Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 176389 December 14, 2010

ANTONIO LEJANO, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

G.R. No. 176864

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, ANTONIO LEJANO, MICHAEL A. GATCHALIAN,
HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, PETER ESTRADA and GERARDO
BIONG, Appellants.

DECISION

ABAD, J.:

Brief Background

On June 30, 1991 Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela, nineteen years old, and
Jennifer, seven, were brutally slain at their home in Parañaque City. Following an intense
investigation, the police arrested a group of suspects, some of whom gave detailed
confessions. But the trial court smelled a frame-up and eventually ordered them discharged.
Thus, the identities of the real perpetrators remained a mystery especially to the public
whose interests were aroused by the gripping details of what everybody referred to as the
Vizconde massacre.

Four years later in 1995, the National Bureau of Investigation or NBI announced that it had
solved the crime. It presented star-witness Jessica M. Alfaro, one of its informers, who
claimed that she witnessed the crime. She pointed to accused Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb,
Antonio "Tony Boy" Lejano, Artemio "Dong" Ventura, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio "Pyke"
Fernandez, Peter Estrada, Miguel "Ging" Rodriguez, and Joey Filart as the culprits. She also
tagged accused police officer, Gerardo Biong, as an accessory after the fact. Relying
primarily on Alfaro's testimony, on August 10, 1995 the public prosecutors filed an
information for rape with homicide against Webb, et al.1

The Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 274, presided over by Judge Amelita G.
Tolentino, tried only seven of the accused since Artemio Ventura and Joey Filart remained at
large.2 The prosecution presented Alfaro as its main witness with the others corroborating
her testimony. These included the medico-legal officer who autopsied the bodies of the
victims, the security guards of Pitong Daan Subdivision, the former laundrywoman of the
Webb’s household, police officer Biong’s former girlfriend, and Lauro G. Vizconde, Estrellita’s
husband.

For their part, some of the accused testified, denying any part in the crime and saying they
were elsewhere when it took place. Webb’s alibi appeared the strongest since he claimed
that he was then across the ocean in the United States of America. He presented the
testimonies of witnesses as well as documentary and object evidence to prove this. In
addition, the defense presented witnesses to show Alfaro's bad reputation for truth and the
incredible nature of her testimony.

But impressed by Alfaro’s detailed narration of the crime and the events surrounding it, the
trial court found a credible witness in her. It noted her categorical, straightforward,
spontaneous, and frank testimony, undamaged by grueling cross-examinations. The trial
court remained unfazed by significant discrepancies between Alfaro’s April 28 and May 22,
1995 affidavits, accepting her explanation that she at first wanted to protect her former
boyfriend, accused Estrada, and a relative, accused Gatchalian; that no lawyer assisted her;
that she did not trust the investigators who helped her prepare her first affidavit; and that
she felt unsure if she would get the support and security she needed once she disclosed all
about the Vizconde killings.

In contrast, the trial court thought little of the denials and alibis that Webb, Lejano,
Rodriguez, and Gatchalian set up for their defense. They paled, according to the court,
compared to Alfaro’s testimony that other witnesses and the physical evidence
corroborated. Thus, on January 4, 2000, after four years of arduous hearings, the trial court
rendered judgment, finding all the accused guilty as charged and imposing on Webb,
Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, and Rodriguez the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and on Biong, an indeterminate prison term of eleven years, four months, and one day to
twelve years. The trial court also awarded damages to Lauro Vizconde.3

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, modifying the penalty
imposed on Biong to six years minimum and twelve years maximum and increasing the
award of damages to Lauro Vizconde.4 The appellate court did not agree that the accused
were tried by publicity or that the trial judge was biased. It found sufficient evidence of
conspiracy that rendered Rodriguez, Gatchalian, Fernandez, and Estrada equally guilty with
those who had a part in raping and killing Carmela and in executing her mother and sister.

On motion for reconsideration by the accused, the Court of Appeals' Special Division of five
members voted three against two to deny the motion,5 hence, the present appeal.

