Title
People vs. Larranaga
Case
G.R. No. 138874-75
Decision Date
Feb 3, 2004
Gruesome 1997 kidnapping, gang-rape, and murder of Marijoy Chiong; sister Jacqueline remains missing. Accused convicted based on credible witness testimony, alibi defense rejected.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 138874-75)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Above-named appellants

Key Dates

Crime: Night of July 16–17, 1997
RTC Decision: May 5, 1999
Supreme Court Decision: February 3, 2004

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution: Due process (Art. III, Sec. 14); presumption of innocence; right to counsel; speedy and public trial.
Revised Penal Code (RPC) Art. 267, as amended by R.A. 7659, on kidnapping and serious illegal detention with special complex crimes.
Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 115 (rights of the accused) and Rule 119 (state witness discharge).

Factual Background

On July 16, 1997, Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong were forcibly abducted at Ayala Center, Cebu City. They were bound, gagged, taken to a safehouse, then transported in a hired van to Tan-awan, Carcar. There both sisters were gang-raped; Marijoy was subsequently thrown off a cliff into a ravine and died. Jacqueline escaped briefly but was recaptured, beaten, and remains missing to date.

Trial Court Proceedings and Verdict

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Cebu City, convicted six appellants (excluding Rusland as state witness) of kidnapping and serious illegal detention in two separate cases (CBU-45303 involving Marijoy’s death; CBU-45304 involving Jacqueline’s ongoing detention). Each was sentenced to two reclusiónes perpetua and ordered to indemnify the victims’ heirs.

Issues on Appeal

Appellants challenged:

  1. Alleged denial of due process—right to counsel, right to confront witnesses, right to present evidence, and impartiality of the trial judge.
  2. Legality of discharging Davidson Rusia to state-witness status.
  3. Sufficiency and credibility of prosecution evidence, particularly reliance on Rusia’s testimony.
  4. Rejection of their alibi defenses and failure to prove physical impossibility.

Due Process and Right to Counsel

The Court held that the refusal to delay trial so appellants could secure new privately retained counsel did not violate due process. Under the continuous-trial rule and the Constitution’s 1987 mandate for speedy proceedings, the appointment of de oficio counsel to replace counsel who abruptly withdrew was proper to prevent further delay. Denial of a lengthy continuance was discretionary and not unconstitutional.

Discharge of State Witness Rousseau

Davidson Rusia was discharged as an accused and sworn as state witness pursuant to Rule 119. Although he admitted rape of Jacqueline and had a prior foreign conviction, he was not “most guilty” of the charges, and his detailed account, corroborated by physical evidence and other witnesses, demonstrated reliability. Any procedural error in his discharge did not affect the competency of his testimony.

Evaluation of Prosecution Evidence

The Court affirmed the trial judge’s credibility findings. Rusia’s testimony was detailed, consistent on material points, and corroborated by:

  • Crime-scene findings (body bound, gagged, clothing torn) matching his account.
  • Fingerprint identification on the corpse.
  • Eyewitnesses who saw the sisters with two men at Ayala Center (identified as Larrañaga and Aznar).
  • Observations of the van, suspects buying food at roadside stalls, and sightings near the cliff.

Defense of Alibi and Its Rejection

Appellants claimed alibis—school examinations in Quezon City for Larrañaga; family birthday celebration for James Anthony and James Andrew; vehicle repair for Alberto and Ariel; social gathering for Aznar; etc. The Court found:

  • Alibi proofs failed to establish physical impossibility of their presence in Cebu on July 16.
  • Documentary logs and witness statements were contradicted, unreliable, or irrelevant to the date and time of the crime.
  • Positive identification by independent witnesses and mode of travel (multiple daily flights) made travel feasible.

Conspiracy and Joint Criminal Liability

The coordinated conduct—simultaneous arrival in two vehicles, shared detention of victims at a safehouse, joint rape sessions, and collective transport to the crime site—demonstrated a prior conspiracy and community of pu


    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.