SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

530
People vs. Larranaga

G.R. Nos. 138874-75. February 03, 2004:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. FRANCISCO

JUAN LARRANAGA alias "PACO"; JOSMAN _AZNAR; ROWEN
ADLAWAN alias "WESLEY"; ALBERTO CANO alias "ALLAN
PAHAK"; ARIEL BALANSAG; DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA
alias "TISOY TAGALOG"; JAMES ANTHONY UY alias "WANG-
WANG"·, and JAMES ANDREW UY alias "MM," appellants.
Criminal Law; Due Process; In evaluating a due process claim, the
court must determine whether life, liberty or property interest exists, and if
so, what procedures are constitutionally required to protect that right.-
Due process of law is the primary and indispensable foundation of
individual freedoms; it is the basic and essential term in the social
j compact which defines the rights of the individual and delimits the powers
which the State may exercise. In evaluating a due process claim, the court
must determine whether life, liberty or property interest exists, and if so,
what procedures are constitutionally required, to protect that right.
-, Otherwise stated, the due process clause calls for two separate inquiries in
evaluating an alleged violation: did the plaintiff lose something that fits
'I into one of the three protected categories of life, liberty, or property?; and, if
I- r
so, did the plaintiff receive the minimum measure of procedural protection
..I
warranted under the circumstances?

Same; Same; Section 14, Article Ill of our Constitution catalogues f/i e
essentials of due process in a criminal prosecuti.on.-Section 14, Article Ill
of our Constitution catalogues the essentials of due process in a criminal
prosecution, thus: "SEC. 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a
c~minal offense without due process of law. (2) In all criminal prosecu-
tions, th e accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be inform~
~f the ~ature and cause of the accusation against him to have a speed.·
impartial ' and publ1·c t ria
· l , to meet the witnesses face to' face , and to have
,c·
c?mpulso1! proc~ss to secure the attendance of witnesses and th e prod' .
tion of evi~nce in_ his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial roaY p;n
cee~finotwiths~and~g the absence of the accused provided that he has b
nob 1ed and his failure to appear.1S UilJUS. t"fi bl ,,
l 1a e .

Same· Same· R' h 1 ,-;e1ht 10

0
counsel wh' ' ig t to Counsel; There is no denial of t ie 0 ( the
ere a counsel de Ofi · . . bsence
accused's counsel de icio was appointed du ruig I 11e a . 1 (/,c cot-'t.'
as early as pract· biarte, pursuant to the cou rt's desire to fint.SI th~ riirhl
ica e under the continuous trial system .- Anent
 VOL. 421, FEBRUARY 3
, 2004
~-----;=~~-=------~53~5
People vs. Larranaga

~ e d : "Anent the contention that Delia p .

)1111 ' ; .scharged as a state witness because of a 'p re_
agLdo should not have
be~\ s\nvolving moral turpitude, suffice it to sayr~~;tu~thfi_naCL convictio~' of
cr1 111
ain dee Lared th a t even t'f the dLscharaed
. st t . LS ourt has time
011 d °g l '/i' ·
eo{the qua• LLcatwns
0
a e witness should lack
enumerated by Section 9 Rul 119 f h
~ 111 ·11 I'. ' e o t e Rules of
court, his testim?ny WL not, ,or that reason alone, be discarded or disre-
gorded· In the discharge of a •co-defendant . ' the court may reasonably be
ex•pected to err;
. but such error
Th . . m discharging an accused has been h eId not
10 be a reversible one. LS LS upon the principle that such error of the court
dcts not affect the competency and the quality of the testimony of the dis-
charged defendant."
r •
Sa.me; Sa':1-e; Same; Evidence; Physical evidence is an evidence of the
highest order-it speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.-More
importantly, what makes Rusia's testimony worthy of belief is the marked
compatibility between such testimony and the physical evidence. Physical
evidence is an evidence of the highest order. It speaks eloquently than a
hundred witnesses. 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 were of such nature and quality that only a witness who actu-
ally saw the commission of the crimes could furnish. What is more, his
testimony was corroborated by several other witnesses who saw incidents
ofwhat he narrated.

