Today is Thursday, August 23, 2018

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

EN BANC

SLEY"; ALBERTO CAÑO alias "ALLAN PAHAK"; ARIEL BALANSAG, DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA alias "TISOY TAGALOG";

RESOLUTION

a, (2)Josman Aznar, (3) Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Caño and Ariel Balansag, and (4) James Anthony Uy and James Andrew Uy, assa
ositive portion of which reads:

BU-45303 and 45304 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

MAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias ‘WESLEY;’ ALBERTO CAÑO alias ‘ALLAN PAHAK;’ ARIEL BALANSAG; and JAMES AN
of DEATH by lethal injection;

MAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias ‘WESLEY;’ ALBERTO CAÑO alias ‘ALLAN PAHAK;’ ARIEL BALANSAG; and JAMES AN

crime was committed, is likewise found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illega
egal detention and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of TWELVE (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period, as MINIMUM, to

the amounts of (a) ₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity, (b) ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages, (c) ₱150,000.00 as moral damages, and (

ibes the death penalty; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and the death penalty can

pon the finality of this Decision, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for the possible exerc

A. LARRAÑAGA
 "I

D IN BARRING LARRAÑAGA AND THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (NBI) REGIONAL DIRECTOR FLORENCIO VIL

II

THE POLICE PLANTED EVIDENCE ON APPELLANTS;

III

LARRAÑAGA SUFFICIENTLY PROVED HIS ALIBI;

IV

THE TRIAL COURT PREVENTED THE INTRODUCTION OF KEY DEFENSE EVIDENCE;

THE CORPSE FOUND IN THE RAVINE WAS NOT THAT OF MARIJOY; AND

VI

PROSECUTION WITNESS RUSIA WAS A COACHED WITNESS." 1

B. AZNAR

"I

BLE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED TO DUE PROC

II

D IN (A) DISCHARGING DAVID RUSSIA AS STATE WITNESS; AND (B) CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS MAINLY ON THE BASIS

III

THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN REJECTING THE DEFENSE OF APPELLANT AZNAR.

IV

THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY ON THE APPELLANTS." 2

C. ADLAWAN, BALANSAG, CAÑO

"I

SIA IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE A STATE WITNESS UNDER PARAGRAPHS (D) AND (E), SECTION 17 OF THE REVISED RULES

II
 STIMONY AND THAT OF THE OTHER PROSECUTION WITNESSES WERE INCREDIBLE, INCONSISTENT, AND UNWORTHY

III

CE AGAINST THE DEFENSE WERE GLARINGLY DISPLAYED BY THE COURT A QUO WHICH GREATLY AFFECTED THE OUTC

IV

GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOU

D. JAMES ANDREW AND JAMES ANTHONY UY

"I

WAS, LIKE HIS YOUNGER BROTHER JAMES ANTHONY S. UY, A MINOR AT THE TIME THE OFFENSES AT BAR ALLEGEDLY

II

MAN FOUND IN TAN-AWAN, CARCAR, CEBU LAST JULY 18, 1997 WAS NEVER CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THUS THE NE

udy of Dr. Racquel Del Rosario-Fortun, Forensic Pathologist, to show that the examination conducted by the prosecution expert witn

ebruary 27, 2004 of Atty. Florencio Villarin, Regional Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, Central Visayas, to show that: (1
David Rusia is not a credible witness.

or reconsideration be denied with finality, there being no new argument raised. He responded to appellants’ assignments of errors by

numerated the grounds why Atty. Villarin’s Affidavit should not be given consideration. On February 15, 2005, Aznar filed a reply alle

e was no evidence against him. On March 4, 2005, the Solicitor General filed a rejoinder stating that Aznar’s reply "actually supports t
all for new trial on the basis of such Affidavit." On March 29, 2005, Aznar filed a sur-rejoinder insisting that the Affidavit should be give

e find all the motions bereft of merit.

s the obligation to discuss and rule again on the grounds relied upon by the movant which are mere reiteration of the issues previousl
riably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advance

año and Balansag, it being apparent that the points raised therein are not neoteric matters demanding new judicial determination. Th

once more our basis in convicting appellants.

y of other defense witnesses; and

y of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense are weighed, thus, averting general conclusions from isolated p

, owing to his tainted record and reputation. However, it must be stressed that Rusia’s testimony was not viewed in isolation. In
he trial court’s findings.

striking compatibility with the physical evidence. Physical evidence is one of the highest degrees of proof. It speaks more eloquently

he details he supplied to the trial court are of such nature and quality that only a witness who actually saw the commission of the crim
empts to escape from appellants near Ayala Center. Benjamin Molina and Miguel Vergara recognized Rowen as the person who in
by Caño, was waiting on the side of the road and he heard voices of "quarreling male and female" emanating from the van. And lastly
Now, with such strong anchorage on the physical evidence and the testimonies of disinterested witnesses, why should we not accord
ented by the prosecution.

