14.3.8 - People v. Larrañaga (2004)
14.3.8 - People v. Larrañaga (2004)
14.3.8 - People v. Larrañaga (2004)
DECISION
PER CURIAM : p
For most of the Cebuanos, the proceedings in these cases will always
be remembered as the "trial of the century." A reading of the voluminous
records readily explains why the unraveling of the facts during the hearing
before the court below proved transfixing and horrifying and why it resulted
in unusual media coverage.
These cases involve the kidnapping and illegal detention of a college
beauty queen along with her comely and courageous sister. An intriguing
tale of ribaldry and gang-rape was followed by the murder of the beauty
queen. She was thrown off a cliff into a deep forested ravine where she was
left to die. Her sister was subjected to heartless indignities before she was
also gang-raped. In the aftermath of the kidnapping and rape, the sister was
made to disappear. Where she is and what further crimes were inflicted upon
her remain unknown and unsolved up to the present.
Before us in an appeal from the Decision 1 dated May 5, 1999 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Cebu City in Criminal Cases Nos. CBU 45303-
45304, finding Rowen Adlawan alias "Wesley," Josman Aznar, Ariel Balansag,
Alberto Caño alias "Allan Pahak," Francisco Juan Larrañaga alias "Paco,"
James Andrew Uy alias "MM," and James Anthony Uy alias "Wang Wang,"
appellants herein, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention and sentencing each of them to
suffer the penalties of "two (2) reclusiones perpetua" and to indemnify the
heirs of the victims, sisters Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong, jointly and
severally, the amount of P200,000.00 as actual damages and P5,000,000.00
as moral and exemplary damages.
The Fourth Amended Informations 2 for kidnapping and illegal
detention dated May 12, 1998 filed against appellants and Davidson Rusia
alias "Tisoy Tagalog," the discharged state witness, read as follows:
1)Â For Criminal Case No. CBU-45303: 3
"CONTRARY TO LAW."
"That on the 16th day of July, 1997, at about 10:00 o'clock more
or less in the evening, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, all private
individuals, conniving, confederating and mutually helping with one
another, with deliberate intent, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously kidnap or deprive one Jacqueline Chiong of her liberty,
thereby detaining her until the present.
"CONTRARY TO LAW."
On July 15, 1997, while Rusia was loafing around at the Cebu Plaza
Hotel, Cebu City, Rowen approached him and arranged that they meet the
following day at around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. 18 When they saw each
other the next day, Rowen told him to stay put at the Ayala Mall because
they would have a "big happening" in the evening. All the while, he thought
that Rowen's " big happening" meant group partying or scrounging. He thus
lingered at the Ayala Mall until the appointed time came. 19
At 10:30 in the evening, Rowen returned with Josman. They met Rusia
at the back exit of the Ayala Mall and told him to ride with them in a white
car. Rusia noticed that a red car was following them. Upon reaching
Archbishop Reyes Avenue, same city, he saw two women standing at the
waiting shed. 20 Rusia did not know yet that their names were Marijoy and
Jacqueline.
Josman stopped the white car in front of the waiting shed and he and
Rowen approached and invited Marijoy and Jacqueline to join them. 21 But
the sisters declined. Irked by the rejection, Rowen grabbed Marijoy while
Josman held Jacqueline and forced both girls to ride in the car. 22 Marijoy was
the first one to get inside, followed by Rowen. Meanwhile, Josman pushed
Jacqueline inside and immediately drove the white car. Rusia sat on the front
seat beside Josman.
Fourteen (14) meters from the waiting shed, Jacqueline managed to get
out of the car. Josman chased her and brought her back into the car. Not
taking anymore chances, Rowen elbowed Jacqueline on the chest and
punched Marijoy on the stomach, causing both girls to faint. 23 Rowen asked
Rusia for the packaging tape under the latter's seat and placed it on the
girls' mouths. Rowen also handcuffed them jointly. The white and red cars
then proceeded to Fuente Osmeña, Cebu City.
At Fuente Osmeña, Josman parked the car near a Mercury Drug Store
and urged Rusia to inquire if a van that was parked nearby was for hire. A
man who was around replied "no" so the group immediately left. The two
cars stopped again near Park Place Hotel where Rusia negotiated to hire a
van. But no van was available. Thus, the cars sped to a house in Guadalupe,
Cebu City known as the safehouse of the "Jozman Aznar Group." Thereupon,
Larrañaga, James Anthony and James Andrew got out of the red car.
Larrañaga, James Anthony and Rowen brought Marijoy to one of the
rooms, while Rusia and Josman led Jacqueline to another room. Josman then
told Rusia to step out so Rusia stayed at the living room with James Andrew.
They remained in the house for fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes. At that
time, Rusia could hear Larrañaga, James Anthony, and Rowen giggling inside
the room.
Thereafter, the group brought Marijoy and Jacqueline back to the white
car. Then the two cars headed to the South Bus Terminal where they were
able to hire a white van driven by Alberto. Ariel was the conductor. James
Andrew drove the white car, while the rest of the group boarded the van.
They traveled towards south of Cebu City, leaving the red car at the South
Bus Terminal.
Inside the van, Marijoy and Jacqueline were slowly gaining strength.
