Case Summary (G.R. No. 192999)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
This resolution addresses four separate motions for reconsideration filed by the appellants against the Court’s Decision (February 3, 2004) affirming the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Cebu City, and imposing the following principal dispositions: in Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, conviction for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape (death by lethal injection for adult appellants; reclusion perpetua for the minor appellant); in Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, conviction for simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention (reclusion perpetua or specified term for the minor). The Decision ordered joint and several civil indemnities and damages to the heirs of the victims, and directed forwarding of the records to the Office of the President pursuant to Article 83, RPC, as amended by RA 7659, for possible exercise of the pardoning power. Three justices registered the view that RA 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes death, but they accepted the majority’s ruling that the law is constitutional and applied it in this case.
Grounds Advanced in the Motions for Reconsideration
Appellants collectively challenged the Decision on multiple grounds, including: alleged erroneous exclusion of defense witnesses (including an NBI regional director); claims of planted or fabricated evidence; assertedly proven alibis; improper preclusion of key defense evidence; challenged identity of the corpse found at Tan-awan; allegations that the key prosecution witness (Rusia) was coached, biased, unqualified as a state witness, or otherwise unworthy of belief; and a claim of minority for James Andrew Uy bearing on penalty mitigation. Each appellant group framed discrete assignments of error but substantially reasserted issues addressed in the Court’s Decision.
Supplementary Submissions and Government Response
Appellants submitted additional material: LarraAaga proffered a forensic study by Dr. Racquel Del Rosario-Fortun to contest adequacy of the prosecution’s post-mortem examination; Aznar submitted an affidavit of Atty. Florencio Villarin (NBI Regional Director) alleging investigative flaws and contesting witness credibility. The Solicitor General filed consolidated comments opposing reconsideration and specifically challenged the probative value and timeliness of Villarin’s affidavit and Fortun’s study, maintaining they did not raise cogent or newly discovered factual matters warranting reversal or a new trial. Aznar replied and the Solicitor General rejoindered; these filings were considered but ultimately found unpersuasive.
Standard of Review and the Court’s Approach to Reconsideration
The Court reiterated that motions for reconsideration are not vehicles to reargue questions already thoroughly considered and adjudicated; repetitious points previously resolved do not compel re-evaluation (Ortigas principle). Given the gravity of the penalties imposed, however, the Court reviewed contested evidentiary and credibility issues with particular care, weighing the totality of the record rather than isolating discrete items of evidence.
Assessment of the Key Prosecution Witness (Rusia) and Corroboration
The Court sustained the trial court’s acceptance of David (Davidson) Rusia’s testimony, emphasizing it was not considered in isolation but was strongly corroborated by physical evidence and independent testimonies. The Court observed that Rusia’s detailed narrative matched the physical discovery (ravished body in a deep ravine with tape over the mouth and handcuffs on the wrists) and was reinforced by multiple witnesses who recounted episodes described by Rusia: Rolando Dacillo and Mario Minoza saw Jacqueline’s attempted escapes near Ayala Center; Benjamin Molina and Miguel Vergara observed Rowen seeking a vehicle on the evening of July 16, 1997; Alfredo Duarte saw Rowen near a white van with voices coming from the van; and Manuel Camingao and Rosendo Rio placed LarraAaga and Josman at Tan-awan at dawn on July 17, 1997. The Court reiterated the evidentiary principle that physical evidence is especially persuasive and supports crediting testimony that dovetails with it.
Rejection of the Alibi Defense
The Court applied settled law that alibi is an inherently weak, negative defense and will not prevail over positive, corroborated identification testimony of credible, disinterested witnesses. Appellants’ alibi proofs were predominantly by relatives, friends or associates, and they failed to demonstrate physical impossibility of presence at the crime scene. Specific testimony contradicted alibi claims: several witnesses placed LarraAaga and other accused persons in Cebu City on July 16–17, 1997 (e.g., Shiela Singson, Analie Konahap, security guard Williard Redobles, and Rosendo Rio). The Court also noted the practical availability of air travel between Manila and Cebu and concluded that LarraAaga’s claimed presence in Quezon City did not satisfy the time-and-place requirements for an effective alibi.
