PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

LARRAÑAGA
G.R. Nos. 138874-75. February 3, 2004
PER CURIAM:

FACTS

On July 16, 1997 in Cebu, sisters Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong allegedly were kidnapped,
raped and murdered. Francisco Juan "Paco" Larrañaga was, along with six (6) others, were found
to have been responsible for the crime by the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City.

The prosecutions' evidence centered on the testimony of David Rusia, a co-defendant. In

exchange for blanket immunity, he testified.

Based on the evidence of the prosecution, the following facts were established: 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.

On their part, the appellants raised the defense of alibi, thus:

Larrañaga, through his witnesses, sought to establish that on July 16, 1997, he was in class in
Quezon City. Among them were his classmates and teacher. The attendance sheet listed his
name. Representatives of 4 airline companies testified that Larrañaga was not in their manifest
on July 15 or 16. He flew to Cebu on the 17th.

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. He only left his house the
next day, July 17, 1997 at about 7:00 o'clock in the morning to go to school. The boys' mother,
Marlyn Uy, corroborated his testimony.
As for Alberto, a certain Clotilde testified. She narrated that on that evening of 16th, Alberto
brought to her shop a van to have its aircon repaired. His wife (Gina) and owner of said van
(Catalina) corroborated Clotilde's testimony.

To lend support to Josman's alibi, Michael Dizon recounted that on that same night, he and
several friends were at Josman's house in Cebu until 11:00 o'clock in the evening; proceeded to
BAI Disco and stayed there until 1:30 in the morning of July 17. They went home together at
about 3:00 o'clock in the morning.

The trial court did not accord weight to the defense of denial and alibi

The Supreme Court Decision

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION ASSERTED BY THE AUTHOR

1. Supreme Court failed to correct the irregularities of the trial proceedings before the lower
court which is a violation of Article 6 and 14 (Karttunen v Finland)
a. the Supreme Court Violated the principle of ex officio reformatio in peius
enshrined in article 14 (l)
b. Violation of his Right to Appeal
i. he was convicted of homicide and rape and sentenced to death for the
first time at last instance and could not appeal to a higher tribunal
c. Violation of his Right to Public Hearing
i. According to the author “that the Supreme Court did not hear oral
testimony and that he was prevented from attending his appeal. There
was no justification for refusing him an oral hearing, especially since
judgement on appeal was given four years and nine months later and
expedition was therefore not a factor
ii.
2. Violation of Article 9, 14(3)c and 14(5)
a. undue delays in the proceedings
i. conducted with undue delay, cc as were the individual stages
b. he was deprived of liberty without due process. He argues that his guilt was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that he therefore should not have been
imprisoned.
3. Violation of Article 6
a. imposition of the death penalty on him at the end of a process in which his fair
trial guarantees were violated constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life
4. Violation of Article 7
a. he is being subject to a prolonged period of detention on death row. He argues
that the compelling circumstances are present because of the trauma of other
Violations of the Covenant and the real risk that he will ultimately be wrongfully
executed.