CASE BRIEF
Francisco Paco Larrañaga, a Filipino-Spanish citizen, was 27 years old when he and six
others were convicted in Cebu for the 1997 abduction, rape and murder of sisters Marijoy
and Jacqueline Chiong in 2004.
According to the prosecution, Larrañaga, along with seven other men, kidnapped Marijoy
and Jacqueline Chiong in Cebu City on 16 July 1997. On the same day, the two women
were allegedly raped. Marijoy Chiong was then pushed down into a ravine, while
Jacqueline Chiong was beaten. Jacqueline Chiong's body remains missing.
The case against Larrañaga centered on the testimony of a co-defendant, David Valiete
Rusia. In echange for blanket immunity, he testified. Rusia claimed that he was with
Larrañaga in Ayala Center, Cebu early in the evening of July 16, the evening Larrañaga
says he was in R&R Restaurant in Quezon City with his friends. Rusia was not known
to Larrañaga and only appeared as a "state witness" 10 months after the event.
Thirty-five (35) witnesses, including his teacher's and classmates at the Center for
Culinary Arts (CA) in Quezon City, testified under oath that he was in Quezon City, when
the said crime is said to have been committed. however, the trial court considered
theses testimonies irrelevant, rejecting these as coming from "friends of the accused"
and they were not admitted. During his trial in the Cebu RTC, defense lawyers sought
to present evidence of his whereabouts on the evening of the crime. That Larrañaga, at
that time 19 years old, was at a party at the R&R Restaurant along Katipunan Avenue,
Quezon City, and stayed there until early morning the following day. After the party, the
logbook of the security guard at Larrañaga's condominium indicates that Larrañaga
returned to his Quezon City condominium at 2:45 a.m.
Rowena Bautista, an instructor and chef at the culinary center, said Larrañaga was in
school from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and saw him again at about 6:30 p.m on July 16. The
school's registrar, Caroline Calleja, said she proctored a two-hour exam where
Larrañaga was present from 1:30 p.m. Larrañaga attended his second round of midterm
exams on July 17 commencing at 8 a.m. Only then did Larrañaga leave for Cebu in the
late afternoon of July 17, 1997. Airline and airport personnel also came to court with
their flight records, indicating that Larrañaga did not take any flight on July 16, 1997,
nor was he on board any chartered aircraft that landed in or departed from Cebu during
the relevant dates, except the 5 p.m. PAL flight on July 17, 1997 from Manila to Cebu.
Nonetheless, the trial court ruled that Larrañaga required proof of physical impossibility.
They failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically
impossible for him to be in Cebu at the time.
5 May 1999, RTC found co-defendants guilty of the kidnapping and serious illegal
detention of Jacqueline Chiong and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. It decided that
there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of the kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with homicide and rape of Marijoy Chiong.
The Supreme Court then changed the verdict to a death sentence by lethal injection on
the 3 of February 2004. They were found guilty not only of the kidnapping and serious
illegal detention of Jacqueline Chiong, but also of the complex crime of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with homicide and rape of Marijoy Chiong. However, the
Philippine government abolished death penalty in 2006, and the lives of the seven (7) codefendants were spared.
Larrañaga brought his case to the UN Human Rights Committee which found numerous
violations of the convict’s rights during the course of the trial, from the lower court to the
Supreme Court, and recommended, in 2006, a “commutation of his death sentence and
early consideration for release on parole.”
Since then Larrañaga remains in jail in Spain, where he was transferred as part of a
prisoner exchange treaty in 2009, while his six Filipino co-accused are behind bars in
the Philippines. The Spanish government has also lobbied the Philippines on behalf of
Larranaga but he cannot be released unless he wins a presidential pardon.
He filed an appeal to then President Benigno Aquino. However the Department of
Justice rejected the appeal on behalf of the president.
APPEAL TO THE HRC
HRC VIEW, Communication No. 1421/2005
The complaint
The complaint
Ground
State
Party's
Comment
Violation of article 6 State
party death penalty was
of the Covenant
reintroduced
the never abolished by
death penalty after the
1987
abolishing it.
Constitution.