James Anthony taped their mouths anew and Rowen handcuffed them
together. Along the way, the van and the white car stopped by a barbeque
store. Rowen got off the van and bought barbeque and Tanduay rhum. They
proceeded to Tan-awan. 24 Then they parked their vehicles near a precipice
25 where they drank and had a pot session. Later, they pulled Jacqueline out
of the van and told her to dance as they encircled her. She was pushed from
one end of the circle to the other, ripping her clothes in the process.
Meanwhile, Josman told Larrañaga to start raping Marijoy who was left inside
the van. The latter did as told and after fifteen minutes emerged from the
van saying, "who wants next?" Rowen went in, followed by James Anthony,
Alberto, the driver, and Ariel, the conductor. Each spent a few minutes inside
the van and afterwards came out smiling. 26
Then they carried Marijoy out of the van, after which Josman brought
Jacqueline inside the vehicle. Josman came out from the van after ten
minutes, saying, "whoever wants next go ahead and hurry up." Rusia went
inside the van and raped Jacqueline, followed by James Andrew. At this
instance, Marijoy was to breathe her last for upon Josman's instruction,
Rowen and Ariel led her to the cliff and mercilessly pushed her into the
ravine 27 which was almost 150 meters deep. 28
As for Jacqueline, she was pulled out of the van and thrown to the
ground. Able to gather a bit of strength, she tried to run towards the road.
The group boarded the van, followed her and made fun of her by screaming,
"run some more." There was a tricycle passing by. The group brought
Jacqueline inside the van. Rowen beat her until she passed out. The group
then headed back to Cebu City with James Andrew driving the white car.
Rusia got off from the van somewhere near the Ayala Center. 29
There were other people who saw snippets of what Rusia had
witnessed. Sheila Singson, 30 Analie Konahap 31 and Williard Redobles 32
testified that Marijoy and Jacqueline were talking to Larrañaga and Josman
before they were abducted. Roland Dacillo 33 saw Jacqueline alighting and
running away from a white car and that Josman went after her and grabbed
her back to the car. Alfredo Duarte 34 testified that he was at the barbeque
stand when Rowen bought barbeque; that Rowen asked where he could buy
Tanduay; that he saw a white van and he heard therefrom voices of a male
and female who seemed to be quarreling; that he also heard a cry of a
woman which he could not understand because "it was as if the voice was
being controlled;" and that after Rowen got his order, he boarded the white
van which he recognized to be previously driven by Alberto Caño.
Meanwhile, Mario Miñoza, 35 a tricycle driver plying the route of Carcar-
Mantalongon, saw Jacqueline running towards Mantalongon. Her blouse was
torn and her hair was disheveled. Trailing her was a white van where a very
loud rock music could be heard. Manuel Camingao 36 recounted that on July
17, 1997, at about 5:00 o'clock in the morning, he saw a white van near a
cliff at Tan-awan. Thinking that the passenger of the white van was throwing
garbage at the cliff, he wrote its plate number (GGC-491) on the side of his
tricycle. 37
Still, there were other witnesses 38 presented by the prosecution who
gave details which, when pieced together, corroborated well Rusia's
testimony on what transpired at the Ayala Center all the way to Carcar.
Against the foregoing facts and circumstances, the appellants raised
the defense of alibi, thus:
Larrañaga, through his witnesses, sought to establish that on July 16,
1997, he was in Quezon City taking his mid-term examinations at the Center
for Culinary Arts. In the evening of that day until 3:00 o'clock in the morning
of July 17, 1997, he was with his friends at the R & R Bar and Restaurant,
same city. Fifteen witnesses testified that they were either with Larrañaga or
saw him in Quezon City at the time the crimes were committed. His friends,
Lourdes Montalvan, 39 Charmaine Flores, 40 Richard Antonio, 41 Jheanessa
Fonacier, 42 Maharlika Shulze, 43 Sebastian Seno, 44 Francisco Jarque, 45
Raymond Garcia, 46 Cristina Del Gallego, 47 Mona Lisa Del Gallego, 48 Paolo
Celso 49 and Paolo Manguerra 50 testified that they were with him at the R &
R Bar on the night of July 16, 1997. The celebration was a "despedida" for
him as he was leaving the next day for Cebu and a "bienvenida" for another
friend. Larrañaga's classmate Carmina Esguerra 51 testified that he was in
school on July 16, 1997 taking his mid-term examinations. His teacher
Rowena Bautista, 52 on the other hand, testified that he attended her lecture
in Applied Mathematics. Also, some of his neighbors at the Loyola Heights
Condominium, Quezon City, including the security guard, Salvador Boton,
testified that he was in his condo unit in the evening of July 16, 1997.
Representatives of the four airline companies plying the route of Manila-
Cebu-Manila presented proofs showing that the name Francisco Juan
Larrañaga does not appear in the list of preflight and post-flight manifests
from July 15, 1997 to about noontime of July 17, 1997.
Meanwhile, James Anthony Uy testified that on July 16, 1997, he and
his brother James Andrew were at home in Cebu City because it was their
father's 50th birthday and they were celebrating the occasion with a small
party which ended at 11:30 in the evening. 53 He only left his house the next
day, July 17, 1997 at about 7:00 o'clock in the morning to go to school. 54
The boys' mother, Marlyn Uy, corroborated his testimony and declared that
when she woke up at 2:00 o'clock in the morning to check on her sons, she
found them sleeping in their bedrooms. They went to school the next day at
about 7:00 o'clock in the morning. 55
Clotilde Soterol testified for Alberto and Ariel. She narrated that on July
16, 1997, at around 7:00 o'clock in the evening, Alberto brought the white
Toyota van with Plate No. GGC-491 to her shop to have its aircon repaired.