On April 20, 2010, as a result of its initial deliberation in this case, the Court issued a
Resolution granting the request of Webb to submit for DNA analysis the semen specimen
taken from Carmela’s cadaver, which specimen was then believed still under the
safekeeping of the NBI. The Court granted the request pursuant to section 4 of the Rule on
DNA Evidence6 to give the accused and the prosecution access to scientific evidence that
they might want to avail themselves of, leading to a correct decision in the case.

Unfortunately, on April 27, 2010 the NBI informed the Court that it no longer has custody of
the specimen, the same having been turned over to the trial court. The trial record shows,
however, that the specimen was not among the object evidence that the prosecution
offered in evidence in the case.

This outcome prompted accused Webb to file an urgent motion to acquit on the ground that
the government’s failure to preserve such vital evidence has resulted in the denial of his
right to due process.

Issues Presented

Accused Webb’s motion to acquit presents a threshold issue: whether or not the Court
should acquit him outright, given the government’s failure to produce the semen specimen
that the NBI found on Carmela’s cadaver, thus depriving him of evidence that would prove
his innocence.

In the main, all the accused raise the central issue of whether or not Webb, acting in
conspiracy with Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, Rodriguez, Ventura, and Filart,
raped and killed Carmela and put to death her mother and sister. But, ultimately, the
controlling issues are:
 1. Whether or not Alfaro’s testimony as eyewitness, describing the crime and
identifying Webb, Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, Rodriguez, and two others
as the persons who committed it, is entitled to belief; and

2. Whether or not Webb presented sufficient evidence to prove his alibi and rebut
Alfaro’s testimony that he led the others in committing the crime.

The issue respecting accused Biong is whether or not he acted to cover up the crime after
its commission.

TheRighttoAcquittal
Due to Loss of DNA Evidence

Webb claims, citing Brady v. Maryland,7 that he is entitled to outright acquittal on the
ground of violation of his right to due process given the State’s failure to produce on order
of the Court either by negligence or willful suppression the semen specimen taken from
Carmela.

The medical evidence clearly established that Carmela was raped and, consistent with this,
semen specimen was found in her. It is true that Alfaro identified Webb in her testimony as
Carmela’s rapist and killer but serious questions had been raised about her credibility. At the
very least, there exists a possibility that Alfaro had lied. On the other hand, the semen
specimen taken from Carmela cannot possibly lie. It cannot be coached or allured by a
promise of reward or financial support. No two persons have the same DNA fingerprint, with
the exception of identical twins.8 If, on examination, the DNA of the subject specimen does
not belong to Webb, then he did not rape Carmela. It is that simple. Thus, the Court would
have been able to determine that Alfaro committed perjury in saying that he did.

Still, Webb is not entitled to acquittal for the failure of the State to produce the semen
specimen at this late stage. For one thing, the ruling in Brady v. Maryland9 that he cites has
long be overtaken by the decision in Arizona v. Youngblood,10 where the U.S. Supreme
Court held that due process does not require the State to preserve the semen specimen
although it might be useful to the accused unless the latter is able to show bad faith on the
part of the prosecution or the police. Here, the State presented a medical expert who
testified on the existence of the specimen and Webb in fact sought to have the same
subjected to DNA test.

For, another, when Webb raised the DNA issue, the rule governing DNA evidence did not
yet exist, the country did not yet have the technology for conducting the test, and no
Philippine precedent had as yet recognized its admissibility as evidence. Consequently, the
idea of keeping the specimen secure even after the trial court rejected the motion for DNA
testing did not come up. Indeed, neither Webb nor his co-accused brought up the matter of
preserving the specimen in the meantime.

Parenthetically, after the trial court denied Webb’s application for DNA testing, he allowed
the proceeding to move on when he had on at least two occasions gone up to the Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court to challenge alleged arbitrary actions taken against him and
the other accused.11 They raised the DNA issue before the Court of Appeals but merely as
an error committed by the trial court in rendering its decision in the case. None of the
accused filed a motion with the appeals court to have the DNA test done pending
adjudication of their appeal. This, even when the Supreme Court had in the meantime
passed the rules allowing such test. Considering the accused’s lack of interest in having
such test done, the State cannot be deemed put on reasonable notice that it would be
required to produce the semen specimen at some future time.

Now, to the merit of the case.