Exclusion of Defense Witnesses and Timeliness/Newness of Evidence
The Court upheld the trial court’s exclusion of Professor Jerome Bailen and found his proffered testimony improper: he was not a fingerprint expert but an archaeologist, and his report merely reflected a visual inspection of aged exhibits. Atty. Villarin’s belated affidavit was likewise not accepted as a basis for relief. The Court, echoing the Solicitor General’s critique, found Villarin’s affidavit internally inconsistent and in parts corroborative of prosecution findings (e.g., acknowledgement of suspect status and identification evidence), and lacking a “smoking gun” quality that could have reasonably altered the outcome. Dr. Fortun’s study was deemed not to be newly discovered evidence—LarraAaga could have presented it at trial but did not—so it did not warrant reopening the case.
Identity of the Corpse and Forensic Findings
The Court concluded that the corpse found in Tan-awan was properly identified as Marijoy Chiong on multiple independent bases contained in the record: fingerprint comparison by Inspector Edgardo Lenizo matched the corpse to Marijoy’s fingerprints; the same packaging tape and handcuff items were found on the body as had been used during the detention; the clothing matched what Marijoy wore on the day of abductio
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 192999)
Procedural Posture and Case Reference
- Reported at 502 Phil. 231, En Banc, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, decision promulgated July 21, 2005.
- The Supreme Court rendered a Decision dated February 3, 2004 convicting the appellants of (a) the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention (with homicide and rape in one case) and (b) simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention in a companion case; the February 3, 2004 Decision’s dispositive portion was quoted and reiterated in the Resolution under review.
- Four separate motions for reconsideration were filed by different subsets of the accused-appellants challenging the February 3, 2004 Decision; these motions were consolidated for resolution in the en banc Resolution dated July 21, 2005.
- The Solicitor General filed consolidated comments and rejoinders responding to the motions; appellants filed replies and sur-rejoinders as summarized in the record.
- The Court, en banc, considered the motions and supplemental submissions and rendered a Resolution denying the motions except for a limited directive concerning the documentation of one appellant’s claim of minority.
Parties and Accused-Appellants
- Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
- Accused-Appellants (as styled in the record) and their aliases:
- Francisco Juan LarraAaga, alias "Paco"
- Josman Aznar
- Rowen Adlawan, alias "Wesley"
- Albert CaAo, alias "Allan Pahak"
- Ariel Balansag
- Davidson Valiente Rusia, alias "Tisoy Tagalog"
- James Anthony Uy, alias "Wangwang"
- James Andrew Uy, alias "MM"
Dispositive Portion of the February 3, 2004 Decision (as quoted)
- Criminal Case No. CBU-45303:
- Appellants Francisco Juan LarraAaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto CaAo, Ariel Balansag, and James Andrew Uy found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape and sentenced to death by lethal injection.
- Appellant James Anthony Uy, a minor at the time of the commission of the crime, found guilty of the same special complex crime and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
- Criminal Case No. CBU-45304:
- The same appellants (excluding distinctions stated) found guilty of simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
- James Anthony Uy sentenced to twelve (12) years prision mayor (minimum) to seventeen (17) years reclusion temporal (maximum).
- Civil and damages award:
- Appellants ordered to pay jointly and severally to the heirs of Marijoy and Jacqueline, in each case: P100,000.00 civil indemnity; P25,000.00 temperate damages; P150,000.00 moral damages; P100,000.00 exemplary damages.
- Constitutional and administrative notes:
- Three Justices maintained that RA 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes death; they nonetheless yielded to the majority ruling that the law was constitutional and could be imposed in this case.
- Pursuant to Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 25 of RA No. 7659, the records, upon finality of the Decision, were to be forwarded to the Office of the President for the possible exercise of the pardon power.