Alberto was accompanied by his wife Gina Caño, co-appellant Ariel, and
spouses Catalina and Simplicio Paghinayan, owners of the vehicle. Since her
(Clotildes') husband was not yet around, Alberto just left the vehicle and
promised to return the next morning. Her husband arrived at 8:30 in the
evening and started to repair the aircon at 9:00 o'clock of the same evening.
He finished the work at 10:00 o'clock the following morning. At 11:00 o'clock,
Alberto and his wife Gina, Ariel and Catalina returned to the shop to retrieve
the vehicle. 56 Alberto, 57 Gina 58 and Catalina 59 corroborated Clotilde's
testimony.
To lend support to Josman's alibi, Michael Dizon recounted that on July
16, 1997, at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening, he and several friends were
at Josman's house in Cebu. They ate their dinner there and afterwards drank
"Blue Label." They stayed at Josman's house until 11:00 o'clock in the
evening. Thereafter, they proceeded to BAI Disco where they drank beer and
socialized with old friends. They stayed there until 1:30 in the morning of July
17, 1997. Thereafter, they transferred to DTM Bar. They went home together
at about 3:00 o'clock in the morning. Their friend, Jonas Dy Pico, dropped
Josman at his house. 60
Concerning state witness Rusia, on August 7, 1998, when the
prosecution moved that he be discharged as an accused for the purpose of
utilizing him as a state witness, 61 Larrañaga and brothers James Anthony
and James Andrew opposed the motion on the ground that he does not
qualify as a state witness under Section 9, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of
Court on Criminal Procedure. 62 On August 12, 1998, the trial court allowed
the prosecution to present Rusia as its witness but deferred resolving its
motion to discharge until it has completely presented its evidence. 63 On the
same date, the prosecution finished conducting Rusia's direct examination.
64 The defense lawyers cross-examined him on August 13, 17, and 20, 1998.
65 On the last date, Judge Ocampo provisionally terminated the cross-
examination due to the report that there was an attempt to bribe him and
because of his deteriorating health. 66
Resenting the trial court's termination of Rusia's cross-examination, the
defense lawyers moved for the inhibition of Judge Ocampo. 67 When he
informed the defense lawyers that he would not inhibit himself since he
found no "just and valid reasons" therefor, the defense lawyers withdrew en
masse as counsel for the appellants declaring that they would no longer
attend the trial. Judge Ocampo held them guilty of direct contempt of court.
Thus, defense lawyers Raymundo Armovit, Edgar Gica, Fidel Gonzales,
Ramon Teleron, Alfonso de la Cerna and Lorenzo Paylado were ordered
jailed.
In the Order dated August 25, 1998, the trial court denied the motion
for inhibition of the defense lawyers and ordered them to continue
representing their respective clients so that the cases may undergo the
mandatory continuous trial. The trial court likewise denied their motion to
withdraw as appellants' counsel because of their failure to secure a prior
written consent from their clients. On August 26, 1998, appellants filed their
written consent to the withdrawal of their counsel. ASHICc
"SO ORDERED."
"I
''II
"III
"IV
"V
"VI
"I
"II
"III
"IV
"V
"VI
"VII
"VIII
For their part, brothers James Anthony and James Andrew, in their 147-
page appellants' brief, bid for an acquittal on the following grounds:
"The Court cannot help but note the series of legal maneuvers
resorted to and repeated importunings of the accused or his counsel,
which resulted in the protracted trial of the case, thus making a
mockery of the judicial process, not to mention the injustice caused by
the delay to the victim's family."
aSADIC
"What inanity is this that the accused and their lawyers are
foisting upon this Court? In open defiance of the provisions of SC A.O.
No. 104-96 that these heinous crimes cases shall undergo 'mandatory
continuous trial and shall be terminated within sixty (60) days'?"
Still, in its Order dated October 8, 1998, the trial court gave appellants'
new counsel de parte a period until October 12, 1998 to manifest whether
they are refusing to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses concerned; if
so, then the court shall consider them to have waived their right to cross-
examine those witnesses. During the hearing on October 12, 1998,
Larrañaga's new counsel de parte, Atty. Villarmia, manifested that he would
not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses who testified on direct
examination when Larrañaga was assisted by counsel de oficio only. The
next day, the counsel de parte of Josman, and brothers James Anthony and
James Andrew adopted Atty. Villarmia's manifestation. Counsel for Rowen,
Alberto and Ariel likewise refused to cross-examine the same witnesses.
Thus, in its Order dated October 14, 1998, the trial court deemed appellants
to have waived their right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.
It appears, therefore, that if some of the prosecution witnesses were
not subjected to cross-examination, it was not because appellants were not
given the opportunity to do so. The fact remains that their new counsel de
parte refused to cross-examine them. Thus, appellants waived their right "to
confront and cross examine the witnesses" against them.
C. Right to Impartial Trial
Appellants imputes bias and partiality to Judge Ocampo when he asked
questions and made comments when the defense witnesses were testifying.