Same; Same; Same; Double Jeopardy; The discharge of an accused _to

become a state witness has the effect of acquittal, and a recall of that dis-
th0rge may place the said accused in double jeopardy; The fact tha_t not all
the requisites for the discharge of a state witness are present is not a
ground to recall the discharge order.-Rusia's discharge has the eff~ct of
anacquittal.
· . .
We are not mchned to reca11 sueh d'scharge
i . lest
. he will be
Placed in double jeopardy. Parenthetically, the order for his disclh8!'~el rodaty
only b . . h h subsequent y 1a1 e o
e recalled in one instance, which 1s w en e . . f; his
~~stify against his co-accused. The fact that not all th~ reqms~~: ;:less
u;~charge are present is not a ground to recall the disc _arge o~nst. his co-
<icc~i:'ntil it is shown that he (ailed or refused to tz:t!:ftfons listed in
Sec- ;d, subsequent proof showing that any or all of_t away the resulting
oc · . of Rule 119 were not fulfilled would not wipe
C/Ui/fal .

rJ{ IIJi,'
ai;
808
'i
arne; Same; Settled is the rule that the
nesses is left Largely to the trial
~s~~rr
court.- e
1
e
ent of the credibility
is the rule that the
ly to the trial court
'~cau:~e~t. of the credibility of witnesses is left a:1~ate court, to see the
·~·il" 01 its opportu nity not available to th0 app . wl ether they are
••('l!se8 00 · ' h · d 0 meano1 1
the stand and determine by t eir
 SUPREME coURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
~5~36~~~==-==~~-:-;:::;::;:----- ----
People vs. Larrafiaga
----------:~~::=:;~~;;~:~~~~~;----
-testifying . through their teeth. Its evaluation of the
trut~fully or_ Iymf _ igh conclusive on this Court, barring arbi-
credibility of witnesses is we 1 n .
trariness in arriving at his conclusions .
. .. v th de+'ense
1'
of alibi to prosper, the accused must
Same·' Alibi' I'or. e
ther place at such a perw· d
o{ t ime
· t h at it was
show that he was in ano h l h th . .
. . "bl fi h ·m to have been at t e p ace w ere e crime was
commi e
it;
physic~ttllydiamtpthoses:i,:e ;fr commission.-Appellants proffered the defense
d . 1 d th ·t· "d
of denial and alibi. As between their mere erua an e posi l~e I entifi-
cation and testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, we are conVInced that
the trial court did not err in according weight to the latter. For the defense
of alibi to prosper, the accused must show that he was in another place at
:;.1 such a period of time that it was physically impossible for him to have
been at the place where the crime was committed at the time of its com-
mission. These requirements of time and place must be strictly met. A
thorough examination of the evidence for the defense shows that the ap-
...' pellants failed to meet these settled requirements. 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. What is clear from the evidence is that Rowen J osman Ariel
.
. I Alberto'. James Anthony and James Andrew were all within the vicinity of
Cebu City on July 16, 1997.

for a ~:":ee;r~::i~ ~itn_esses; !t is but natur~l, although morally unfair,

times of dire needs :s:;~:al~ei!~e to blo~d _ties and close relationship in
lants attempted to establish th . ; £a crimina~ ~ase is involved.- Appel-
of relatives and friends wh e~ . e ense of alibi through the testimonies
O O
crimes charged. Naturally VIOusly wanted them exculpated of the
te8 f1momes.
. , we cannot but cast
In People vs Ch. an eye of susp1c10n
. . on their
.
mora_Ily u~1fa~r, ~or a clo~e r:~iv:et:ul~d tha~ it is but natural, although
relationship m times of d · give weight to blood ties and close
valved. ire needs especially when a criminal case is in-