Alfaro’s Story

Based on the prosecution’s version, culled from the decisions of the trial court and the Court
of Appeals, on June 29, 1991 at around 8:30 in the evening, Jessica Alfaro drove her
Mitsubishi Lancer, with boyfriend Peter Estrada as passenger, to the Ayala Alabang
Commercial Center parking lot to buy shabu from Artemio "Dong" Ventura. There, Ventura
introduced her to his friends: Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio "Tony Boy" Lejano, Miguel
"Ging" Rodriguez, Hospicio "Pyke" Fernandez, Michael Gatchalian, and Joey Filart. Alfaro
recalled frequently seeing them at a shabu house in Parañaque in January 1991, except
Ventura whom she had known earlier in December 1990.

As Alfaro smoked her shabu, Webb approached and requested her to relay a message for
him to a girl, whom she later identified as Carmela Vizconde. Alfaro agreed. After using up
their shabu, the group drove to Carmela’s house at 80 Vinzons Street, Pitong Daan
Subdivision, BF Homes, Parañaque City. Riding in her car, Alfaro and Estrada trailed Filart
and Rodriguez who rode a Mazda pick-up and Webb, Lejano, Ventura, Fernandez, and
Gatchalian who were on a Nissan Patrol car.

On reaching their destination, Alfaro parked her car on Vinzons Street, alighted, and
approached Carmela’s house. Alfaro pressed the buzzer and a woman came out. Alfaro
queried her about Carmela. Alfaro had met Carmela twice before in January 1991. When
Carmela came out, Alfaro gave her Webb’s message that he was just around. Carmela
replied, however, that she could not go out yet since she had just arrived home. She told
Alfaro to return after twenty minutes. Alfaro relayed this to Webb who then told the group
to drive back to the Ayala Alabang Commercial Center.

The group had another shabu session at the parking lot. After sometime, they drove back
but only Alfaro proceeded to Vinzons Street where Carmela lived. The Nissan Patrol and the
Mazda pick-up, with their passengers, parked somewhere along Aguirre Avenue. Carmela
was at their garden. She approached Alfaro on seeing her and told the latter that she
(Carmela) had to leave the house for a while. Carmela requested Alfaro to return before
midnight and she would leave the pedestrian gate, the iron grills that led to the kitchen, and
the kitchen door unlocked. Carmela also told Alfaro to blink her car’s headlights twice when
she approached the pedestrian gate so Carmela would know that she had arrived.

Alfaro returned to her car but waited for Carmela to drive out of the house in her own car.
Alfaro trailed Carmela up to Aguirre Avenue where she dropped off a man whom Alfaro
believed was Carmela’s boyfriend. Alfaro looked for her group, found them, and relayed
Carmela’s instructions to Webb. They then all went back to the Ayala Alabang Commercial
Center. At the parking lot, Alfaro told the group about her talk with Carmela. When she told
Webb of Carmela’s male companion, Webb’s mood changed for the rest of the evening
("bad trip").

Webb gave out free cocaine. They all used it and some shabu, too. After about 40 to 45
minutes, Webb decided that it was time for them to leave. He said, "Pipilahan natin siya
[Carmela] at ako ang mauuna." Lejano said, "Ako ang susunod" and the others responded
"Okay, okay." They all left the parking lot in a convoy of three vehicles and drove into
Pitong Daan Subdivision for the third time. They arrived at Carmela’s house shortly before
midnight.

Alfaro parked her car between Vizconde’s house and the next. While waiting for the others
to alight from their cars, Fernandez approached Alfaro with a suggestion that they blow up
the transformer near the Vizconde’s residence to cause a brownout ("Pasabugin kaya natin
ang transformer na ito"). But Alfaro shrugged off the idea, telling Fernandez, "Malakas lang
ang tama mo." When Webb, Lejano, and Ventura were already before the house, Webb told
the others again that they would line up for Carmela but he would be the first. The others
replied, "O sige, dito lang kami, magbabantay lang kami."
Alfaro was the first to pass through the pedestrian gate that had been left open. Webb,
Lejano, and Ventura followed her. On entering the garage, Ventura using a chair mounted
the hood of the Vizcondes’ Nissan Sentra and loosened the electric bulb over it ("para daw
walang ilaw"). The small group went through the open iron grill gate and passed the dirty
kitchen. Carmela opened the aluminum screen door of the kitchen for them. She and Webb
looked each other in the eyes for a moment and, together, headed for the dining area.