Canon 14 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics states that a judge may
properly intervene during trial to promote expeditious proceeding, prevent
unnecessary waste of time and dilly-dallying of counsel or clear up
obscurities. The test is whether the intervention of the judge tends to
prevent the proper presentation of a cause or the ascertainment of the truth
in the matter where he interposes his questions or comments.
Records show that the intervention by way of comment of Judge
Ocampo during the hearing was not only appropriate but was necessary.
One good illustration is his explanation on alibi. Seeing that the appellants'
counsel were about to present additional witnesses whose testimonies would
not establish the impossibility of appellants' presence in the scene of the
crime, Judge Ocampo intervened and reminded appellants' counsel of the
requisites of alibi, thus:
"Well, I'm not saying that there is positive identification. I'm only
saying that in proving your alibi you must stick by what the Supreme
Court said that it was impossible if they are telling the truth, di ba?
Now with these other witnesses na hindi naman ganoon to that effect
it does not prove that it was impossible, e, what is the relevance on
that? What is the materiality? Iyon ang point ko. We are wasting our
time with that testimony. Ilang witnesses and epe-present to that
effect. Wala rin namang epekto. It will not prove that it was not
impossible for him to go to Cebu at 10:30 P.M., of July 16, e, papano
yan? We are being criticized by the public already for taking so long a
time of the trial of these cases which is supposed to be finished within
60 days. Now from August, September, October, November, December
and January, magse-six months na, wala pa and you want to present so
many immaterial witnesses."
"Anent the contention that Delia Preagido should not have been
discharged as a state witness because of a 'previous final conviction' of
crimes involving moral turpitude, suffice it to say that 'this Court has
time and again declared that even if the discharged state witness
should lack some of the qualifications enumerated by Section 9, Rule
119 of the Rules of Court, his testimony will not, for that reason alone,
be discarded or disregarded. In the discharge of a co-defendant, the
court may reasonably be expected to err; but such error in discharging
an accused has been held not to be a reversible one. This is upon the
principle that such error of the court does not affect the competency
and the quality of the testimony of the discharged defendant ."
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon
the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have
been made.
The elements of the crime defined in Art. 267 above are: (a) the
accused is a private individual; (b) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any
manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of detention or
kidnapping must be illegal; and (d) in the commission of the offense, any of
the four (4) circumstances mentioned above is present. 130
There is clear and overwhelming evidence that appellants, who are
private individuals, forcibly dragged Marijoy and Jacqueline into the white
car, beat them so they would not be able to resist, and held them captive
against their will. In fact, Jacqueline attempted to free herself twice from the
clutches of appellants — the first was near the Ayala Center and the second
was in Tan-awan, Carcar — but both attempts failed. Marijoy was thrown to a
deep ravine, resulting to her death. Jacqueline, on the other hand, has
remained missing until now.
Article 267 states that if the victim is killed or died as a consequence of
the detention, or is raped or subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the
maximum penalty shall be imposed. In People vs. Ramos, 131 citing Parulan
vs. Rodas , 132 and People vs. Mercado, 133 we held that this provision given
rise to a special complex crime, thus:
The prosecution was able to prove that Marijoy was pushed to a ravine
and died. Both girls were raped by the gang. In committing the crimes,
appellants subjected them to dehumanizing acts. Dehumanization means
deprivation of human qualities, such as compassion. 134 From our review of
the evidence presented, we found the following dehumanizing acts
committed by appellants: (1) Marijoy and Jacqueline were handcuffed and
their mouths mercilessly taped; (2) they were beaten to severe weakness
during their detention; (3) Jacqueline was made to dance amidst the rough
manners and lewd suggestions of the appellants; (4) she was taunted to run
and forcibly dragged to the van; and (5) until now, Jacqueline remains
missing which aggravates the Chiong family's pain. All told, considering that
the victims were raped, that Marijoy was killed and that both victims were
subjected to dehumanizing acts, the imposition of the death penalty on the
appellants is in order.
Thus, we hold that all the appellants are guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with homicide and rape in Criminal Case No. CBU-45303 wherein
Marijoy is the victim; and simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention in
Criminal Case No. CBU-45304 wherein Jacqueline is the victim.
A discussion on the nature of special complex crime is imperative.
Where the law provides a single penalty for two or more component
offenses, the resulting crime is called a special complex crime. Some of the
special complex crimes under the Revised Penal Code are (1) robbery with
homicide, 135 (2) robbery with rape, 136 (3) kidnapping with serious physical
injuries, 137 (4) kidnapping with murder or homicide, 138 and (5) rape with
homicide. 139 In a special complex crime, the prosecution must necessarily
prove each of the component offenses with the same precision that would be
necessary if they were made the subject of separate complaints. As earlier
mentioned, R.A. No. 7659 amended Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code by
adding thereto this provision: "When the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention, or is raped, or is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed; and that this
provision gives rise to a special complex crime. In the cases at bar,
particularly Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, the Information specifically
alleges that the victim Marijoy was raped "on the occasion and in
connection" with her detention and was killed "subsequent thereto and on
the occasion thereof. " Considering that the prosecution was able to prove
each of the component offenses, appellants should be convicted of the
special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
homicide and rape. It appearing from the overwhelming evidence of the
prosecution that there is a "direct relation, and intimate connection" 140
between the kidnapping, killing and raping of Marijoy, rape cannot be
considered merely as an aggravating circumstance but as a component
offense forming part of the herein special complex crime. It bears reiterating
that in People vs. Ramos, 141 and People vs. Mercado, 142 interpreting Article
267, we ruled that "where the person killed in the course of the detention,
regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an
afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be
complexed under Article 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be
punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Article
267." The same principle applies here. The kidnapping and serious illegal
detention can no longer be complexed under Article 48, nor be treated as
separate crime but shall be punished as a special complex crime. At any
rate, the technical designation of the crime is of no consequence in the
imposition of the penalty considering that kidnapping and serious illegal
detention if complexed with either homicide or rape, still, the maximum
penalty of death shall be imposed.