Consideration of the
merits
In the light of the
State party's recent
repeal of the death
penalty,
the
Committee
> imposition of the considers that this
death penalty for claim is no longer a
certain crimes is live issue.
purely a matter for
domestic discretion,
save
for
the
limitation that it be
imposed only for the
"most
serious
crimes".
> not a party to the
Second
Optional
Protocol to the
Covenant.
violation of article Violation
14 (2)
presumption.
innocence:
of
of there was clear
evidence
of
homicide and rape.
evaluation of facts It recalls that a
and evidence by the criminal
appeal
Special
Heinous opens up the entire
Crimes Court and case for review and
the Supreme Court that to have oral
were
manifestly arguments before
arbitrary
and the Supreme Court
amounted
to
a is not a matter of
denial of justice, in right. The Supreme
violation of his right Court
carefully
to be presumed assessed
the
innocent
until evidence before it
proved guilty.
and decided to
disagree with the
trial
court's
imposition of a life
sentence on the
author and his codefendants.
prosecution
was
based on evidence testimony
was
from an accomplice corroborated
by
charged with the disinterested
same crime
witnesses
and
compatible with the
physical evidence
14 (1)
trial court and the
Supreme
Court
were subject to
outside
pressure
from powerful social
groups, especially
the Chinese-Filipino
community,
of
which the victims
are members and
decision of the
Supreme Court was
rendered by the
court as a whole,
rather
than
by
specific Justices.
trial judge did not
show
sufficient
latitude in permitting
the defendant to
prove this defence,
and in particular,
excluded
several
witnesses offered in
the alibi defence.
which argued for
the execution of the
defendants.
article 14 (1)(3d),
prevented
from author was not
testifying at his own prevented
from
trial
testifying, since the
prosecution and the
defence agreed to
dispense with his
testimony
3(e)
no equality to call
and
examine trial
court
may
witnesses
dispense with the
testimony
of
witnesses
who
would offer the
same testimonies
given by witnesses
who
already
testified
right
to
crossexamine
was
unfairly restricted
It was the right and
duty of the trial court
to control the cross>
cross- examination
of
examination of the witnesses, both for
main prosecution the
purpose of
had to examine the
case as to the facts
and the law, and in
particular had to
make
a
full
assessment of the
question of the
author's guilt or
innocence, it should
have used its power
to
conduct
hearings,
as
provided
under
national law, to
ensure that the
proceedings
complied with the
requirements of a
fair trial
witness
was
repeatedly cut short
by the trial judge
and
prematurely
terminated to avoid
the possibility of
harm to the witness
> trial judge refused
to
hear
the
remaining defense
witnesses.
14 3(b)
conserving time and
protecting
the
witnesses
from
prolonged
and
needless
examination.
reaffirms that it is for
the national courts
to evaluate facts
and evidence in a
particular
case.
However, bearing in
mind
the
seriousness of the
charges involved in
the present case,
the
Committee
considers that the
trial court's denial to
hear the remaining
defence witnesses
without any further
justification
other
than
that
the
evidence
was
"irrelevant
and
immaterial" and the
time
constraints,
while, at the same
time, the number of
witnesses for the
prosecution was not
similarly restricted,
does not meet the
requirements
of
article 14
counsel did not
have sufficient time the trial had to be hen counsel for the
to
prepare
the terminated
within defendant requests
defense
sixty days.
an
adjournment
because he was not
given enough time
to acquaint himself
with the case, the
court must ensure
that the defendant
is
given
an
opportunity
to
prepare
his
defense.
>
adjournment
should have been
granted
14 (3d)
could not choose an
effective counsel
trial
court
can
appoint a counsel
whom it considers
competent
to
enable the trial to
proceed.
14 (1)
not tried by an no basis for the
independent
and claim of partiality
impartial tribunal
and bias on the part
of the trial judge
because he was the
same judge who
had informed the
author
of
the
charges against him
and asked him to
enter his plea.
Art. 6(2) and article SC failed to correct
14
any
of
the
irregularities of the
this is a case
involving the death
penalty, the trial
court should have
accepted
the
author's request for
a different counsel,
even if this entailed
an adjournment of
the proceedings.
involvement
of
these judges in
these
trial
and
appeal proceedings
is incompatible with
the requirement of
impartiality
> involvement of
these judges in the
preliminary
proceedings
was
such as to allow
them to form an
opinion on the case
prior to the trial and
appeal
proceedings. This
knowledge
is
necessarily related
to
the
charges
against the author
and the evaluation
of those charges.
proceedings before
the lower court.
