Topic: Requisites for admissibility of Object Evidence of July 17, 1997.

of July 17, 1997. All these bits and pieces of story form part of Rusia’s
CASE NO. 7
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias "PACO;" JOSMAN AZNAR;
ROWEN ADLAWAN alias "WESLEY;" ALBERT CAÑO alias "ALLAN
PAHAK;" ARIEL BALANSAG; DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA alias
'TISOY TAGALOG;" JAMES ANTHONY UY alias "WANGWANG;" and
JAMES ANDREW UY alias "MM," Appellants.
narration. Now, with such strong anchorage on the physical
evidence and the testimonies of disinterested witnesses, why
should we not accord credence to Rusia’s testimony? Even assuming
that his testimony standing alone might indeed be unworthy of belief
in view of his character, it is not so when considered with the other
evidence presented by the prosecution.
Per curiam decision
FACTS:

Evidence; Physical evidence is one of the highest degrees of proof— On August 12, 1998, Rusia testified before the trial court how the
it speaks more eloquently than all witnesses put together.—We crimes were committed and identified all the appellants as the
reiterate our pronouncement in our Decision that what makes Rusia’s perpetrators.
testimony worthy of belief is its striking compatibility with the
On July 15, 1997, while Rusia was loafing around at the Cebu Plaza
physical evidence. Physical evidence is one of the highest degrees of
Hotel, Cebu City, Rowen approached him and arranged that they
proof. It speaks more eloquently than all witnesses put together. The
meet the following day at around 2:00PM. When they saw each other
presence of Marijoy’s ravished body in a deep ravine at Tan-awan,
the next day, Rowen told him to stay put at the Ayala Mall because
Carcar with tape on her mouth and handcuffs on her wrists certainly
they would have a "big happening" in the evening. All the while, he
bolstered Rusia’s testimony on what actually took place from Ayala
thought that Rowen's "big happening" meant group partying. He thus
Center to Tan-awan. Indeed, the details he supplied to the trial court
lingered at the Ayala Mall until the appointed time came.
are of such nature and quality that only a witness who actually saw
the commission of the crimes could furnish. Reinforcing his testimony
On the night of July 16, 1997, victims Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong
is its corroboration by several other witnesses who saw incidents of
failed to come home on the expected time. Two days after, a young
what he narrated. Dacillo and Minoza witnessed Jacqueline’s two
woman was found dead at the foot of a cliff. Her pants were torn, her
failed attempts to escape from appellants near Ayala Center. Molina
t-shirt was raised up to her breast and her bra was pulled down. Her
and Vergara recognized Rowen as the person who inquired from
face and neck were covered with masking tape and attached to her
them where he could find a vehicle for hire on the evening of July 16,
left wrist was a handcuff. The woman was identified as Marijoy. After
1997. Duarte saw Rowen when he bought barbeque and Tanduay at
almost ten months, accused Davidson Rusia surfaced and admitted
a Store while the white van, driven by Cañ o, was waiting on the side
before the police having participated in the abduction of the sisters.
of the road and he heard voices of “quarreling male and female”
He identified appellants Larrañaga,Aznar,Adlawan,Caño,Balansag,
emanating from the van. And lastly,Camingao and Rio testified on
and the Uy brothers as co-perpetrators in the crime. Rusia provided
the presence of Larrañ aga and Josman at Tan-awan, Carcar at dawn
the following before the trial court:

That at 10:30 in the evening of July 16, 1997, he met Rowen and
Josman and told him to ride with them in a white car. Following them
were Larrañaga, and the Uy’s who were in a red car. Josman stopped
the white car in front of the waiting shed where the sisters Marijoy
and Jacqueline were standing and forced them to ride the car. Rusia
taped their mouths while Adlawan handcuffed them jointly. That
after stopping by a safe house, the group thereafter headed to the
South Bus Terminal where they met Alberto and Ariel, and hired the
white van driven by the former. They traveled towards south of Cebu
City, leaving the red car at the South Bus Terminal. That after parking
their vehicles near a precipice, 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.
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 which was almost 150 meters
deep.
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. Adlawan beat her until she
passed out. The group then headed back to Cebu City with James
Andrew Uy driving the white car. Rusia got off from the van
somewhere near the Ayala Center.
The claims of Rusia were supported by other witnesses. He was
discharged as an accused and became a state witness. Still, the body
of Jacqueline was never found. On the other hand Larranaga
contends that he’s in Quezon City at the time of the commission of
the crime.
Additional facts that may be related to the topic 
On March 23, 2004, the Uy brothers (both minors at the time of
commission of the crime) filed a motion for reconsideration
One of the grounds raised was THE IDENTITY OF THE DEAD BODY OF
THE WOMAN FOUND IN TAN-AWAN, CARCAR, CEBU LAST JULY 18,
1997 WAS NEVER CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THUS THE NEED FOR
ITS EXHUMATION FOR DNA TESTING.
Thus, in a Resolution dated July 21, 2005, we denied all the motions,
including what was mentioned above. However, left unresolved is the
issue of James Andrew’s minority.
The Solicitor General is DIRECTED (a) to secure from the Local Civil
Registrar of Cotobato City, as well as the National Statistics Office, a
clear and legible copy of James Andrew’s Birth Certificate, and (b)
within ten (10) days therefrom, to file an extensive comment on the
motion for reconsideration filed by James Andrew and James
Anthony Uy, solely on James Andrews’ claim of minority.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not there is credence to Rusia’s testimony;
2. Whether or not the court properly reject the appellants’ alibi
that it is impossible for him to be in Cebu (NOTE: Something
improbable can happen is always possible. PPL V Madera)
(3-4) Whether or not the court erred in holding that the trial court
did not violate their right to due process when it excluded the
testimony of other defense witnesses; and , in holding that the body
found in Tan-awan, Carcar was not that of Marijoy.
HELD:
In deciding a criminal case, the policy of the courts is always to look
at the case in its entirety. The totality of the evidence presented by
both the prosecution and the defense are weighed, thus, averting
general conclusions from isolated pieces of evidence. This means
that an appeal of a criminal case opens its entire records for review.
1.Appellants vigorously contend that we should not have sustained
Rusia’s testimony hook, line and sinker, owing to his tainted record
and reputation. However, it must be stressed that Rusia’s testimony
was not viewed in isolation. In giving credence to Rusia’s testimony,
the trial court took into consideration the physical evidence and the
corroborative testimonies of other witnesses. Thus, we find no
reason why we should not uphold the trial court’s findings. We
reiterate our pronouncement in our Decision that what makes
Rusia’s testimony worthy of belief is its striking compatibility with
the physical evidence. Physical evidence is one of the highest
degrees of proof. It speaks more eloquently than all witnesses put
together. The presence of Marijoy’s ravished body in a deep ravine
at Tan-awan, Carcar with tape on her mouth and handcuffs on her
wrists certainly bolstered Rusia’s testimony on what actually took
place from Ayala Center to Tan-awan. Indeed, the details he
supplied to the trial court are of such nature and quality that only a
witness who actually saw the commission of the crimes could
furnish. Reinforcing his testimony is its corroboration by several
other witnesses who saw incidents of what he narrated. Rolando
Dacillo and Mario Minoza witnessed Jacqueline’s two failed
attempts to escape from appellants near Ayala Center. Benjamin
Molina and Miguel Vergara recognized Rowen as the person who
inquired from them where he could find a vehicle for hire on the
evening of July 16, 1997. Alfredo Duarte saw Rowen when he
bought barbeque and Tanduay at Nene’s Store while the white van,
driven by Cañ o, was waiting on the side of the road and he heard
voices of “quarreling male and female” emanating from the van.
And lastly, Manuel Camingao and Rosendo Rio testified on the
presence of Larrañ aga and Josman at Tan-awan, Carcar at dawn of
July 17, 1997. All these bits and pieces of story form part of Rusia’s
narration. Now, with such strong anchorage on the physical
evidence and the testimonies of disinterested witnesses, why
should we not accord credence to Rusia’s testimony? Even assuming
that his testimony standing alone might indeed be unworthy of
belief in view of his character, it is not so when considered with the
other evidence presented by the prosecution.
2. Appellants likewise claimed that we should have not sustained
the trial court’s rejection of their alibi. Settled is the rule that the
defense of alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in the light of
positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on
affirmative matters. Being evidence that is negative in nature and
self-serving, it cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence.
On top of its inherent weakness, alibi becomes less plausible as a
defense when it is corroborated only by relatives or close friends of
the accused.
This case presents to us a balance scale whereby perched on one
end is appellants’ alibi supported by witnesses who were either
their relatives, friends or classmates, while on the other end is the
positive identification of the herein appellants by the prosecution
witnesses who were not, in any way, related to the victims. With the
above jurisprudence as guide, we are certain that the balance must
tilt in favor of the latter. Besides, a thorough examination of the
evidence for the prosecution shows that the appellants failed to
meet the requirements of alibi, i.e., the requirements of time and