Anent Criminal Case No. CBU-45304 wherein Jacqueline is the victim,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon appellants
considering that the above-mentioned component offenses were not alleged
in the Information as required under Sections 8 and 9, 143 Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Consistent with appellants' right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, these
attendant circumstances or component offenses must be specifically
pleaded or alleged with certainty in the information and proven during the
trial. Otherwise, they cannot give rise to a special complex crime, as in this
case. Hence, the crime committed is only simple kidnapping and serious
illegal detention.
From the evidence of the prosecution, there is no doubt that all the
appellants conspired in the commission of the crimes charged. Their
concerted actions point to their joint purpose and community of intent. Well
settled is the rule that in conspiracy, direct proof of a previous agreement to
commit a crime is not necessary. It may be deduced from the mode and
manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of
the accused themselves when such point to a joint design and community of
interest. 144 Otherwise stated, it may be shown by the conduct of the
accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime. 145
Appellants' actions showed that they have the same objective to kidnap and
detain the Chiong sisters. Rowen and Josman grabbed Marijoy and Jacqueline
from the vicinity of Ayala Center. Larrañaga, James Andrew and James
Anthony who were riding a red car served as back-up of Rowen and Josman.
Together in a convoy, they proceeded to Fuente Osmeña to hire a van, and
thereafter, to the safehouse of the "Jozman Aznar Group" in Guadalupe, Cebu
where they initially molested Marijoy and Jacqueline. They headed to the
South Bus Terminal where they hired the white van driven by Alberto, with
Ariel as the conductor. Except for James Andrew who drove the white car, all
appellants boarded the white van where they held Marijoy and Jacqueline
captive. In the van, James Anthony taped their mouths and Rowen
handcuffed them together. They drank and had a pot session at Tan-awan.
They encircled Jacqueline and ordered her to dance, pushing her and ripping
her clothes in the process. Meanwhile, Larrañaga raped Marijoy, followed by
Rowen, James Anthony, Alberto, and Ariel. On other hand, Josman and James
Andrew raped Jacqueline. Upon Josman's order, Rowen and Ariel led Marijoy
to the cliff and pushed her. After leaving Tan-awan, they taunted Jacqueline
to run for her life. And when Rusia got off from the van near Ayala Center,
the appellants jointly headed back to Cebu City.
Clearly, the argument of Rowen, Ariel and Alberto that they were not
part of the "conspiracy" as they were merely present during the perpetration
of the crimes charged but not participants therein, is bereft of merit. To hold
an accused guilty as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown
to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the
complicity. 146 There must be intentional participation in the transaction with
a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. 147
Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a
particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses
incident to and growing out of the purpose intended. 148 As shown by the
evidence for the prosecution, Rowen, Ariel and Alberto were not merely
present at the scene of the crime.
Indeed, all appellants, except James Anthony who was 16 years old
when the crimes charged were committed, share the same degree of
responsibility for their criminal acts. Under Article 68 149 of the Revised Penal
Code, the imposable penalty on James Anthony, by reason of his minority, is
one degree lower than the statutory penalty. This means that he stands to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. CBU-45303 and
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, in Criminal Case No. CBU-45304. The penalty for the special
complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and
rape, being death, one degree lower therefrom is reclusion perpetua. 150 On
the other hand, the penalty for simple kidnapping and serious illegal
detention is reclusion perpetua to death. One degree lower from the said
penalty is reclusion temporal. 151 There being no aggravating and mitigating
circumstance, the penalty to be imposed on James Anthony is reclusion
temporal in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he
should be 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. 152
As for the rest of the appellants, the foregoing established facts call for
the imposition on them of the death penalty in Criminal Case No. CBU-45303
and reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. CBU-45304. It is therefore clear
that the trial court erred in merely imposing "two (2) Reclusiones Perpetua ,"
rationalizing that justice must be tempered with mercy. We must be
reminded that justice is not ours to give according to our sentiments or
emotions. It is in the law which we must faithfully implement.
At times we may show compassion and mercy but not at the expense
of the broader interest of fair play and justice. While we also find it difficult to
mete out the penalty of death especially on young men who could have led
productive and promising lives if only they were given enough guidance,
however, we can never go against what is laid down in our statute books and
established jurisprudence.