II

led is the rule that the defense of alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who te
dence.12 On top of its inherent weakness, alibi becomes less plausible as a defense when it is corroborated only by relatives or close

witnesses who were either their relatives, friends or classmates, while on the other end is the positive identification of the herein appe

meet the requirements of alibi, i.e., the requirements of time and place.14 They failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence tha
nd James Andrew were all within the vicinity of Cebu City on July 16, 1997.

ty. During the hearing, it was shown that it takes only one (1) hour to travel by plane from Manila to Cebu and that there are four (4) a
y on July 16, 1997 was proved to be not only a possibility but a reality. Four (4) witnesses identified Larrañaga as one of the two
at the West Entry of Ayala Center. The incident reminded her of Jacqueline’s prior story that he was Marijoy’s admirer. Shiela conf
queline talking to two (2) men at the West Entry of Ayala Center. She recognized the two (2) men as Larrañaga and Josman, hav
g testimonies of Shiela and Analie. In addition, Rosendo Rio, a businessman from Cogon, Carcar, declared that he saw Larrañaga a
inis.

that Larrañaga was indeed in Cebu City at the time of the commission of the crimes and was one of the principal perpetrators thereof

complained of pruriently assaulting young female students in Cebu. Months before the abduction of Marijoy and Jackie, the parents
ng his impudence. We quote a portion of the transcript of stenographic notes dated September 23, 1998, thus:

d September 25, 1996, addressed to the Student Affairs Office, University of San Carlos,P. del Rosario Street, Cebu City, and this i

rsity of San Carlos-Girls High School, are writing your good office about an untoward incident involving our daughter and a
neth Mondejar, while on their way to get a ride home near the school campus, a black Honda Civic with five young male teen
, grabbed Rochelle by her hand to try to get Rochelle to their vehicle. She resisted and got away from him. Sensing some pe

that she is not supposed to experience in her young life. It is very hard for us parents to think about what she’d been throug

e of securing an acquittal.

III

and Atty. Florencio Villarin, NBI, Regional Director, as defense witnesses. Professor Bailen was properly excluded. First, he is not a
fore the trial court, suffice it to say that his belated Affidavit, which Aznar submitted via his supplemental motion for reconsideration d
nd for that, he deserves a promotion. The trial court, at the onset, must have seen such immateriality in his intended testimony. Indee

Carcar ravine was that of Marijoy. This assertion immediately conflicts with accused-appellant Aznar’s claim in his Motion for Recons

ga was a suspect in the subject crimes. Evidently, this statement completely supports this Honorable Court’s findings in its Decision d

major breakthrough in the investigation of the case because witnesses came out and identified Juzman Aznar as one of thos
killing.

. Labra] for preempting our next move to get Juzman Aznar as we were already placing him under surveillance because I kn

s. Thelma Chiong, mother of the victims, and the purportedly undue promotions of the lawyers and police officers who unearthed the
the promotion.

on. Whether he ought to testify or not was an argument openly discussed in court. Hence, for the resulting inability, Atty. Villarin has n

accused-appellants of the crimes they have been convicted. For he did not finish the police investigation of the subject crimes; this is
and rejected heretofore, except his own unsubstantiated opinions (i.e. not facts as required by evidentiary rules), his self-co

ucted on the body found in Tan-awan, Carcar is inadequate. Such study cannot be classified as newly-discovered evidence warrantin

IV

o destroy it by claiming that the body found at the foot of a deep ravine in Tan-awan, Carcar was not that of Marijoy. We must reitera
ging tape and the handcuff found on the dead body were the same items placed on Marijoy and Jacqueline while they were being de
arijoy22 which they eventually buried. They erected commemorative markers at the ravine, cemetery and every place which mattered
es who had lost someone of similar age and gender as Marijoy would have surfaced and claimed the body. The above circumstances
 o hundred sixty two (262) days old at the time the crimes were committed, the records bear that on March 1, 1999, James Andrew’s
a Manifestation of Erratum correcting in part the Formal Offer of Additional Evidence by alleging that James Andrew was only sevente

Certificate of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics Office, and (2) Baptismal Certificate. He prays that his penalty be reduced, a

to determine the veracity of his claim. However, considering that minority is a significant factor in the imposition of penalty, we find it p
ereafter, (b) to file an extensive comment on the motion for reconsideration filed by James Andrew and James Anthony Uy, solely on

is motion which warrants a reconsideration of our Decision.

d specie of evidence presented before the trial court in response to appellants’ plea for the reversal of their conviction. But, even the
e verdict of the trial court, in light of appellants’ clear culpability which demands retribution.

znar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Caño and Ariel Balansag are hereby DENIED. The Solicitor General is DIRECTED (a) to secure from
mment on the motion for reconsideration filed by James Andrew and James Anthony Uy, solely on James Andrews’ claim of minority.
 CERTIFICATION

that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was ass

416 and 94312, July 5, 1999;. People v. Bermas, G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94312, July 5, 1999, 309 SCRA 741; People v. Sacabin, G.R.

ayo, G.R. No. 139456. July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 562.

he Philippine National Police where he was trained in finger-print examination and where he conducted around 500 finger-print exam