place. They failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence
that it was physically impossible for them to be at the Ayala
Center, Cebu City when the Chiong sisters were abducted.
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)
airline companies plying the route. One of the defense witnesses
admitted that there are several flights from Manila to Cebu each
morning, afternoon and evening. Four (4) witnesses identified
Larrañ aga as one of the two men talking to Marijoy and Jacqueline
on the night of July 16, 1997. And over and above all, Rusia
categorically identified Larrañ aga as one of the participes criminis.
At this juncture, it bears mentioning that this case is not the first
time that Larrañ aga was charged with or complained of pruriently
assaulting young female students in Cebu. Months before the
abduction of Marijoy and Jackie, the parents of a certain Rochelle
Virtucio, complained about Larrañ aga’s attempt to snatch their
young daughter and drag her in a black, stylish Honda Civic.
3.Larrañ aga and Aznar bewail our refusal to overturn the trial
court’s exclusion of Professor Jerome Bailen and Atty. Florencio
Villarin, NBI, Regional Director, as defense witnesses. Professor
Bailen was properly excluded. First, he is not a finger-print expert
but an archaeologist. And second,his report consists merely of the
results of his visual inspection of the exhibits already several months
old. Anent Atty. Villarin’s failure to testify before the trial court,
suffice it to say that his belated Affidavit, which Aznar submitted via
his supplemental motion for reconsideration dated May 5, 2004,
raises nothing to change our findings and conclusions. What clearly
appears in said Affidavit is a man trying to impress people that he
was the one responsible for solving the Chiong case and for that, he
deserves a promotion. The trial court, at the onset, must have seen
such immateriality in his intended testimony. Indeed, we agree with
the Solicitor General’s observation that such Affidavit “is neither
helpful nor encouraging to Aznar’s cause.” Third. Atty. Villarin’s
affidavit, in paragraphs 19 and 20 thereof, acknowledged that the
body found in the Carcar ravine was that of Marijoy. This assertion
immediately conflicts with accused-appellant Aznar’s claim in his
Motion for Reconsideration that the corpse was not Marijoy’s.
In executing the affidavit, it appears that Atty. Villarin would want
to impress that he, rather than those promoted, deserved the
promotion. Indeed, judging by the substance of his affidavit, he
would not be testifying in case a new trial is held on anything that
has not been said and rejected heretofore, except his own
unsubstantiated opinions (i.e. not facts as required by evidentiary
rules), his self-congratulatory remarks, and his unmitigated
frustration over failing to get a promotion when almost everyone
else did.” Neither can we entertain at this late stage Dr. Fortun’s
separate study to show that the examination conducted on the
body found in Tan-awan, Carcar is inadequate. Such study cannot be
classified as newly-discovered evidence warranting belated
reception. Obviously, Larrañ aga could have produced it during trial
had he wished to.
4. Knowing that the prosecution’s theory highly rests on the truth of
Rusia’ testimony, appellants endeavor to 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 reiterate the reasons why we cannot
give our assent to such argument. First, Inspector Edgardo Lenizo, a
fingerprint expert, testified that the fingerprints of the corpse match
those of Marijoy. Second, the packaging tape and the handcuff
found on the dead body were the same items placed on Marijoy and
Jacqueline while they were being detained. Third, the body had the
same clothes worn by Marijoy on the day she was abducted. And
fourth, the members of the Chiong family personally identified the
corpse to be that of Marijoy which they eventually buried. They
erected commemorative markers at the ravine, cemetery and every
place which mattered to Marijoy. As a matter of fact, at this very
moment, appellants still fail to bring to the attention of this Court
any person laying a claim on the said body. Surely, if the body was
not that of Marijoy, other families who had lost someone of similar
age and gender as Marijoy would have surfaced and claimed the
body. The above circumstances only bolster Rusia’s narration that
Rowen and Ariel pushed Marijoy into the deep ravine, following
Josman’s instruction “to get rid” of her.
CASE NO. 8
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. NESTOR
Testimony of Eugenia Añano does not show that the crime charged
was committed. Neither did she mention seeing a deadly weapon
at the scene of the supposed crime - The testimony of Eugenia
Añ ano does not show that the crime charged was committed. We
note the fact that Añ ano merely declared that she surprised the
appellant and the complainant while the former was on top of the
latter doing the push and pull motion. She never said anything
about a struggle.Nor did the witness mention seeing a knife or any
deadly weapon at the scene of the supposed crime at the moment
of discovery and even when the appellant supposedly fled.

GANDUMA, respondent. FACTS:

Evidence; Credibility of witnesses; Trial Court’s findings on

credibility of witness entitled to great respect, exception.—We are
not unmindful of the fact that ordinarily, the question of credibility is
for the trial court to resolve. But when there are circumstances on
record that point to the possibility that the appraisal of the evidence
by the trial court was tainted, this Court has the duty to weigh the
evidence anew and reverse the decision if need be.

Wounds too superficial to corroborate complainant’s allegation

that she resisted appellant’s sexual advances; In a rape case,
testimony of complainant must be corroborated by physical
evidence showing use of force.—As to the presence of the linear
abrasions of 3.0 cm. in length found inside the left thigh of the
complainant, we cannot appreciate those as indications of force and
violence. As pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, the
wounds may have been caused by blades of grass or by some hard
object while the complainant and the appellant were caressing each
other by the bushes. Nonetheless, the wounds were too superficial
to corroborate the complainant’s allegation that she resisted the
appellant’s sexual advances which compelled the latter to use brute
force. In a rape case, the testimony of the complainant must be
corroborated by physical evidence showing use of force.