Articles
9(3), undue delays in the given
the
14(3)(c) and 14(5)
proceedings
complexity of the
case and the fact
that the author
availed himself of all
the
remedies
available, the courts
have acted with all
due dispatch
Article 7
prolonged period of
detention on death
row.
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
Shadow Report September 2012
REMEDY ORDERED
 commutation of death sentence
 early consideration for release on
parole

measures
violations
in the future
to
prevent
REMEDY PROVIDED
Death penalty commuted to life
imprisonment along with many others prior
to issuance of Committee’s views. Court
order in 2007 recognised possibility of
parole. Author remains in prison in Spain
similar under a prisoner transfer agreement;
author maintains release on parole
requires steps to be taken by the
Philippines. Anticipated release date 28
September
2034.
Communication
between the parties ongoing.
SUMMARY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND KNOWN STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION
Francisco Juan Larrañaga v. Philippines, Communication No. 1421/2005, U.N. Doc.
CCPR/C/87/D/1421/2005 (2006).
Summary of facts: Mandatory imposition of the death penalty; presumption of
innocence
The author, along with six co-defendants, was accused of kidnapping, serious illegal
detention, rape and murder. According to the author, he was not in the same city when
these crimes were committed.
The main prosecution witness was another defendant who was promised immunity from
prosecution. During the hearings, the witness admitted for the first time that he had raped
one of the victims and the cross examination was cut short when he admitted that he lied
about his previous convictions, which should have disentitled him from immunity. There
were also allegations that he had been bribed. In response, author's counsel refused to
participate in the trial and asked the trial judge to recuse himself - he was summarily found
guilty of contempt of court, arrested and imprisoned. The author requested 3 weeks to
hire new counsel, but the court refused to adjourn the trial any further, and offered the
defendants the opportunity to rehire their counsel, who were in prison. The then court
ordered the Public Attorney's Office to assign to the court a team of public attorneys who
would act temporarily as defense counsel.
Prosecution witnesses were presented, and the court deferred the cross-examination of
several of them in view of the defendants' insistence that the lawyer whom they had yet
to choose would conduct the cross-examination. The author's newly appointed counsel
then asked to cross-examine these witnesses but the court refused. It also refused to
grant the new counsel an adjournment to acquaint himself with the case file. Author’s
counsel cross-examined again the main prosecution witness, however, in response to a
motion from the prosecution, he was discharged as a witness and was granted immunity
from prosecution. The court then granted the new counsel 4 days to decide if they wanted
to cross-examine the other prosecution witnesses, but counsel refused in protest and the
court decided that all the defendants had waived their right to cross-examine prosecution
witnesses.
Witnesses testified in favor of the author and confirmed that he was in Quezon City
immediately before, during and after the alleged crime committed in Cebu City, more than
500 km away. Several pieces of evidence were presented to the court to the same effect.
The trial judge refused to hear other witnesses on the ground that their testimony would
be substantially the same as the author's other witnesses and he refused to hear evidence
from other defense witnesses on the ground that the evidence was "irrelevant and
immaterial.”
The author was found guilty of the kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The author
appealed to the Supreme Court, which did not hear the testimony of any witnesses during
the review process, relying solely upon the lower court's appreciation of the evidence.
They found the author guilty not only of the kidnapping and serious illegal detention, but
also of the complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and
rape. The author was sentenced to death by lethal injection. A motion for reconsideration
was lodged with the Supreme Court, but was rejected.
Violations: Article 6, paragraph 1; article 7; and article 14, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (b), (c), (d),
(e), 5
Remedy:
In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, the State party is under an
obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy, including commutation of his
death sentence and early consideration for release on parole. The State party is under
an obligation to take measures to prevent similar violations in the future.
Follow-up:
Death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in 2006 along with many others prior
to issuance of Committee’s views. Shortly afterwards the death penalty was abolished in
the Philippines.
