Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

EN BANC

G.R. Nos. 138874-75 July 21, 2005

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias "PACO"; JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias
"WESLEY"; ALBERTO CAÑO alias "ALLAN PAHAK"; ARIEL BALANSAG, DAVIDSON
VALIENTE RUSIA alias "TISOY TAGALOG"; JAMES ANTHONY UY alias "WANGWANG"; and
JAMES ANDREW UY alias "MM", Accused-Appellants.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

At bar are four (4) motions for reconsideration separately filed by appellants (1) Francisco Juan
Larrañaga, (2) Josman Aznar, (3) Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Caño and Ariel Balansag, and (4) James
Anthony Uy and James Andrew Uy, assailing our Decision dated February 3, 2004 convicting them
of the crimes of (a) special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and (b) simple
kidnapping and serious illegal detention, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"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) 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) 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 the crime of simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention and are sentenced
to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA;

(3) 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) Appellants are ordered to pay jointly and severally the heirs of Marijoy and Jacqueline, in each
case, 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 (d) ₱100,000.00 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.

SO ORDERED."

Appellants anchor their motions on the following grounds:

A. LARRAÑAGA

"I

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN BARRING LARRAÑAGA AND THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION (NBI) REGIONAL DIRECTOR FLORENCIO VILLARIN FROM TESTIFYING;

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

THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT VIOLATE
THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

II
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN (A) DISCHARGING DAVID RUSSIA AS STATE WITNESS;
AND (B) CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS MAINLY ON THE BASIS OF THE TESTIMONY OF
RUSIA.

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

PROSECUTION WITNESS RUSIA IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE A STATE WITNESS UNDER

PARAGRAPHS (D) AND (E), SECTION 17 OF THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE.

II

RUSIA’S TESTIMONY AND THAT OF THE OTHER PROSECUTION WITNESSES WERE

INCREDIBLE, INCONSISTENT, AND UNWORTHY OF BELIEF.

III

BIAS AND PREJUDICE AGAINST THE DEFENSE WERE GLARINGLY DISPLAYED BY THE
COURT A QUO WHICH GREATLY AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE.

IV

THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS NOT BEEN
PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT."3

D. JAMES ANDREW AND JAMES ANTHONY UY

"I

ACCUSED JAMES ANDREW S. UY WAS, LIKE HIS YOUNGER BROTHER JAMES ANTHONY S.
UY, A MINOR AT THE TIME THE OFFENSES AT BAR ALLEGEDLY HAPPENED LAST JULY 16,
1997;

II

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;"4
In his supplemental motion for reconsideration dated March 25, 2004, Larrañaga submitted a
separate study of Dr. Racquel Del Rosario-Fortun, Forensic Pathologist, to show that the
examination conducted by the prosecution expert witnesses on the body found in Tan-awan, Carcar
is inadequate.

In a similar supplemental motion for reconsideration5, Aznar submitted to this Court the Affidavit
dated February 27, 2004 of Atty. Florencio Villarin, Regional Director of the National Bureau of
Investigation, Central Visayas, to show that: (1) the police investigation of this case was
flawed; (2) he (Aznar) was arrested in 1997 not because of his involvement in this case but because
he had in his possession a pack of shabu and firearms; and (3) David Rusia is not a credible
witness.

On July 15, 2004, the Solicitor General filed a consolidated comment6 praying that the four (4)
motions for reconsideration be denied with finality, there being no new argument raised. He
responded to appellants’ assignments of errors by exhaustively quoting portions of our challenged
Decision.