In keeping with the current jurisprudence, the heirs of Marijoy and
Jacqueline are entitled to the amount of P100,000.00 in each case by way of
civil indemnity ex delicto. 153 As regards the actual damages, it appears that
the award of P200,000.00 is not supported by evidence. To be entitled to
actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a
reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the
best evidence obtainable to the injured party. 154 Thus, in light of the recent
case of People vs. Abrazaldo, 155 we grant the award of P25,000.00 as
temperate damages in each case, in lieu of actual damages. There being
proofs that the victims' heirs suffered wounded feelings, mental anguish,
anxiety and similar injury, we award an equitable amount of P150,000.00 as
moral damages, also in each case. Exemplary damages is pegged at
P100,000.00 in each case 156 to serve as a deterrent to serious wrongdoings
and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of
the victims and as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Cebu
City in Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-45303 and 45304 is AFFIRMED with the
following MODIFICATIONS:
(1)Â In Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, appellants FRANCISCO JUAN
LARRAÑAGA alias "PACO;" JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias
"WESLEY;" ALBERTO CAÑO alias "ALLAN PAHAK;" ARIEL BALANSAG; and
JAMES ANDREW UY alias "MM," are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
homicide and rape and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH by
lethal injection;
(2)Â In Criminal Case No. CBU-45304, appellants FRANCISCO JUAN
LARRAÑAGA alias "PACO;" JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias
"WESLEY;" ALBERTO CAÑO alias "ALLAN PAHAK;" ARIEL BALANSAG; and
JAMES ANDREW UY alias "MM," are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention and are sentenced to suffer
the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA;
(3)Â In Criminal Case No. CBU-45303, appellant JAMES ANTHONY UY,
who was a minor at the time the crime was committed, is likewise found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt 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; in Criminal Case
No. CBU-45304, 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.
(4)Â Appellants are ordered to pay jointly and severally the heirs of
Marijoy and Jacqueline, in each case, the amounts of (a) P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity, (b) P25,000.00 as temperate damages, (c) P150,000.00 as moral
damages, and (d) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Three (3) Justices of the Court maintain their position that RA 7659 is
unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless,
they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and the
death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.
In accordance with Article 83 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended
by Section 25 of RA No. 7659, upon the finality of this Decision let the
records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for
the possible exercise of Her Excellency's pardoning power. aCcHEI
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-
Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr. and
Tinga, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., took no part, related by affinity to the victim.
Azcuna, J., took no part, on official leave.
Â
Footnotes
2. It was on September 17, 1997 when the two original Informations for
kidnapping and serious illegal detention were filed against Davidson Rusia
and all the appellants. (Records, Vol. I at 1 and 1-A) docketed as CBU-45303
and CBU-45304, the two Informations were amended four times. Appellant
Francisco Juan Larrañaga, Jozman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Caño , and
Ariel Balansag were the first ones to be named in the two original
Informations. (Records, Vol. I at 1-4) Davidson Rusia was identified as Tisoy
Tagalog in both the original and the first two amended Informations,
(Records, Vol. I at 1-4, 87, 90-A, 187 and 191), as David Florido in the third
(Records, Vol. I at 462 and 478) and by his real name in the Fourth Amended
Information. (Records, Vol. I at 518 and 531) Brothers James Anthony and
James Andrew, both surnamed Uy, were impleaded as additional accused.
(Records, Vol. I at 518 and 531).
5. Davidson Rusia and brothers James Andrew and James Anthony Uy were
arraigned on June 19, 1998 (Records, Vol. I at 562); Josman Aznar, Rowen
Adlawan, Alberto Caño, and Ariel Balansag were arraigned on October 14,
1997 (Records, Vol. I at 207).
6. Larrañaga was arraigned on July 16, 1998. (Records, Vol. I at 684)
7. Rusia testified on August 12, 13, 17 and 20, 1998 and on October 1, 5, 6 and
12, 1998.
8. They were Sheila Singson, Analie Konahap, Rolando Dacillo, Williard Redobles,
Benjamin Molina, Miguel Vergara, Mario Minoza, Manuel Camingao, Alfredo
Duarte, Rosendo Rio, Arturo Unabia, Manuel Rodriguez, Dionisio Enad, SPO1
Alexis Elpusan, P/Ins. Edgardo Lenizo, Dr. Nestor Sator, Jude Daniel Mendoza,
Thelma Chiong, SPO3 Ramon Ortiz Camilo Canoy, Neptali Cabanos, and P/Ins.
Leodegardo Acebedo.
13. TSN, August 18, 1998 at 62; August 19, 1998 at 57 and 60.
37. TSN, September 16, 1998, at 26-35. Manuel Camingao was the Chief of the
Barangay Tanod of Poblacion I, Carcar, Cebu. He intended to report the
presence of the white van at the Tan-awan cliff thinking that if it threw
garbage again, it could easily be intercepted.
38. Rosendo Rio, Benjamin Molina and Miguel Vergara testified on September 14
and 15, 1998.
72. Bzdzuich vs. U.S. Drug Enforcement Admin., 76 F 3d 738, 1996 FED App. 59P
(6th Cir. 1996).
74. People vs. Macagaling, G.R. Nos. 109131-33, October 3, 1994, 237 SCRA 299.
75. The 1987 Constitution Art. III, Sec. 12(1) "Any person under investigation for
the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right
to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably
of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the service of counsel, he must
be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel." (Emphasis supplied)
76. Amion vs. Chiongson, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1371, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 614.
