rusia who only appeared 10 months after the incident. In exchange for immunity, he [Rusia] testified against his codefendants, he claimed that he was with Larrañaga in Ayala Center, Cebú early in the evening of July 16.
Larrañaga raised in his defense that he was in Quezon City and not in Cebu at the time when the crime is said to have taken place, some thirty five witnesses, including his friends and teachers, testified under oath to prove this, however, all were rejected by the court; he further contended that the body found in the ravine was not Marijoy's but somebody else's. While, Aznar, Adlawan, Balansag and Caño, on the other hand, questioned Rusia’s testimony for being incredible, inconsistent, and unworthy of belief.
ISSUES
Whether 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 that of Marijoy.
RULING
1. The trial court took into consideration not only Rusia's testimonies but also the physical evidence and the corroborative testimonies of other witnesses for being strikingly compatible. Physical evidence being one of the highest degrees of proof is give more weight than all witnesses put together. Even assuming that his testimony standing alone might indeed be unworthy in view of his character, it is not so when corroborated with other evidence.
2. It is a well settled rule that the defense of alibi is inherently weak for being a negative evidence and self-serving, it cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence. Moreover, alibi becomes LESS credible when it is corroborated only by relatives or close friends of the accused. In the case at bar, the accused failed to meet the requirements of alibi. Larrañaga failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be at Ayala Center Cebu during the abduction. His claimed of being in Quezon City at that time, failed to satisfy the required proof of physical impossibility. It was shown that it takes only an hour to travel by plane from Manila to Cebu and that there were four airlines flying the route. Indeed, Larrañaga’s presence in Cebu City on the night of July 16, 1997 was proved to be not only a possibility but a reality.
3. Prof. Bailen, was properly excluded for being not a finger-print expert but an archaeologist; and that his report consists merely of the results of his visual inspection of the exhibits already several months old. While, the affidavit of Atty. Villarin of the NBI was found to be not testifying in the said for it only contains his own unsubstantiated opinions, his self-congratulatory remarks, and his unmitigated frustration over failing to get a promotion when almost everyone else did. Lastly, Dr. Fortun’s separate study cannot be classified as newly-discovered evidence warranting belated reception because Larrañaga could have produced it during trial had he wanted to.
4. Inspector Edgardo Lenizo, a fingerprint expert, testified that the fingerprints of the corpse match those of Marijoy's; that 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; that the recovered body had the same clothes worn by Marijoy on the day she was abducted; and that the members of the Chiong family personally identified the corpse to be that of Marijoy's.
No comments:
Post a Comment