In March 2007 a court order recognised that the author was not precluded by the decree
abolishing the death penalty to consideration for parole.
In October 2009 the author was transferred under a prisoner transfer agreement from the
Philippines to Spain. In March 2011 the Spanish courts confirmed that the author’s
anticipated release date was 28 September 2034.
In November 2011 the case was raised in the Human Rights Committee and the Special
Rapporteur on follow-up agreed to look into the case and to consider whether the
Philippines has properly implemented the Committee’s views. The Special Rapporteur
also said he would also start from the “strong presumption” that, as Spain has obligations
under the Optional Protocol, it should also be involved in the implementation of the
remedy.
In December 2011 the author’s representatives wrote to the Committee urging that the
following steps to be taken:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
The Special Rapporteur, through the Secretariat, should send a reminder to the
Philippines and a letter to Spain seeking its views on follow up
If no information is forthcoming by the given deadline, the Special Rapporteur
should seek to organize a meeting with a representative of the Philippines and
Spain from the Permanent Mission in Geneva or New York, to discuss the
facilitation of implementation
If no information is forthcoming from the Philippines, a follow-up mission to the
Philippines should be organised because it has experienced particular difficulties
with the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations
If insufficient or no follow-up information has been provided, the Committee should
seek information from the Philippines during the examination of its periodic report
in October 2012 under article 40 of the Covenant; and in respect of Spain during
its next periodic report
The Government responded in May 2012, attempting to reopen the merits on some of
the violations held by the Committee, and alleging that the Government of Spain was
responsible for the terms of continuation of imprisonment. The author responded again
in June 2012. No further progress has been made and the author remains in prison.
(Communication with the author’s representative).
PRISONER EXCHANGE TREATY
As a dual citizen of the Philippines and Spain, Paco Larrañaga was moved to a Spanish
prison under what is known as the RP-Spain Transfer of Sentenced Persons Agreement
(TSPA). Signed on May 18, 2007 and approved by the senates of both countries, this
treaty allows foreign prisoners to be sent to their countries of nationality to serve out the
rest of their sentences.
> The treaty allows a person sentenced to serve imprisonment in the Philippines to serve
his sentence in a jail in Spain and vice versa.
> Once the transfer is accomplished, the sentence enforcement shall be governed by the
laws of the State where the convict was transferred. Only the sentencing State, the
Philippines in the case of Larrañaga, may grant pardon, amnesty, or commutation of
sentence. However, Spain may ask the Philippines to grant pardon, amnesty, or
commutation of the sentence by submitting an application with sufficient grounds.
>
PACO LATER
Paco remains in prison but now benefits from an additional privilege of the Spanish penal
system: Due to time already served, he is granted occasional therapeutic leaves (a few
days every month) at the prison board's discretion, which means he receives permission
to leave during daytime hours to study and work.
> Six years after being transferred from the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City to a
Spanish prison, Francisco “Paco” Osmeña Larrañaga is working part-time as a chef.
> allowed to leave his cell without a security escort and head to work at the restaurant.
He
then
returns
at
night
to
his
cell.
> Paco studied hotel and restaurant management under a temporary license granted by
the
Prison
Support
Team
in
a
penitentiary.
> right to work by prisoners is guaranteed under the Spanish Constitution of 1978, which
states that prisoners have “the right to paid employment.”
> In 2009, Paco was transferred to a maximum-security prison in Soto del Real, Madrid,
Spain
named
the
Madrid
Central
Penitentiary.
> four years later, Larrañaga was moved to a second-grade prison in Martutene, San
Sebastian, Spain.
It was in Martutene that Larrañaga was granted special licenses for his education and
work.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DEATH PENALTY BY LETHAL INJECTION?
> In April 2006, President Arroyo commuted the sentences of 1,230 death row and
ultimately signed RA 9346 in June 2006 which abolished the use of capital punishment.
Congress had overwhelmingly supported the abolishment of the practice in their vote for
the RA earlier that month replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment and reclusion
perpetua.
> In 2007, the Philippines ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires countries to abolish the death
penalty. Countries that are parties to the covenant and the protocol cannot reinstate the
death penalty without violating their obligations under international human rights law.