77. People vs. Barasina , G.R. No. 109993, January 21, 1994, 229 SCRA 450.
78. People vs. Mallari, G.R. No. 94299, August 21, 1992, 212 SCRA 777.
79. 23 C.J.S. §979[5], citing MacKenna vs. Ellis , C.A. Tex, 263 F. 2d 35; Ball vs.
State, 42 So. 2d 626, 252 Ala. 686, 70 S Ct. 625, 339 U.S. 929, 94 L. Ed 1350;
People vs. Chessman , 341 P. 2d 679, 52 C 2d 467, 80 S Ct. 296, 361 U.S.
925, 4 L. Ed 2d, 241; Neufield vs. U.S., 118 F 2d 375, 73 App. D.C. 174;
Ruben vs. U.S., 62 S Ct. 580, 315 U.S. 798, 86 L. Ed 1199; Stanfield vs. State,
212 S.W. 2d 516, 152 Tex. Cr. 324.
80. 23 C.J.S. §979 (5); People vs. Mullane , App., 6 Cal. Rptr. 341; Commonwealth
vs. Novak, 150 A. 2d 102, 395 Pa. 199; Commonwealth vs. De Marco, 163 A
2d. 700, 193 Pa. Super. 16.
81. 23 C.J.S. §979 (5), citing Zucker vs. People , 2 Cal. Rptr. 112 — People vs.
Adamson, 210 P. 2d 13, 34 C. 2d 320.
82. State vs. Longo, 41 A 2d 317, 132 N.J. law 515, affirmed 44 A 2d 349, 133 N.J.
Law 301.
83. People vs. Guber , 113 N.Y.S. 2d 192, 201 Misc. 852, affirmed 150 N.Y.S. 2d
543, 1 A.D. 2d 876.
84. 23 C.J.S. §979[7], citing Polito v. State , 282 p 2d 801, 71 Nev. 135;
Commonwealth vs. Novak, Quar. Sess., 45 Del Co. 45 — Commonwealth vs.
Helwig, Quar Sess., 39 Erie Co. 140.
85. (a) Petition for Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (C.A. G.R. SP. No.
48733) filed on August 25, 1998 by Attys. Rafael Armovit, Ramon Teleron,
Edgar Gica, Lorenzo Paylado, and Fidel Gonzales. (Records at 878-892)
 (b) Petition-in-intervention to C.A. G.R. SP. No. 48733 dated August 26, 1998,
filed by Attys. Ramon Teleron and Lorenzo Paylado. (Records at 849-863)
 (f) Motion for Prompt Resolution in C.A. G.R. SP. No. 48738 ( Certiorari,
Prohibition and Mandamus) dated September 9, 1998. Filed by the Law Firm
of Atty. Raymundo Armovit. (Records at 1072-1077)
 (g) Urgent Motion to Admit in C.A. G.R. SP. No. 48733 dated September 18,
1998 by Atty. Rafael Armovit. (Records at 1105-1106)
 (h) Motion to Strike Out (C.A. G.R. SP. No. 48733) dated September 18, 1998 by
Atty. Rafael Armovit. (Records at 1109-1112)
 (i) Complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator dated August 28,
1998, filed by Attys. Edgar Gica, Fidel Gonzales, Rafael Armovit, Ramon
Teleron and Lorenzo Paylado.
86. G.R. No. 100359, May 20, 1994, 232 SCRA 435.
87. See Orcino vs. Gaspar, Adm. Case No. 3773, September 24, 1997, 279 SCRA
379; see also Wack-Wack Golf and Country Club, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals ,
106 Phil. 501 (1959).
88. Ledesma vs. Climaco, G.R. No. L-23815, June 28, 1974, 57 SCRA 473.
90. 98 C.J.S. § 404, citing State vs. Stone, 36 S.E. 2d 704, 226 N.C. 97.
91. 98 C.J.S. § 402, citing State vs. Howard, 14 S.E. 481, 35 S.C. 197.
93. G.R. No. L-51513, May 15, 1984, 129 SCRA 233.
95. U.S. vs. Siden, D.C. Minn ., 293 F. 422; Doss vs. State, 139 So. 290, 224 Ala.
90; Ball vs. Commonwealth , 16 S.W. 2d 793, 229 Ky. 139; State vs. Brodt,
185 N.W. 645, 150 Minn. 431.
97. TSN, January 11, 1999 at 54; TSN, January 13, 1999 at 59-62.
98. TSN, January 12, 1999 at 82-83.
99. TSN, January 14, 1999 at 77; TSN, January 5, 1999 at 43-44.
100. TSN, January 14, 1999 at 3-4; TSN, January 13, 1999 at 59.
102. People vs. Knocke , 270 P 468, 94 C.A. 55; York vs. State , 156 S.E. 733, 42
Ga., App. 453; State vs. Barnes, 29 S.W. 2d 156, 325 Mo. 545; State vs. Boyd,
119 S.E. 839, 126 S.C. 300.
103. People vs. Malabago , G.R. No. 115686, December 2, 1996, 265 SCRA 198.
104. Titus Fabian of Philippine Air Lines; Jesus Trinidad of Grand Air; Ivy Ortega of
Cebu Pacific and Rommel Gonzales of Air Philippines.
105. 16A C.J.S. §589, citing Chaplinsky vs. State of New Hampshire, 62 S. Ct.