In his consolidated comment7 to Aznar’s supplemental motion for reconsideration, the Solicitor
General enumerated the grounds why Atty. Villarin’s Affidavit should not be given consideration. On
February 15, 2005, Aznar filed a reply alleging that the Solicitor General "read out of context" certain
portions of the Affidavit. He argued that the

Affidavit only exposes the flawed investigation of the Chiong case and that, at the time of his arrest,
there was no evidence against him. On March 4, 2005, the Solicitor General filed a rejoinder stating
that Aznar’s reply "actually supports the undersigned counsel’s (Solicitor General’s) position that
Atty. Villarin’s Affidavit is utterly inadequate to prove his innocence or at least even acquit them on
reasonable doubt," thus, "it would be useless to call for new trial on the basis of such Affidavit." On
March 29, 2005, Aznar filed a sur-rejoinder insisting that the Affidavit should be given due
consideration.

Except for the motion filed by appellants Uy brothers with respect to James Andrew’s alleged
minority, we find all the motions bereft of merit.

At the inception, let it be emphasized that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not impose
on us the obligation to discuss and rule again on the grounds relied upon by the movant which are
mere reiteration of the issues previously raised and thoroughly determined and evaluated in our
Decision being questioned. In Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership vs. Velasco,8 we ruled that,
"this would be a useless formality of ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons
already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant."

The foregoing principle applies squarely to the motions filed by appellants Larrañaga, Aznar,
Adlawan, Caño and Balansag, it being apparent that the points raised therein are not neoteric
matters demanding new judicial determination. They are mere rehash of the arguments set forth in
their respective briefs which we already considered, weighed and resolved before we rendered the
Decision sought to be reconsidered.

However, in view of the severity of the penalties for the crimes charged, we deem it necessary to
stress once more our basis in convicting appellants.

The following is a précis of the issues submitted by appellants in their motions:

This Court erred –

first, in according credence to Rusia’s testimony;

second, in rejecting appellants’ alibi;

third, in holding that the trial court did not violate their right to due process when it excluded the
testimony of other defense witnesses; and

fourth, in holding that the body found in Tan-awan, Carcar was not that of Marijoy.

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.9

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.10 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
Caño, 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 Larrañaga 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.

II

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.11 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.12 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.13

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.14 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, Josman, Ariel, Alberto, James Anthony and James Andrew were all within the vicinity of
Cebu City on July 16, 1997.

Not even Larrañaga who claimed to be in Quezon City satisfied the required proof of physical
impossibility. 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. Indeed, Larrañaga’s presence in Cebu City 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 men
talking to Marijoy and Jacqueline on the night of July 16, 1997. Shiela Singson testified that on July
16, 1997, at around 7:20 in the evening, she saw Larrañaga approach Marijoy and Jacqueline
at the West Entry of Ayala Center. The incident reminded her of Jacqueline’s prior story that he
was Marijoy’s admirer. Shiela confirmed that she knows Larrañaga since she had seen him on five
(5) occasions. Analie Konahap also testified that on the same evening of July 16, 1997, at about
8:00 o’clock, she saw Marijoy and Jacqueline talking to two (2) men at the West Entry of
Ayala Center. She recognized the two (2) men as Larrañaga and Josman, having seen them
several times at Glicos, a game zone, located across her office at the third level of Ayala
Center. Williard Redobles, the security guard then assigned at Ayala Center, corroborated the
foregoing testimonies of Shiela and Analie. In addition, Rosendo Rio, a businessman from Cogon,
Carcar, declared that he saw Larrañaga at Tan-awan at about 3:30 in the morning of July 17, 1997.
The latter was leaning against the hood of a white van.15 And over and above all, Rusia categorically
identified Larrañaga as one of the participes criminis.

Taking the individual testimonies of the above witnesses in relation with that of Rusia, we are
convinced that Larrañaga was indeed in Cebu City at the time of the commission of the crimes and
was one of the principal perpetrators thereof.

