|
En
Banc PEOPLE
OF THE - versus - G.R. Nos. 138874-75
MOTION
FOR
Accused-Appellant FRANCISCO JUAN (Paco) LARRAŅAGA, by undersigned counsel, respectfully seeks the reconsideration of this Honorable Court's 03 February 2004 Decision, copy of which he received on 18 February 2004.
PREFATORY There is an old saying that "hard cases make for bad law." There is no more profound example of this maxim than in this case. Inflamed passions, deficient investigative methods, questionable police tactics, misplaced prosecutorial zeal, and PAGE
2 Hard cases not only make for bad law, it can produce great tragedies. We are on the last leg of the race to avert this tragedy. We stand before this Court with a simple appeal. Before sending Paco Larraņaga to his death, grant him the benefit of an open mind and a doubting disposition. In this Motion, we urge this Court to review the following hard facts: (1) The trial Court barred accused Larraņaga from testifying. Appellant openly declared that he wanted to testify. His counsel insisted that his client should be given the opportunity to testify. But the judge would have none of it and closed the evidence for the defense. This fact alone would have merited a mistrial. For
(2) The Prosecution objected to the presentation of NBI Regional Director Florencio 0. Villarin as a witness for the defense obviously because the facts unearthed by the National Bureau of Investigation would hurt its case. The trial Court went along with the Prosecution's objection and prohibited his testimony on the grounds of alleged "immateriality and irrelevance."' Had Atty. Villarin been allowed to testify, he would have punched serious holes in the prosecution's story. The NBI's investigation showed, among others, that: (a) On 16 July 1997, the house where the rape purportedly occurred was a boarding house and it was then occupied by several residents, including a Canadian couple; (b) Atty. Villarin had PAGE
4 PAGE
5 (4) Accused-Appellant Paco Larraņaga proved his alibi. However, it became next to impossible to satisfy the trial Court's standard for reasonable doubt since the PAGE
6 (5) In the course of trial, the Court would either (a) exclude material and relevant testimony, or (b) sweep aside solid evidence with pure conjecture. Key evidence favorable to the accused could not be introduced because of the Court's unjust and unreasonable rulings. (6) The trial Court made known its misgivings about the identity of the corpse in the ravine but it: (a) shunned forensic evidence that would have cleared its own doubts, and (b) made declarations that the identity of the corpse would not have any bearing on the case. Certainly, if the corpse does not belong to Marijoy, then Davidson Rusia would be proved a liar. There would a1so'be no corpus delicti. These obvious facts intriguingly escaped the trial Court. (7) Rusia was coached to construct a story that matched the clues, facts, and physical evidence then known to the authorities. His story was not supported by PAGE
7
(8)
The
members of Paco Larraņaga's cooking class,
without a single exception, were willing to attest to Paco's presence in
Manila, and hence the impossibility of his being in Cebu on 16 July 1997.
Paco entered the Center for Culinary Arts only on 16 June 1997, or one
month before the incident. Why would young and presumably idealistic
students perjure for a classmate they have known for hardly a month? This
is a cooking school, not a fraternity. If one were to create an alibi
involving a grisly and ghastly crime, the most dimwitted move is to
claim that one is attending a class full of students. A single classmate
would have easily debunked
such an alibi. Yet, the prosecutors cannot produce anyone from the class
to state otherwise. Moreover, why would the parents of these students
allow their children to testify in
Paco's behalf if they were not convinced of their own children's
story? This (9) Likewise, the testimonial and documentary evidence provided by airline personnel, airport officials, and a fellow passenger who was with Paco Larraņaga on the 17 July 1997 late afternoon flight from Manila to Cebu is not only compelling but, impossible to contrive. It does not deserve the scant importance and short shrift it got from the trial Court. If we are to believe the prosecution's presentation, accused Larraņaga was very visible, tremendously sloppy, and exceedingly careless when he committed what was supposed to be a pre-meditated crime, then he turned into a genius at cover-up a few hours after committing the heinous act. Surely, the evidence Larraņaga presented could not PAGE
9 I.
Accused-Appellant Was Barred From 2. A reading of the transcripts of 01 February 1999 bares the true story. Trial on that day started at 2:10 p.m. The PAO lawyers assisting accused Caņo and Balansag were supposed to present their witness. However, their witness failed to show up and the PAO lawyers asked for a recess. The Court suspended session at 2:25 p.m. and resumed at 2:40 p.m. The witness for Caņo still has not arrived.
3.