766, 315 U.S. 568, 86 L. Ed. 1031; U.S. vs. Butler, C.C.A. Okl., 156 F. 2d 897.
106. 23 C.J.S. § 1030, citing Cotney vs. State, 26 So. 2d 603, 248 Ala. 1; State vs.
Quinn, 69 A. 349, 80 Conn. 546; Fairbanks vs. U.S ., 226 F 2d 251, 96 U.S.
App. D.C. 345.
107. Factoran, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 93540, December 13, 1999, 320
SCRA 530; Navarro III vs. Damasco, G.R. No. 101875, July 14, 1995, 246
SCRA 260; Roces vs. Aportadera , Admin. Case No. 2936, March 31, 1995,
243 SCRA 108.
108. See Mangubat vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. L-60613-20, August 29, 1986,
143 SCRA 681 and People vs. De Guzman , G.R. No. 118670, February 22,
2000, 326 SCRA 131, citing People vs. Jamero, 24 SCRA 206 (1968).
109. Supra.
110. Supra.
112. People vs. Sacabin , G.R. No. L-36638, June 28, 1974, 57 SCRA 707; People
vs. Demeterio, G.R. No. L-48255, September 30, 1983, 124 SCRA 914.
114. People vs. De los Reyes , G.R. No. 44112, October 22, 1992, 215 SCRA 63,
74-75; Bogo-Medellin Milling Co., Inc. vs. Son, G.R. No. 80268, May 27, 1992,
209 SCRA 329.
115. People vs. Belga, G.R. Nos. 94376-77, July 11, 1996, 258 SCRA 583.
116. People vs. Azugue , G.R. No. 110098, February 26, 1997, 268 SCRA 711.
117. People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R No. 108180, February 8, 1994, 229 SCRA 754.
123. G.R. No. 103800, January 19, 1995, 240 SCRA 267.
124. People vs. Sugano , G.R. No. 127574, July 20, 1999, 310 SCRA 728; People
vs. Pelen , G.R. No. 131827, September 3, 1999, 313 SCRA 683; People vs.
Mosqueda, G.R. Nos. 131830-34, September 3, 1999, 313 SCRA 694; People
vs. Francisco , G.R. No. 110873, September 23, 1999, 315 SCRA 114; People
vs. Fajardo , G.R. Nos. 105954-55, September 28, 1999, 315 SCRA 283; and
People vs. Rabang, Jr., G.R. No. 105374, September 29, 1999, 315 SCRA 451.
125. Inspector Lenizo finished Law and Criminology. He worked for the crime
laboratory of the Philippine National Police where he was trained in
fingerprint examination and where he conducted around 500 fingerprint
examinations, 30 of which involved dead persons. At the time he testified,
Inspector Lenizo was head of the Fingerprint Identification Branch of the PNP
Crime Laboratory, Region 7.
128. TSN, August 18, 1998 at 62; August 19, 1998 at 115; September 23, 1998 at
13, 20.
129. TSN, August 18, 1998 at 62; August 19, 1998 at 57, 60.
130. People vs. Salimbago, G.R. No. 121365, September 14, 1999, 314 SCRA 282.
131. G.R. No. 118570, October 12, 1998, 297 SCRA 618.
133. G.R. No. 116239, November 29, 2000, 346 SCRA 256.
140. People vs. Adriano , G.R. Nos. L-25975-77, January 22, 1980.
141. Supra.
142. Supra.
143. Sec. 8. Designation of the offense — The complaint or information shall state
the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or
omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be
made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
144. People vs. Pulusan , G.R. No. 110037, May 21, 1998, 290 SCRA 353.
146. People vs. Elijorde , G.R. No. 135531, April 21, 1999, 306 SCRA 188.
147. People vs. Del Rosario , G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999, 305 SCRA 740.
148. People vs. Bisda , G.R. No. 140895, July 17, 2003.
149. ART. 68. — Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of
age. — When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is
one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of article
80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed:
  2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty
next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the
proper period.
150. Article 61, par. 1 in relation to Article 71, Scale No. 1 of the Revised Penal
Code.
151. Article 61, par. 2 in relation to Article 71, Scale No. 1 of the Revised Penal
Code.
152. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book I, 2001 Ed. at 780.
153. People vs. Manguerra , G.R. No. 139906, March 5, 2003; People vs. Payot ,
G.R. No. 119352, June 8, 1999, 308 SCRA 43.
154. People vs. Acosta , G.R. No. 140386, November 29, 2001, 371 SCRA 181;
People vs. Suelto , 381 Phil. 351 (2000); People vs. Samolde , G.R. No.
128551, July 31, 2000, 336 SCRA 632.
156. People vs. Bisda, supra ; People vs. Hamton , G.R. Nos. 134823-25, January
14, 2003; People vs. Deang , G.R. No. 128045, August 24, 2000, 338 SCRA
657.
  In People vs. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001, 363 SCRA 621, it was
ruled that although the attendance of the "qualifying or aggravating
circumstance" was not alleged in the Information as required by Sections 8
and 9 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, "the retroactive
application of procedural rules, nevertheless, cannot adversely affect the
rights of the private offended party that have become vested prior to the
effectivity of said rules. Thus, in the case at bar, although relationship has
not been alleged in the information, the offense having been committed,
however, prior to the effectivity of the new rules, the civil liability already
incurred by appellant remains unaffected thereby."