At this juncture, it bears mentioning that this case is not the first time that Larrañaga 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
Larrañaga’s attempt to snatch their young daughter and drag her in a black, stylish Honda Civic. It
happened just near the gate of Rochelle’s school, thus, showing his impudence. We quote a portion
of the transcript of stenographic notes dated September 23, 1998, thus:

"ATTY. HERMOSISIMA:

Your Honor please, this is a …. Inspector Era handed to this representation a copy of a Letter
dated September 25, 1996, addressed to the Student Affairs Office, University of San Carlos,P. del
Rosario Street, Cebu City, and this is signed by Leo Abayan and Alexander Virtucio and noted
by Mrs. Aurora Pacho, Principal, University of San Carlos, Girls High School, and for the
record, I will read the content:

TO WHOM THIS MAY CONCERN:

We the parents and guardians of Rochelle Virtucio, a first year high school student of your
University of San Carlos-Girls High School, are writing your good office about an untoward
incident involving our daughter and another student of your school.

xxxxxx

That last Monday at around 5:00 PM, Rochelle and other classmates, Michelle Amadar and
Keizaneth Mondejar, while on their way to get a ride home near the school campus, a black
Honda Civic with five young male teenagers including the driver, suddenly stopped beside
them, and simultaneously one of them, which was later identified as FRANCISCO JUAN
LARRANAGA, a BSHRM I student of your school, grabbed Rochelle by her hand to try to get
Rochelle to their vehicle. She resisted and got away from him. Sensing some people were
watching what they were doing, they hurriedly sped away.

We are very concerned about Rochelle’s safety. Still now, she is suffering the shock and
tension 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 through."16

The presence of such complaint in the record of this case certainly does not enhance Larrañaga’s
chance of securing an acquittal.

III

Larrañaga 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." We quote his keen reflection on the matter:

"xxxxxx

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. Surely, something
is amiss in accused-appellant Aznar’s recollection of his defense.

Fourth. Atty. Villarin confirmed in paragraph 24 of his affidavit that accused-appellant Francisco
Larranaga was a suspect in the subject crimes. Evidently, this statement completely supports this
Honorable Court’s findings in its Decision dated February 3, 2004.
Fifth. In paragraph 30 of Atty. Villarin’s affidavit, he stated that: ‘The arrest of Juzman Aznar was
the major breakthrough in the investigation of the case because witnesses came out and
identified Juzman Aznar as one of those allegedly seen talking to the victims on the night
they disappeared.’ Hence, accused-appellant Aznar was in the beginning already a first-grade
suspect in the Chiong sisters’ celebrated abduction and killing.

Sixth. Atty. Villarin admitted in paragraph 36 of his affidavit that: ‘x x x I did not take this against
[Supt. Labra] for preempting our next move to get Juzman Aznar as we were already placing
him under surveillance because I knew [Supt. Labra] did it in his honest desire to help solve
the crime x x x.’ Clearly, this statement is not an indictment of the investigation that the police
undertook in the subject crimes.

Seventh. Paragraphs 37 to 40 are nothing but personal tirades against alleged influence peddling by
Mrs. Thelma Chiong, mother of the victims, and the purportedly undue promotions of the lawyers
and police officers who unearthed the evidence against accused-appellants and successfully
prosecuted the latter. In executing the affidavit, it appears that Atty. Villarin would want to
impress that he, rather than those promoted, deserved the promotion.

Eighth. Atty. Villarin’s inability to testify in the criminal cases was not due solely to the prosecution’s
action. Whether he ought to testify or not was an argument openly discussed in court. Hence, for the
resulting inability, Atty. Villarin has no one to blame but the defense lawyers who did everything to
make a mockery of the criminal proceedings.

And lastly, there is nothing in Atty. Villarin’s affidavit of the quality of a "smoking gun" that would
acquit accused-appellants of the crimes they have been convicted. For he did not finish the police
investigation of the subject crimes; this is the long and short of his miniscule role in the instant
case. 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."17

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, Larrañaga could have produced
it during trial had he wished to.

IV

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,18 a fingerprint expert, testified that the fingerprints of
the corpse match those of Marijoy.19 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.20 Third, the body had the same clothes worn by Marijoy on the day she was
abducted.21 And fourth, the members of the Chiong family personally identified the corpse to be that
of Marijoy22 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.

