ANG, Alicia Abby Ann E.

CRIM 3A

People v. Juan Fransisco Larranaga

I once watched the story of the accused, Juan Fransisco Larranaga,

in a documentary titled ‘Give Up Tomorrow’, which highlighted his version

of truth more than the court ruling. Yet, this was the first time I read about

its jurisprudence, which left me more realizations about this case known as

Cebuano’s 'trial of the century'. Certainly, there are two versions of the

story in every court proceeding, which are known as the prosecution and

defense. And now that I have read its decisions, it is made even more clear

as to why the Chiong Seven were convicted of the special complex crime of

kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape, and how

the defense of Alibi was rejected by the court due to its inconsistencies.

From Rusia, turned in to a state witness, despite confessing his

participation in the crime, to the question regarding the counsel de officio of

this case were also written on this official document. Up until today, some

people have their own beliefs to whatever happened on the night of July

16, 1997. However, jurisprudence exists as facts, hence, the truth. And the

facts tell that Juan Fransisco ‘Paco’ Larranaga, together with his co-
accused is sentenced into the highest penalty and is proved to be guilty

beyond reasonable doubt.  

The plain context that I understood about Paco’s case is that they disputed

a violation of Due Process in numerous occasions during the trial, such as

the judge being biased or that they were not given the opportunity to cross-

examine the witnesses. However, in this decision, there are more key

takeaways that are clarificatory on my review:

Right to Counsel

It was claimed by the defense that there was a violation of their right to

counsel during the withdrawal, when the trial court appointed a counsel de

officio for the defense. To its refusal, the request for a suspension of the

case to find a counsel of their choice was rejected to preserve the integrity

of the right to a speedy and impartial trial, especially that further delays

would cause delay of justice to the victims. It was clarified that the right to

counsel of their own personal choice pertain more on custodial

investigations rather than trials. Hence, it was not violated because Paco

and the rest of the accused had their competent counsels throughout the

trial.
Suspension of Lawyers

One of the highlights of this case is also the Contempt of court by the

defense lawyers. It is stated that in challenging Judge Ocampo in their

withdrawal in the case is unprofessional and a mockery to the judicial

process, which further delayed the trial. As counsels, they cannot walk out

of the court because of reasons that they disagree with the judge. This

made sense as to why they were sent to jail later that day.

Cross-Examination

It was claimed by the defense that they were

not given the opportunity to cross-examine the state witnesses as the judge

refuses. However, there is a data showing that they had multiple attempts

and opportunities to cross examine:

Lawyers

Dates of Cross-examination
1. Armovit (for Larrañaga) August 13 and 17,

1998

2. Gonzales (for Larrañaga) August 20, 1998

3. Gica (for Josman) August 20, 1998

4. Paylado (for James Anthony and James Andrew) August 20, 1998

5. De la Cerna (for Rowen, Alberto and Ariel) August 20, 1998

6. Villarmia (for Larrañaga) October 1,

1998

7. Andales (for Josman) October 5 and 6, 1998

8. Carin (for James Andrew and James Anthony) October, 5, 1998

9 Debalucos (for Rowen, Caño and Balansag) October 12,

1998

10. De Jesus (for Rowen, Alberto and Ariel) October 12,

1998

11. Ypil (for Rowen, Alberto and Ariel) October 12,

1998

The length of the cross-examination time given to the defense was

reasonable to avoid further trial delays. The stenographers also proved that

the counsel had many chances to prove their credibility.

Defense of Alibi

It was said that a trial should only last for 6 months. However, due to

causes of delay by the defense, the case was running out of time and the

public is already criticizing it. Hence, it was clarificatory that judge Ocampo

rejected the witnesses of Paco because of immateriality that it will not

prove the alibi that will cause further delay.

I was convinced on how the jurisprudence proved that Judge

Ocampo was not being biased during his remarks with the defense

witnesses, and that he was just testing their credibility by setting harsh

remarks that would test their consistency. For instance, Ocampo's remarks

about a 17-year-old girl going to a Paco’s apartment who is an adult is to

test her credibility and not to question her morality. The same case goes for

other defense witnesses with harsh remarks by Judge Ocampo, such as

Seno and Paghinayan's testimony as 'incredible' Soteral as 'totally

confused person who appears to be mentally imbalanced' or Boton and

Celso as 'liars'. According to the Jurisprudence, these were all honest

observations.
 Moreover, there were also inconsistencies on the defense witnesses

who claimed that Paco was at Quezon City the night of the crime. Salvador

Boton, who is a security guard at Loyola Heights Condominium where Paco

lives suspected that Larranaga’s entry was not recorded in the logbook the

night of July 16, 1997. Rowena Bautista who happens to be his teacher

claimed that he attended a lecture on mathematics, contradicts the general

claim of Paco having midterm examinations in the center of culinary arts. If

these facts were failed to be recognized by the defense, how can the

defense of alibi be proved? It is also possible that these occurrences that

the defense claim are not on the actual date of July 16, 1997, but on the

later dates.

Meanwhile, the consistency of the witnesses in the prosecution with

no less than 4 witnesses were affirmed by the court. The time element is

very essential to prove the consistency of the witnesses. In the version of

the prosecution, at the night of July 16, 1997, Shiela Singson saw larañaga

approach Jacqueline and Marijoy at ayala center at 7:20pm. Singson

claimed that he saw Larranaga in numerous occasions because he

admires the Chiong sisters, which explains why he is the highlight of this

case.
 

At, 8:00pm Analie Konahap saw Marijoy and Jacqueline talking to 2

men at Ayala. Williard Redobles, who was a Security Guard assigned at

Ayala center saw Paco leaning on a white van. And Rosendo Rio saw Paco

3:30 in the morning of July 17. At this point, it is no wonder why the

prosecution was approved while the defense was further questioned in their

claim of alibi.

Rusia’s Testimony

I still have doubts regarding Rusia's testimony, knowing that he was a

part of the rape and that he technically confessed a participation of the

crime. According to the jurisprudence, the positive identification of Rusia

led to his credibility, which in turn demolishes the alibi defense from

Quezon City. The fact that he was able to identify the corpse, such as how

the choing sisters were raped, taped, and thrown to the deep forested

ravine. This is the part of the case where I was not convinced, because

giving Rusia the privilege to become a state witness and not as an accused

is detrimental on the part of the co-accused and Larranaga himself.   

Conclusion

In a criminal case, the life, and liberty of the accused is at stake. This

explains why it takes years for a trial to progress because of the due

process that we all deserve. There will always be two sides of the coin in a

story; a prosecution and a defense. And it takes a lot of time, resources

and understanding to formulate a court jurisprudence that would shape and

mold our justice system. In this case of People v. Juan Fransisco

Larranaga, I learned how the court proceedings takes a lot of wisdom and

courage to rule in such controversial cases. People are easy to judge as to

how a trial may result, but being apart of the justice system will make us

realize certain angles of the situation that would lead our ‘why’ questions

into the answers that we would want to see and hear. We continue to

become people hungry for justice. By reading these court decisions, I am

more interested on how our country could progress its justice system in

future trials. Because we want nothing but the truth, and the truth is what's

written on the jurisprudence.