Same; Sam~ Same· Th

an accused b d. , e settled rule . th
alibi the Y ere ible witnesses as th is at positive identification. of
app~llantm;: abused sanctuary offef perpetrat?r of the crim e d emolishes
credible ;itn 8
e settled rule is that pos~;. ·-:Rusia positively identified the
much abusede:ses ts the perpetrator lot:hiden~ifica tion of an accused by
several d1·81·nte anc uary of felons Rus· , e crime de1nolis hes alibi, the
rested · · Ia s te t"
them are neithe . witnesses who als . s Imony was corroborated by
ily. As we revie r !•ends, relatives n o identified the appella n ts. IVlost of
not discern anyw cl_osely the transor_acquaintances of the victims' [am ·
aga·Inst the appell motive on their Pacnpt rt of stenographic not es we cou Id
ants. In the same v . ~hy they s hould tes tify fo lselY
e1n It 18
· •
' improba ble t ha t the prosecu·
 VOL. 421, FEBRUARY 3, 2004
537
People vs. Larranaga

. ,~ould tirelessly go through the rigors of litigation J·ust to destroy

uon
innocent lives.

Same; Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention; Elements.-The

elements of the crime defined in Art. 267 above are: (a) the accused is a
private individual; (b) ~e ~dnaps 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.

Same; Same; Special Complex Crimes; Where the victim is killed or

died as a consequence of the detention, or is raped or subjected to torture or ('•
dehumanizing acts, this gives rise to the special complex crime of kidnap- I

ping with murder or homicide or rape .-Article 267 states that if the vic-
tim is killed or died as a consequence of the detention, or is raped or sub-
jected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be
imposed. In People vs. Ramos, citing Parulan vs. Rodas, and People us.
Mercado, we held that this provision gives rise to a special complex crime.

Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Dehumanization means

deprivation of human qualities, such as compassion.-The prosecution was
able to prove that Marijoy was pushed to a ravine and died. Both girls

t:e~ ~o
were raped by the gang. In committing the crimes, appellants subjected
dehumanizing acts. Dehumanizatio~ means dep~vation of human
Q alities, such as compassion. From our reVIew of the evidence presented,
-
L• •
J

; e ~~und the following dehumanizing acts committed by appellants: (1)

1
an.,oy and Jacqueline were handcuffed and their mouths mercilessly
~apecf; (2) they were beaten to severe weakness during their detention; (3)
acqueline was made to dance amidst the rough manners and lewd sug-
gestions of the appellants· (4 ) she was taunted to run and forcibly dragged
to the V
an; and (5) until now Jacqueline remams m1ssmg w h.ich aggra-
I • • •

vates the Chiong family's pai; All told considering that the victims were
raped th · '
d 1 ' at Ma rijoy was kiJJed and that both victims were su ~ec e
b. t d t 0
1
i8e· urnanizing acts the imposition of the dea th penalty on th e appellants
in order. '

for 11.u! ume; S a me,· S ame; Same; Where the law pro_u ide~ a single pen.a~ty
co,flJJ/.e or ~7 ore componen t offenses, the resulting cr1.rr:e ts called a ~peci~l
imp x _cr11ne .- A discussion on the nature of special complex cnme is
l>on: ~:t•ve. Whore t he law provides a single penalty for two or more ~om- f
c~m6~= ;
I

~o•tie: ofot!enses, t he r es ul t ing crime is caJled 8 _speoi;l 1

~~ ~ ;)
r,,1,bt, e epccia l complex crimes under t he Revised . ena . h
Ph.v~;~ ~ it_h ~omicid e , (2) ,·obbcry w ith r a pe, (3) kidn~p~ing w~
""llh 1L 1 ~UJun ~1-i , (4) ,kjdnn p r)ina with murder or homicide, an
(;~:~u:.