On the issue raised by appellants Uy brothers that James Andrew was only seventeen (17) years
and two hundred sixty two (262) days old at the time the crimes were committed, the records bear
that on March 1, 1999, James Andrew’s birth certificate was submitted to the trial court as part of
the Formal Offer of Additional Evidence,23 with the statement that he was eighteen (18) years old.
On March 18, 1999, appellants filed a Manifestation of Erratum correcting in part the Formal Offer of
Additional Evidence by alleging that James Andrew was only seventeen (17) years old.24

Now, James Andrew begs leave and prays that this Court admits at this stage of the proceedings
his (1) Certificate of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics Office, and (2) Baptismal Certificate.
He prays that his penalty be reduced, as in the case of his brother James Anthony.

The entry of James Andrew’s birth in the Birth Certificate is not legible, thus it is extremely difficult for
us to determine the veracity of his claim. However, considering that minority is a significant factor in
the imposition of penalty, we find it proper to require the Solicitor General (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 thereafter, (b) 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.

Insofar as James Anthony is concerned, we maintain his conviction and penalty, there being nothing
in his motion which warrants a reconsideration of our Decision.

In resolving the instant motions, we have embarked on this painstaking task of evaluating every
piece and specie of evidence presented before the trial court in response to appellants’ plea for the
reversal of their conviction. But, even the element of reasonable doubt so seriously sought by
appellants is an ignis fatuus which has eluded any intelligent ratiocination of their submissions.
Verily, our conscience can rest easy on our affirmance of the verdict of the trial court, in light of
appellants’ clear culpability which demands retribution.

WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration filed by appellants Francisco Juan Larrañaga,
Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Caño and Ariel Balansag are hereby DENIED. 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. The motion is
likewise DENIED insofar as James Anthony Uy is concerned.

SO ORDERED.

HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.

Chief Justice
REYNATO S. PUNO ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO

 Associate Justice Associate Justice

ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ RENATO C. CORONA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA DANTE O. TINGA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MINITA CHICO-NAZARIO CANCIO C. GARCIA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court.
HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.

Chief Justice

Footnotes

1 As summarized by the Solicitor General, Rollo at 1881. It was filed on March 4, 2004.

2 Rollo at 1517. It was filed on March 5, 2004.

3 Id. at 1480. It was filed on March 3, 2004.

4 Id. at 1789. It was filed on March 23, 2004.

5 Dated May 5, 2004, Id., at 1841-1845.

6 Id., at 1879-1924.

7 It was filed on January 12, 2005.

8 G.R. No. 109645, March 4, 1996, 254 SCRA 234.

9 Obosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114350, January 16, 1997,266 SCRA 281.

10People. v. Bardaje, G.R. No. L-29271. August 29, 1980, 99 SCRA 3881 ; G.R. Nos. 76416
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. No. L-36638, June 28,1974, 57 SCRA 707; People v.
Demeterio, G.R. No. L-48255, September 30, 1983, 124 SCRA 914.

11
People vs. Rollon, G.R. No. 131915, September 3, 2003, 410 SCRA 295.

12 Ibid.

People v. Datingginoo, G.R. No. 95539, June 14, 1993, 223 SCRA 331; People v.
13

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

14 People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 108180, February 8, 1994, 229 SCRA 754.

15 TSN, September 15, 1998 at 26-47.

16 At 43-46.

17 Consolidated Comment of the Office of the Solicitor General, at 2-4.

18Inspector Lenizo finished Law and Criminology. He worked for the crime laboratory of the
Philippine National Police where he was trained in finger-print examination and where he
conducted around 500 finger-print 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.

19 TSN, September 22, 1998 at 31-40.

20 See also TSN, September 23, 1998 at 13, 20.

21 TSN, August 18, 1998 at 62; August 19, 1998 at 115; September 23, 1998 at 13, 20.

22 TSN, August 18, 1998 at 62; August 19, 1998 at 57, 60.

23 Rollo, at 1894.

24 Id., at 1948.