Thereafter, Larraņaga's counsel, Atty. Teodoro Villarmia, Jr., asked that
he be allowed to present a representative from PAGASA to testify that it
rained heavily in PAGE
10 At the continuation of the trial of this case today, the defense panel wanted to present the representative from PAGASA, to prove that it was raining all over Cebu on July 16 and 17. Whereupon, the Court ruled that such testimony is irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of kidnapping of the Chiong sisters. 4. The Court then ruled that the defense panel was now deemed to have waived further presentation of their evidence. 5. Larraņaga`s counsel protested the ruling saying that he was still going to present the accused himself. This was the exchange as shown by Pages 20 to 24 of the TSN of 1 February 1999, and we quote:
ATTY.
T. VILLARMIA JR.
COURT
COURT
ATTY.
T. VILLARMIA JR.
COURT
ATTY.
T. VILLARMIA JR.
COURT
ATTY.
VILLARMIA JR. (NOTE:
For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation
from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). PAGE
11 6. After a few more exchanges, the Judge announced that his decision was final and that he was going to adjourn the session. Atty. Villarmia stood up to declare:
ATTY.
T. VILLARMIA
COURT
ATTY. T. VILLARMIA JR.
COURT
COURT
ATTY. T. VILLARMIA, JR.
COURT SESSION ADJOURNED: 2:55 p.m. 7. As the records clearly show, it was barely 3:00 p.m. when the Court adjourned its hearing. It was easy enough to allow Paco Larraņaga to testify but the judge was adamant. Larraņaga's counsel had argued that on that day's hearing, it was (NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). PAGE
12 8. A newspaper covering the trial printed a picture showing Larraņaga raising his hands and reported the incident in this manner: "I can testify anytime", Larraņaga said. As defense lawyers argued about Ocampo's ruling, Larraņaga waved his hand twice to signal he wanted to testify. But the judge overlooked him and his lawyer failed to acknowledge him." (Sun Star Daily, 2 February 1999, photocopy of which is attached as our Annex "A")
9. The
next day, 2 February 1999, the trial Court maintained its refusal to allow
Paco Larraņaga to sit on the witness stand with the following reasoning, and
we quote:3 PAGE
13
COURT 10. Clearly, the trial Court drew an unfair and adverse inference against Larraņaga. This did not only smack of prejudice, it was an outright denial of due process. The judge was not interested in what Paco had to say. He was not even concerned about observing his demeanor on the stand. He had made up his mind on what weight he will give Larraņaga's testimony even before he heard it and despite the fact that he did not hear it. 11. By refusing to hear the testimony of the accused in this case, the trial Court effectively ousted itself of its jurisdiction over the case. II.
The Trial Court Barred Evidence and 12. The first government agency to investigate the disappearance of Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong was the National Bureau of Investigation. At that time, the R6`gional Director of the Cebu Branch was Atty. Florencio 0. Villarin. The (NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). PAGE
14 13. Consider the following exchange that led to the exclusion Villarin's testimony as culled from the transcripts of stenographic notes on 25 January 1999,4 and we quote:
COURT
COURT
ATTY.
ANDALES
PROS.
GALANIDA
COURT.
PROS. GALANIDA
COURT
PROS. GALANIDA
COURT (NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). PAGE
15
COURT
ATTY. ANDALES
PROS. GALANIDA
COURT xxx 14. After further discussion, the Court ruled that the purpose for Villarin's testimony was irrelevant and immaterial to the case. Judge Ocampo then dictated the following Order,5 the relevant portion of which is herein reproduced:
The Prosecution questioned the relevance and materiality of the evidence
or
testimonies and report of the NBI that Atty. Andales wants to present
before this Court and the Court opined and ruled that such testimony and
report of the NBI would be irrelevant and immaterial to these cases
because it was not the NBI that filed the indictment or information
against the accused in these cases who chose them or singled them out for
the prosecution and not to charge other suspects but it was the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Cebu who prepared such information or indictments against the eight (8) accused in these cases including Rusia and therefore
the NBI
cannot be held or cannot be questioned about it, about the
charging of the accused in these cases because they merely gathered the
evidence and did not select who are to be indicted or accused in these two
(2) cases. For which reason, the Court ruled that Atty. Villarin need not
be subpoenaed anymore or need not be compelled to honor the subpoena of
this Court because the said report is irrelevant and immaterial. PAGE
16 You may appeal that ruling to the higher Court. 16. In short, this judge considered reports on criminal investigations conducted by government agencies to be irrelevant and immaterial when that case has already been elevated to the Court by the prosecution. This is pure heresy. No civilized Court can justify such a ruling. The investigation and work undertaken by police authorities on a criminal case is not only relevant and material, any lawyer worth his salt will deem a review thereof as an imperative. The Court's ruling, in effect, deprived the accused Larraņaga the opportunity to use evidence that is favorable to him. It allowed the Prosecution to hide that evidence. Such actuations are a breeding ground for fraud and fabrication. The defense was clearly robbed of the opportunity to present exculpatory evidence which was in the possession of the National Bureau of Investigation. If Atty. Villarin had been allowed to testify, the following facts, positive to accused Larraņaga, would have surfaced:
16.1. The NBI had inspected the house in Guadalupe, Cebu City, which Rusia
claimed was the place where the Chiong
sisters were raped. It was a boarding house! On that fateful night, the
house was inhabited by several tenants. The boarders included a Caucasian
couple said to be
of Canadian nationality, a certain Edwin Bustillo, PAGE
17 16.2. A few days after Marijoy and Jacqueline disappeared, Mr. Dionisio Chiong and Mrs. Thelma Chiong, parents of the two girls, approached the NBI for assistance. Atty. Villarin interviewed the couple and asked the standard background questions. He queried the Chiongs about admirers, boyfriends, and/or rejected suitors of their children. The Chiongs never mentioned the name of Paco Larraņaga. However, when the government started to build a case against Accused-Appellant, Mrs. Chiong started telling stories about Paco being an ardent suitor of Marijoy, even testifying that Paco had threatened and frightened the girl. Obviously, tales were being made up as the trial went along; 16.3. The NBI conducted interviews of employees of Global Village Learning Center where Jacqueline Chiong was employed. Again, there was no mention that the two girls had been seen with Paco Larraņaga. The NBI in fact, made a cartographic sketch based on the description given by Sheila Singson of someone she depicted as suspicious. However, when the case went to trial, two Global PAGE
18 16.4. Rusia was a known drug user and Atty. Villarin gravely doubted his testimony. He asked the police to allow the NBI to question Rusia and subject him to a lie detector test. Lie detector tests are standard tools of police investigators and is extremely useful when they evaluate their witnesses. Moreover, the machine tends to intimidate potential liars. However, this request was turned down by the police and the prosecutors. 17. Attached as Annex "B" hereof is an affidavit executed by Atty. Florencio 0. Villarin attesting to his qualifications as an investigator and narrating the facts and circumstances of the NBI's investigation of the Chiong case. We are reproducing the relevant parts of his affidavit as follows: As NBI Regional Director for Central Visayas, I investigated major crimes and it was our office that first investigated the disappearance of Jacqueline and Marijoy Chiong upon the request of their parents, Mrs. Thelma Chiong and Dionisio Chiong, on July 18,1997. Considering the serious nature of the crime committed, I closely supervised the investigation of this case, which I assigned to a team of agents under Supervising Agency Romulo Manapsal, and I personally interviewed Mrs. Thelma Chiong in the presence of her husband to get the facts surrounding & disappearance of their daughters; From her statement during the interview, we learned that their daughters Jacqueline, working at the Ayala Business Center, and her sister Marijoy, who were last seen alive leaving the Global Village, the employer of Jacqueline, by witnesses, among them was Sheila Singson, a co-worker, were missing. PAGE
19 Sheila Singson was also interviewed but, like Mrs. Chiong, she never mentioned to us the name of Francisco Larraņaga and the names of the other accused in this case. Ms. Singson, ' however, alleged that she saw somebody who appeared suspicious passing by the Global Village, where she and Jacqueline worked, on the evening of the victims' disappearance; hence a cartographic sketch was drawn by our artist based on the description she furnished us but said sketch was not clear; xxx xxx xxx Davidson Rusia, a drug addict, was also apprehended by the police as a suspect in this case. In his confession executed op May 12, 1998, he alleged that after the abduction, they brought the victims to a certain house in Guadalupe, Cebu City, where they were sexually abused by his co-accused but he denied having raped the victims. In my 38 years in law enforcement and until now, 1 have yet to meet a drug addict who is not a liar; thus, I asked Senior Supt. Alejandro Lapinid, the new Director of the Cebu City Police Station, to request Supt. Estiles to allow us to interview Rusia and subject him to a polygraph test because, after I interviewed the lessee of the house where the victims were allegedly raped, I found ' the allegation that the victims were raped in a house in Guadalupe, Cebu City to be unbelievable. I interviewed Dogan Gurkan, a Turkish national and the lessee of the house which he partitioned into several rooms for rent where the victims were allegedly sexually abused. According to him, one room was leased to Edwin Bustillo and another was occupied by the Bustillo sisters and Maricar and Milany Tizon; he declared that it was not possible that the rape could took place in his boarding house because the adjoining room of the Bustillo sisters was also occupied by a Canadian couple. Besides, his caretaker, Ms. Seno, was present at the time the incident allegedly happened and his boarding house was located in a densely populated area, which is true because I saw the place myself, therefore, there PAGE
20 18. In the leading case of Brady v. 'Maryland,7 the United States Supreme Court through Justice Brennan explained, society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair." Indeed, prosecutors should not treat litigation like a game of poker where surprises can be sprung and where gain by guile is not punished.8 In fact, under the Brady doctrine, the prosecution has a constitutional obligation to turn material exculpatory evidence over to the defendant. This obligation is independent of any specific request by defendant for such information.