~,
, 10,ni <··u , " . tion must nPcessarr y
' ' '111<, <!" ·I . 1 <' . I n n .-.p ccial complex crtme, the p rosecu . , that tuould b<'
< 1 uf ti 1<' r on1vo11t>11t of'f, •n ses w,t• 1t tite sa me p rt!ctswn ,
r REPORTSANNOTATED
c oURT
5~
~38~ _:S:U~
P~
R=
E=
M=
E-People
--:-~===---------
vs. Larranaga
_______ ___ _:::t:h~es~u-:bJ-=·e=c:t:o~{ ~se=p~ a:ra:t~e~c~o~m
~ p;l a~_i~n~ts~-~As~:earl::;-;
necessary if they were mad£ ded Article 267 of the Revised Penal ~
mentioned, R.A. No. ? 659 ~~n . ~Vhen the victim is killed or d ie:s a.s 0
by adding th ereto t hi s raped or is subjected to torture or d~hu
p~vtS IO~~
nee of the cktentwn or 1..:1 ' •
cons~qi:e . ' penalty shall be i mposed; and t hat this pn,r.1 _
man izing acts, the maxim um .
sion gives rise to a special complex cnme.

Same; Same; Same; Where it ap~rs- from the ou~ru~helming eri-

dence that t here is a •direct relation, and _intunate con nectzon bett~n the
kidnapping, killing and raping of the vu:um, rope cannot be cons,de~
merely as an aggravating circumstance but as_a compone~t off_ense form.m g
part of the special complex crime of kidnapping and senous legal deten- '!
tion with homicide and rape.-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 ov erwhelming evidence of the
prosecution that there is a "'direct rela-tion, and intimate connection- be-
tween the kidnapping, killing and raping of ~tarijoy, rape cann ot be con-
sidered merely a s an aggravating circumstance but as a component offense
form ing part of the h.erein special complex crime_ It bears reiterating that
in People vs. Ramos, and People us. Mercado, interpreting Article 267. we
ruled t hat "wber e the person killed in the course of the detention. regard-
less of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an after-
th oug h t , t he ki~apping and murder or homicide can n o longer be com-
plex~he~ nder Artic~e 48, nor be treated as separate crimes. bu t shall be
~~;i:
... •
Tl as O spe~r-0~ compltt crim-e under the last p aragraph of Arlide
1.e same pn nciple applies here The kid · · · I
deteri tion can no long er be con · napping and sen ous i/Jega
separate crime but shall be ip~d under Art_icle 4 8, nor be treated as
rate the techn,·cal .J_ . tpunished as _a special comp/e_r crime. At any
· ues,gna ion of the · • .
impos ition of the rw,nalt .d . crzme is of no consequence m ihf
d . - Y cons, ering that kid . . ·11 I
eten twn if complexed with either . . napping and senous 1 EgU
penalty of death shall be imposed. hom1ei,de or rapep sti ll, the maximuri

Sarne; Same; Same· R . h

'\l
, . h , ,g t to be Jnl". .-.J C
cuse_d s rig J to be informed f he ,orm~.; onsistent 1c-ith the ac--
aga rn st him, att.endant c . o t nature and cause of the accusation
cific LI l d ircumstances 0
~ -Y pea ed or alleged with . r com ponent offenses must bt." ~il"-
d u.rmg
- the trial• oth .
erw,se they certainty . the inl:o
in 1·
1• rma zon an
d pT'Q4.'tVl
c~,n~.e--Anent Criminal Case N cannot give rise to a special complrX
vicb~, t ~e penalty of reclusion o. CBU-45304 wherein Jacqueline is the
cons1denng that the bo perpetua shall be . ~~ llaJ1tf
in the Inform . a Ve-mentioned co l D l ~ upon appe ~ :i
-• Revised Rul ation ~s required und m~nent offenses were not all~,
be . fi es of C-nminal Proce<i er Sections 8 and 9 R ule 1 10 ot tht
attemdormetd ':'f the nature and c ure. Consi-stent with ap ' ·-ilants· ri~hl :,'
n an circumstances or coause of the accusat,ori • against
~• · t ttN~·
hmr.
mponent offenses must bE> s pecifi l'!ltl~
 VOL. 421, FEBRUARY 3, 2004
~---;::~~--~-~5~39
People vs. Larranaga
~ alleged with certainty in the inform t'
P. Otherwise, they cannot give rise to a I~n and proven during the
tria 1· h . a specrnl com I ·
h·s case. Hence, t e crime committed . . P ex cnme, as in
1
1 ·ous illegal detention. 1
is on Y simple kidnapping and
sel'I