As she lost sight of Carmela and Webb, Alfaro decided to go out. Lejano asked her where
she was going and she replied that she was going out to smoke. As she eased her way out
through the kitchen door, she saw Ventura pulling out a kitchen drawer. Alfaro smoked a
cigarette at the garden. After about twenty minutes, she was surprised to hear a woman’s
voice ask, "Sino yan?" Alfaro immediately walked out of the garden to her car. She found
her other companions milling around it. Estrada who sat in the car asked her, "Okay ba?"

After sitting in the car for about ten minutes, Alfaro returned to the Vizconde house, using
the same route. The interior of the house was dark but some light filtered in from outside.
In the kitchen, Alfaro saw Ventura searching a lady’s bag that lay on the dining table. When
she asked him what he was looking for, he said: "Ikaw na nga dito, maghanap ka ng susi."
She asked him what key he wanted and he replied: "Basta maghanap ka ng susi ng main
door pati na rin ng susi ng kotse." When she found a bunch of keys in the bag, she tried
them on the main door but none fitted the lock. She also did not find the car key.

Unable to open the main door, Alfaro returned to the kitchen. While she was at a spot
leading to the dining area, she heard a static noise (like a television that remained on after
the station had signed off). Out of curiosity, she approached the master’s bedroom from
where the noise came, opened the door a little, and peeked inside. The unusual sound grew
even louder. As she walked in, she saw Webb on top of Carmela while she lay with her back
on the floor. Two bloodied bodies lay on the bed. Lejano was at the foot of the bed about to
wear his jacket. Carmela was gagged, moaning, and in tears while Webb raped her, his bare
buttocks exposed.

Webb gave Alfaro a meaningful look and she immediately left the room. She met Ventura at
the dining area. He told her, "Prepare an escape. Aalis na tayo." Shocked with what she
saw, Alfaro rushed out of the house to the others who were either sitting in her car or
milling on the sidewalk. She entered her car and turned on the engine but she did not know
where to go. Webb, Lejano, and Ventura came out of the house just then. Webb suddenly
picked up a stone and threw it at the main door, breaking its glass frame.

As the three men approached the pedestrian gate, Webb told Ventura that he forgot his
jacket in the house. But Ventura told him that they could not get in anymore as the iron
grills had already locked. They all rode in their cars and drove away until they reached
Aguirre Avenue. As they got near an old hotel at the Tropical Palace area, Alfaro noticed the
Nissan Patrol slow down. Someone threw something out of the car into the cogonal area.

The convoy of cars went to a large house with high walls, concrete fence, steel gate, and a
long driveway at BF Executive Village. They entered the compound and gathered at the
lawn where the "blaming session" took place. It was here that Alfaro and those who
remained outside the Vizconde house learned of what happened. The first to be killed was
Carmela’s mother, then Jennifer, and finally, Carmella. Ventura blamed Webb, telling him,
"Bakit naman pati yung bata?" Webb replied that the girl woke up and on seeing him
molesting Carmela, she jumped on him, bit his shoulders, and pulled his hair. Webb got
mad, grabbed the girl, pushed her to the wall, and repeatedly stabbed her. Lejano excused
himself at this point to use the telephone in the house. Meanwhile, Webb called up someone
on his cellular phone.

At around 2:00 in the morning, accused Gerardo Biong arrived. Webb ordered him to go
and clean up the Vizconde house and said to him, "Pera lang ang katapat nyan." Biong
answered, "Okay lang." Webb spoke to his companions and told them, "We don’t know each
other. We haven’t seen each other…baka maulit yan." Alfaro and Estrada left and they
drove to her father’s house.12

1. The quality of the witness

Was Alfaro an ordinary subdivision girl who showed up at the NBI after four years, bothered
by her conscience or egged on by relatives or friends to come forward and do what was
right? No. She was, at the time she revealed her story, working for the NBI as an "asset," a
stool pigeon, one who earned her living by fraternizing with criminals so she could squeal on
them to her NBI handlers. She had to live a life of lies to get rewards that would pay for her
subsistence and vices.