19.
In the case at bar the prosecutors refused to allow Atty. Villarin to
testify. The prosecution obviously knew that the NBI had information
detrimental to their cause. They chose to hide it. They successfully
blocked efforts to unearth it. They prosecuted to secure conviction,
without regard to the truth. This is nothing short of prosecutorial
misconduct. We submit that if the evidence possessed by the NBI had been
disclosed to the defense, there is a reasonable probability that the
result of the proceeding would have been different. Moreover, we submit
that the loose ends in the evidence of the prosecution are sufficient to
engender reasonable doubt that the charges against an accused may have
been trumped up.9 PAGE 21 the Trial Court 20. This High Court based its Decision affirming the conviction of the Accused-Appellant on the finding of the trial Court that there was no "physical, impossibility"' for Paco to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, his alibi notwithstanding. 21. We respectfully submit that Judge Ocampo imposed a standard where any alibi, no matter how strong, credible, or truthful, was effectively ruled-out as a defense. 22. The trial Judge's pronouncements in open Court clearly show he had made up his mind. He imposed a standard that no one using the defense of alibi would be able to attain. Under his norm, it would be sheer waste of time for an accused to present alibi. The judge thought of all possible (even improbable) scenarios and conjured up speculative situations to douse cold water on accused appellant's defense. Observe the Court's ready answer to evidence supporting accused Larraņaga's alibi,10 thus:
COURT xxx
COURT xxx ______________________________ xxx
COURT xxx
COURT xxx
COURT (NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). PAGE
23 xxx
COURT 23. The High Tribunal does not impose such stringent or near impossible norms.
23.1.
In the case of People vs. Sayana,11 this Court upheld the defense of alibi where (NOTE: For the benefit of our foreign readers, blue wordings is our translation from Tagalog (Philippine language) to English ...the webmaster). PAGE
24 23.2. In the case of People vs. Obedo,12 this Court accepted the alibi that the accused was at a neighboring town when the crime, occurred.
23.3.
In the case of People vs. Ola,13
this Court accepted the alibi that the accused was IV.
Accused-Appellant
Proved His
24. Considered together, the totality of the evidence14 presented by accused Larraņaga, intertwine and support the requirements of alibi. Unfortunately, while the trial Court allowed the prosecution to present witnesses supposedly situating Paco in Cebu a few hours before and a few hours after the alleged crime, the Presiding Judge denied the accused a similar opportunity to present such evidence as was necessary to prove that, he was in Quezon City at those times.
25.
To set the record straight, the herein Accused-Appellant came to Quezon City
from Cebu on 8 June 1997,15
to pursue a Diploma in Culinary Arts & Technology Management at the PAGE
25 25.1. He was enrolled at CCA for the First Term beginning 16 June to 7 August 1997,17 as shown by the check payment covering tuition,18 official receipt evidencing such payment,19 and receipt for uniforms payment.20 A certificate of Paco's enrollment was likewise presented in evidence.21 25.2. He was staying in a condominium unit at nearby Loyola Heights which was on a year-long lease until 1 June 1998 as confirmed by a contract,22 a receipt evidencing payment,23 and several post-dated checks to cover the monthly payments until the end of the lease.24 26. For the entire day of 16 July 1997, Paco was in Quezon City.
26.1.
From 8am to 11am of the said day, he was at the CCA attending a lecture in
Applied Mathematics, as attested by his teacher, Chef Rowena
Bautista.25
This PAGE
26 26.2. Confirming the Chef Rowena testimony is the joint Affidavit of 14 of Paco's classmates at CCA.27 |