Sarne; Same; Conspiracy; Well settled is the rule . .

direct proof of a previous agreement to comm ·t . .t hat in conspiracy,
l a crime ts not necessary it
ma)' be ded u.ced flrom t h e mode and manner b h· h h -
petrated, or inferred from the acts of the ac!uswedtcth t e olffensehewas per-
. · · d · emse ves w n such
point to a Joint
· esign
h ·and community of interest Fr
.- om the ev1'dence of
the prosecution, t ere is no doubt that all the appellant · d • h
· · f h · s conspire m t e
commission
. o t e cnmes charged · Their concert d t· ·
e ac 10ns pomt to their •
jomt ~urpose_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 them-
selves when such point to a joint design and community of interest. Oth-
erwise stated, it may be shown by the conduct of the accused before dur-
ing, and after the commission of the crime. Appellants' actions showed
that they have the same objective to kidnap and detain the Chiong sisters.

Sa.me; Same; Same; To hold an accused guilty as co-principal by rea-

s011 of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in
pursuance or furtherance of the complicity; 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.-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. There must be intentional participation in
the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and
purpose. Responsibili ty of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplish-
ment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts
and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended. As
shown by the evidence for the prosecution, Rowen, Ariel and Alberto were
not merely present at the scene of the crime.

Sa.me; Same; Penalties; Mitigating Circumstances; Minority; The im-

posable penalty on an accused by reason of his minority is one degree lower
than the statutory penalty.-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 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
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Al'ffiOTATED

Peop le us. La rroiiag a

m eans t hat be stands to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in Crinu.

nal Case No. CBU-45303 and twelve ( 12) years of prision mayor in its
m axim um period, as minimum. to seventeen ( 17 ) years of reclusion ff'n,po..
ra/ in its medium period. as maximum. in Criminal Case No. CBl'-4 ~.
The penalty fo r the s pecial complex crime of kidna pping a n d serious illegal
d etention with homicide a nd rape, bein g deat h. one d egree lower there--
from is, reclusion pe:rpdUO. On the ot he r hand , t he penalty for simple
kidnapping and serious illegal detention is reclusion perpetun to death.
One degree lower from the said penalty is reclusion fl'mpora/ . There being
no aggravating and mitigating circumstance, the pena lty to be im po.5ed on
J a meB Anthony is rrelusion t.emporol in its medium period. Applying the
Indete rminate Sentence Law. he should be sentenced to suffer the penalty
of twelve ( 12 ) years of pri.sion mayor in its maximum period. as m in imum.
to seven teen (17 ) years of reclusion temporal in its medium period. M
m a ximum.

S ame; S am e; Sa me; We must be reminded that j ustice is not ours to

g ive according to our sentiments or emotions--at tirnes we may shou com-1

pnssion and me~y but not ai the expense of the brooder i11terest of fair pla_,
a nd j usti,ee.- As for the rest of the appellants, the foregoing established
fac ts call for the imposition on them of the death pena lty in C rimina l Case
No. C BU-45303 and reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. C BU-4530-t
It is therefore clear that the trial court erred in merely imposing -two 12 1
R.cclusicnes Perpetua ," rationalizing that justice must be tempered with
mercy . \Ve must be reminded that justice is not ours to give according t,o
our sentiments or emotions. It is in the law which we must fa it hfully
imple me n t. At times we may show compassion and mercy but not a t the
expense of the broader interest of fair play and justice. \Vhile we aJso find
it difficult to mete out the penalty of death especially on young me n who
could have led productive and promising lives if only they were given
enou gh guidance, however, we can never go against what is laid down in
our stat ute books and established jurisprudence.

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City•

Br. 7.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Eric S. Carin for accused J. Andrew Uy and Jan1 es Anthony
S. Uy.
Francisco L. Chavez for accused J . Az na1..
Ferdinand C. Baylon for accused-appellants.