According to Atty. Artemio Sacaguing, former head of the NBI Anti-Kidnapping, Hijacking,
and Armed Robbery Task Force (AKHAR) Section, Alfaro had been hanging around at the
NBI since November or December 1994 as an "asset." She supplied her handlers with
information against drug pushers and other criminal elements. Some of this information led
to the capture of notorious drug pushers like Christopher Cruz Santos and Orlando Bacquir.
Alfaro’s tip led to the arrest of the leader of the "Martilyo gang" that killed a police officer.
Because of her talent, the task force gave her "very special treatment" and she became its
"darling," allowed the privilege of spending nights in one of the rooms at the NBI offices.

When Alfaro seemed unproductive for sometime, however, they teased her about it and she
was piqued. One day, she unexpectedly told Sacaguing that she knew someone who had
the real story behind the Vizconde massacre. Sacaguing showed interest. Alfaro promised to
bring that someone to the NBI to tell his story. When this did not happen and Sacaguing
continued to press her, she told him that she might as well assume the role of her
informant. Sacaguing testified thus:
ATTY. ONGKIKO:
Q. Atty. Sacaguing, how did Jessica Alfaro become a witness in the Vizconde murder
case? Will you tell the Honorable Court?
xxxx
A. She told me. Your Honor, that she knew somebody who related to her the
circumstances, I mean, the details of the massacre of the Vizconde family. That’s
what she told me, Your Honor.
ATTY. ONGKIKO:
Q. And what did you say?
xxxx
A. I was quite interested and I tried to persuade her to introduce to me that man
and she promised that in due time, she will bring to me the man, and together with
her, we will try to convince him to act as a state witness and help us in the solution
of the case.
xxxx
Q. Atty. Sacaguing, were you able to interview this alleged witness?
WITNESS SACAGUING:
A. No, sir.
ATTY. ONGKIKO:
Q. Why not?
WITNESS SACAGUING:
A. Because Jessica Alfaro was never able to comply with her promise to bring the
man to me. She told me later that she could not and the man does not like to testify.
ATTY. ONGKIKO:
Q. All right, and what happened after that?
WITNESS SACAGUING:
A. She told me, "easy lang kayo, Sir," if I may quote, "easy lang Sir, huwag
kayong…"
COURT:
How was that?
WITNESS SACAGUING:
A. "Easy lang, Sir. Sir, relax lang, Sir, papapelan ko, papapelan ko na lang ‘yan."
 xxxx
ATTY. ONGKIKO:
Q. All right, and what was your reaction when Ms. Alfaro stated that "papapelan ko
na lang yan?"
WITNESS SACAGUING:
A. I said, "hindi puwede yan, kasi hindi ka naman eye witness."
ATTY. ONGKIKO:
Q. And what was the reply of Ms. Alfaro?
WITNESS SACAGUING:
A. Hindi siya nakakibo, until she went away.
(TSN, May 28, 1996, pp. 49-50, 58, 77-79)
Quite significantly, Alfaro never refuted Sacaguing’s above testimony.

2. The suspicious details

But was it possible for Alfaro to lie with such abundant details some of which even tallied
with the physical evidence at the scene of the crime? No doubt, yes.

Firstly, the Vizconde massacre had been reported in the media with dizzying details.
Everybody was talking about what the police found at the crime scene and there were lots
of speculations about them.

Secondly, the police had arrested some "akyat-bahay" group in Parañaque and charged
them with the crime. The police prepared the confessions of the men they apprehended and
filled these up with details that the evidence of the crime scene provided. Alfaro’s NBI
handlers who were doing their own investigation knew of these details as well. Since Alfaro
hanged out at the NBI offices and practically lived there, it was not too difficult for her to
hear of these evidentiary details and gain access to the documents.

Not surprisingly, the confessions of some members of the Barroso "akyat bahay" gang,
condemned by the Makati RTC as fabricated by the police to pin the crime on them, shows
how crime investigators could make a confession ring true by matching some of its details
with the physical evidence at the crime scene. Consider the following:

a. The Barroso gang members said that they got into Carmela’s house by breaking the glass
panel of the front door using a stone wrapped in cloth to deaden the noise. Alfaro could not
use this line since the core of her story was that Webb was Carmela’s boyfriend. Webb had
no reason to smash her front door to get to see her.

