Case Digest (G.R. No. 138874-75)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Francisco Juan Larranaga alias Paco; Josman Aznar; Rowen Adlawan alias "Wesley"; Alberto Cao 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, February 03, 2004, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The decision below was penned by Judge Martin A. Ocampo of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Cebu City.The cases arose from the July 16–17, 1997 abduction of sisters Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong in Cebu City, the gang-rape of both, the murder (throwing into a deep ravine) of Marijoy, and the disappearance of Jacqueline. Two Informations (CBU-45303 and CBU-45304), later amended, charged the defendants with kidnapping and serious illegal detention (with attendant rape and death alleged in the Information for Marijoy). Davidson Rusia initially was charged with the others but later admitted participation to the police and was presented by the prosecution as its key witness.
At trial before the RTC, Rusia testified in detail (direct and cross-examinations on multiple dates), and his testimony was corroborated in material particulars by at least twenty-one prosecution witnesses and by physical evidence (the corpse of Marijoy with handcuffs and tape, clothing matching what she wore, and fingerprint comparison). Defendants presented alibi and denial defenses; dozens of defense witnesses tried to show physical impossibility of presence at the crime scene, airline manifests, and repair-shop testimony regarding the van said to have been used.
During trial several defense counsels abruptly withdrew; the trial judge found them in contempt and ordered them jailed, then directed the appointment of Public Attorney’s Office lawyers (counsel de oficio) to prevent further delay in mandatory continuous trial. The trial court limited repetitive cross-examination, at times admonished or questioned defense witnesses sharply, and on November 12, 1998 discharged Rusia as an accused and accorded him the status of a state witness under Rule 119, Sec. 9, after a hearing and submission of memoranda.
On May 5, 1999 the RTC found appellants (except Rusia) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, sentenced them to two reclusiones perpetuae each, and ordered indemnities and damages to the victims’ heirs. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court contesting (inter alia) violations of due process (denial of counsel of choice, limi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Were appellants denied due process during trial (right to counsel of choice, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence, and to an impartial tribunal)?
- Was the trial court’s discharge of Davidson Rusia as an accused to be a state witness proper under Rule 119, Sec. 9?
- Was the evidence sufficient to convict appellants of the charged crimes (including the special complex crime under Article 267, as amended by R.A. No. 7659)?
- Was there sufficient proof of conspiracy and pr...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)