Enumerated Grounds in the Motions for Reconsideration (by appellant group)
- Francisco Juan LarraAaga’s consolidated grounds (as presented in the motion):
- I. Trial court erred in barring LarraAaga and NBI Regional Director Florencio Villarin from testifying.
- II. The police planted evidence on appellants.
- III. LarraAaga sufficiently proved his alibi.
- IV. The trial court prevented the introduction of key defense evidence.
- V. The corpse found in the ravine was not that of Marijoy.
- VI. Prosecution witness Rusia was a coached witness.
- Josman Aznar’s grounds (as summarized by the record):
- I. The Court erred in finding no violation of the accused’s due process rights.
- II. The Court erred in (A) discharging David Rusia as state witness and (B) convicting appellants mainly on Rusia’s testimony.
- III. The Court erred in rejecting Aznar’s defense.
- IV. The Court erred in imposing the death penalty.
- Rowen Adlawan, Ariel Balansag and Alberto CaAo’s grounds:
- I. Prosecution witness Rusia not qualified as a state witness under paragraphs (d) and (e), Section 17, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
- II. Rusia’s and other prosecution witnesses’ testimony were incredible, inconsistent and unworthy of belief.
- III. Trial court displayed bias and prejudice against the defense affecting the outcome.
- IV. Guilt not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- James Andrew and James Anthony Uy’s grounds:
- I. James Andrew Uy was a minor at the time of the offenses.
- II. Identity of the dead body found in Tan-awan, Carcar on July 18, 1997 was not conclusively established and thus exhumation for DNA testing was necessary.
Supplemental Submissions and Documentary Proffers
- LarraAaga’s supplemental motion (March 25, 2004) submitted a separate study by Dr. Racquel Del Rosario-Fortun, Forensic Pathologist, to challenge the adequacy of the prosecution’s examination of the body found in Tan-awan, Carcar.
- Aznar’s supplemental motion (May 5, 2004) included the Affidavit dated February 27, 2004 of Atty. Florencio Villarin, Regional Director of the NBI, Central Visayas, claiming:
- Police investigation of the case was flawed.
- Aznar’s arrest in 1997 was for possession of shabu and firearms and not because of involvement in the Chiong case.
- David Rusia was not a credible witness.
- Solicitor General’s procedural filings:
- July 15, 2004: Solicitor General filed a consolidated comment opposing reconsideration and responding exhaustively to appellants’ arguments.
- January 12, 2005: Solicitor General filed a consolidated comment to Aznar’s supplemental motion, enumerating reasons to disregard Atty. Villarin’s Affidavit.
- March 4, 2005: Solicitor General filed a rejoinder to Aznar’s reply, arguing Villarin’s affidavit was inadequate to warrant a new trial.
- Aznar’s responsive pleadings:
- February 15, 2005: Aznar replied alleging the Solicitor General read parts of Villarin’s affidavit out of context and that the affidavit exposed investigative flaws and showed absence of evidence at the time of arrest.
- March 29, 2005: Aznar filed a sur-rejoinder insisting the affidavit be considered.
Governing Principles on Motions for Reconsideration and Appellate Review
- A motion for reconsideration does not obligate the Court to re-discuss issues that are mere reiterations of arguments already considered and resolved in the challenged decision; repetition of priorly-resolved points is a futile exercise (citing Ortigas and Company Ltd. Partnership v. Velasco).
- In criminal appeals, the appellate court reviews the case in its entirety; the totality of the evidence — prosecution and defense — is weighed and evaluated; entire records are open to review on appeal (citing Obosa v. Court of Appeals).
- Alibi as a defense is inherently weak, negative and self-serving; it cannot override positive and affirmative testimony of credible prosecution witnesses and is particularly vulnerable when corroborated only by relatives or close friends of the accused (citing People v. Rollon; People v. Datingginoo; People v. Abatayo).