Consequently, to explain the smashed door, Alfaro had to settle for claiming that, on the
way out of the house, Webb picked up some stone and, out of the blue, hurled it at the
glass-paneled front door of the Vizconde residence. His action really made no sense. From
Alfaro’s narration, Webb appeared rational in his decisions. It was past midnight, the house
was dark, and they wanted to get away quickly to avoid detection. Hurling a stone at that
glass door and causing a tremendous noise was bizarre, like inviting the neighbors to come.

b. The crime scene showed that the house had been ransacked. The rejected confessions of
the Barroso "akyat-bahay" gang members said that they tried to rob the house. To explain
this physical evidence, Alfaro claimed that at one point Ventura was pulling a kitchen
drawer, and at another point, going through a handbag on the dining table. He said he was
looking for the front-door key and the car key.

Again, this portion of Alfaro’s story appears tortured to accommodate the physical evidence
of the ransacked house. She never mentioned Ventura having taken some valuables with
him when they left Carmela’s house. And why would Ventura rummage a bag on the table
for the front-door key, spilling the contents, when they had already gotten into the house. It
is a story made to fit in with the crime scene although robbery was supposedly not the
reason Webb and his companions entered that house.
c. It is the same thing with the garage light. The police investigators found that the bulb
had been loosened to turn off the light. The confessions of the Barroso gang claimed that
one of them climbed the parked car’s hood to reach up and darken that light. This made
sense since they were going to rob the place and they needed time to work in the dark
trying to open the front door. Some passersby might look in and see what they were doing.

Alfaro had to adjust her testimony to take into account that darkened garage light. So she
claimed that Ventura climbed the car’s hood, using a chair, to turn the light off. But, unlike
the Barroso "akyat-bahay" gang, Webb and his friends did not have anything to do in a
darkened garage. They supposedly knew in advance that Carmela left the doors to the
kitchen open for them. It did not make sense for Ventura to risk standing on the car’s hood
and be seen in such an awkward position instead of going straight into the house.

And, thirdly, Alfaro was the NBI’s star witness, their badge of excellent investigative
work.lavvphil After claiming that they had solved the crime of the decade, the NBI people
had a stake in making her sound credible and, obviously, they gave her all the preparations
she needed for the job of becoming a fairly good substitute witness. She was their "darling"
of an asset. And this is not pure speculation. As pointed out above, Sacaguing of the NBI, a
lawyer and a ranking official, confirmed this to be a cold fact. Why the trial court and the
Court of Appeals failed to see this is mystifying.

At any rate, did Alfaro at least have a fine memory for faces that had a strong effect on her,
given the circumstances? Not likely. She named Miguel "Ging" Rodriguez as one of the
culprits in the Vizconde killings. But when the NBI found a certain Michael Rodriguez, a drug
dependent from the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center, initially suspected to be Alfaro’s Miguel
Rodriguez and showed him to Alfaro at the NBI office, she ran berserk, slapping and kicking
Michael, exclaiming: "How can I forget your face. We just saw each other in a disco one
month ago and you told me then that you will kill me." As it turned out, he was not Miguel
Rodriguez, the accused in this case.13

Two possibilities exist: Michael was really the one Alfaro wanted to implicate to settle some
score with him but it was too late to change the name she already gave or she had myopic
vision, tagging the wrong people for what they did not do.

3. The quality of the testimony

There is another thing about a lying witness: her story lacks sense or suffers from inherent
inconsistencies. An understanding of the nature of things and the common behavior of
people will help expose a lie. And it has an abundant presence in this case.

One. In her desire to implicate Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, Rodriguez, and Filart, who
were supposed to be Webb’s co-principals in the crime, Alfaro made it a point to testify that
Webb proposed twice to his friends the gang-rape of Carmela who had hurt him. And twice,
they (including, if one believes Alfaro, her own boyfriend Estrada) agreed in a chorus to his
proposal. But when they got to Carmela’s house, only Webb, Lejano, Ventura, and Alfaro
entered the house.

Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, and Rodriguez supposedly stayed around Alfaro’s car, which
was parked on the street between Carmela’s house and the next. Some of these men sat on
top of the car’s lid while others milled on the sidewalk, visible under the street light to
anyone who cared to watch them, particularly to the people who were having a drinking
party in a nearby house. Obviously, the behavior of Webb’s companions out on the street
did not figure in a planned gang-rape of Carmela.

Two. Ventura, Alfaro’s dope supplier, introduced her for the first time in her life to Webb
and his friends in a parking lot by a mall. So why would she agree to act as Webb’s
messenger, using her gas, to bring his message to Carmela at her home. More inexplicably,
what motivated Alfaro to stick it out the whole night with Webb and his friends?
They were practically strangers to her and her boyfriend Estrada. When it came to a point
that Webb decided with his friends to gang-rape Carmela, clearly, there was nothing in it for
Alfaro. Yet, she stuck it out with them, as a police asset would, hanging in there until she
had a crime to report, only she was not yet an "asset" then. If, on the other hand, Alfaro
had been too soaked in drugs to think clearly and just followed along where the group took
her, how could she remember so much details that only a drug-free mind can?

Three. When Alfaro went to see Carmela at her house for the second time, Carmella told
her that she still had to go out and that Webb and his friends should come back around
midnight. Alfaro returned to her car and waited for Carmela to drive out in her own car. And
she trailed her up to Aguirre Avenue where she supposedly dropped off a man whom she
thought was Carmela’s boyfriend. Alfaro’s trailing Carmela to spy on her unfaithfulness to
Webb did not make sense since she was on limited errand. But, as a critical witness, Alfaro
had to provide a reason for Webb to freak out and decide to come with his friends and
harm Carmela.

Four. According to Alfaro, when they returned to Carmela’s house the third time around
midnight, she led Webb, Lejano, and Ventura through the pedestrian gate that Carmela had
left open. Now, this is weird. Webb was the gang leader who decided what they were going
to do. He decided and his friends agreed with him to go to Carmela’s house and gang-rape
her. Why would Alfaro, a woman, a stranger to Webb before that night, and obviously with
no role to play in the gang-rape of Carmela, lead him and the others into her house? It
made no sense. It would only make sense if Alfaro wanted to feign being a witness to
something she did not see.

Five. Alfaro went out of the house to smoke at the garden. After about twenty minutes, a
woman exclaimed, "Sino yan?" On hearing this, Alfaro immediately walked out of the garden
and went to her car. Apparently, she did this because she knew they came on a sly.
Someone other than Carmela became conscious of the presence of Webb and others in the
house. Alfaro walked away because, obviously, she did not want to get involved in a
potential confrontation. This was supposedly her frame of mind: fear of getting involved in
what was not her business.

But if that were the case, how could she testify based on personal knowledge of what went
on in the house? Alfaro had to change that frame of mind to one of boldness and reckless
curiosity. So that is what she next claimed. She went back into the house to watch as Webb
raped Carmela on the floor of the master’s bedroom. He had apparently stabbed to death
Carmela’s mom and her young sister whose bloodied bodies were sprawled on the bed.
Now, Alfaro testified that she got scared (another shift to fear) for she hurriedly got out of
the house after Webb supposedly gave her a meaningful look.

Alfaro quickly went to her car, not minding Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, Rodriguez, and
Filart who sat on the car or milled on the sidewalk. She did not speak to them, even to
Estrada, her boyfriend. She entered her car and turned on the engine but she testified that
she did not know where to go. This woman who a few minutes back led Webb, Lejano, and
Ventura into the house, knowing that they were decided to rape and harm Carmela, was
suddenly too shocked to know where to go! This emotional pendulum swing indicates a
witness who was confused with her own lies.

4. The supposed corroborations

Intending to provide corroboration to Alfaro’s testimony, the prosecution presented six

additional witnesses:

Dr. Prospero A. Cabanayan, the NBI Medico-Legal Officer who autopsied the bodies of
the victims, testified on the stab wounds they sustained14 and the presence of semen in
Carmela’s genitalia,15 indicating that she had been raped.
Normal E. White, Jr., was the security guard on duty at Pitong Daan Subdivision from 7
p.m. of June 29 to 7 a.m. of June 30, 1991. He got a report on the morning of June 30 that
something untoward happened at the Vizconde residence. He went there and saw the dead
bodies in the master’s bedroom, the bag on the dining table, as well as the loud noise
emanating from a television set.16

White claimed that he noticed Gatchalian and his companions, none of whom he could
identify, go in and out of Pitong Daan Subdivision. He also saw them along Vinzons Street.
Later, they entered Pitong Daan Subdivision in a three-car convoy. White could not,
however, describe the kind of vehicles they used or recall the time when he saw the group
in those two instances. And he did not notice anything suspicious about their coming and
going.

But White’s testimony cannot be relied on. His initial claim turned out to be inaccurate. He
actually saw Gatchalian and his group enter the Pitong Daan Subdivision only once. They
were not going in and out. Furthermore, Alfaro testified that when the convoy of cars went
back the second time in the direction of Carmela’s house, she alone entered the subdivision
and passed the guardhouse without stopping. Yet, White who supposedly manned that
guardhouse did not notice her.

Surprisingly, White failed to note Biong, a police officer, entering or exiting the subdivision
on the early morning of June 30 when he supposedly "cleaned up" Vizconde residence on
Webb’s orders. What is more, White did not notice Carmela arrive with her mom before
Alfaro’s first visit that night. Carmela supposedly left with a male companion in her car at
around 10:30 p.m. but White did not notice it. He also did not notice Carmela reenter the
subdivision. White actually discredited Alfaro’s testimony about the movements of the
persons involved.

Further, while Alfaro testified that it was the Mazda pick-up driven by Filart that led the
three-vehicle convoy,17 White claimed it was the Nissan Patrol with Gatchalian on it that led
the convoy since he would not have let the convoy in without ascertaining that Gatchalian, a
resident, was in it. Security guard White did not, therefore, provide corroboration to Alfaro’s
testimony.1avvphi1

Justo Cabanacan, the security supervisor at Pitong Daan Subdivision testified that he saw
Webb around the last week of May or the first week of June 1991 to prove his presence in
the Philippines when he claimed to be in the United States. He was manning the guard
house at the entrance of the subdivision of Pitong Daan when he flagged down a car driven
by Webb. Webb said that he would see Lilet Sy. Cabanacan asked him for an ID but he
pointed to his United BF Homes sticker and said that he resided there. Cabanacan replied,
however, that Pitong Daan had a local sticker.

Cabanacan testified that, at this point, Webb introduced himself as the son of Congressman
Webb. Still, the supervisor insisted on seeing his ID. Webb grudgingly gave it and after
seeing the picture and the name on it, Cabanacan returned the same and allowed Webb to
pass without being logged in as their Standard Operating Procedure required.18

But Cabanacan's testimony could not be relied on. Although it was not common for a
security guard to challenge a Congressman’s son with such vehemence, Cabanacan did not
log the incident on the guardhouse book. Nor did he, contrary to prescribed procedure,
record the visitor’s entry into the subdivision. It did not make sense that Cabanacan was
strict in the matter of seeing Webb’s ID but not in recording the visit.

Mila Gaviola used to work as laundry woman for the Webbs at their house at BF Homes
Executive Village. She testified that she saw Webb at his parents’ house on the morning of
June 30, 1991 when she got the dirty clothes from the room that he and two brothers
occupied at about 4.a.m. She saw him again pacing the floor at 9 a.m. At about 1 p.m.,
Webb left the house in t-shirt and shorts, passing through a secret door near the maid’s
quarters on the way out. Finally, she saw Webb at 4 p.m. of the same day.19
On cross-examination, however, Gaviola could not say what distinguished June 30, 1991
from the other days she was on service at the Webb household as to enable her to distinctly
remember, four years later, what one of the Webb boys did and at what time. She could not
remember any of the details that happened in the household on the other days. She proved
to have a selective photographic memory and this only damaged her testimony.

Gaviola tried to corroborate Alfaro’'s testimony by claiming that on June 30, 1991 she
noticed bloodstains on Webb's t-shirt.20 She did not call the attention of anybody in the
household about it when it would have been a point of concern that Webb may have been
hurt, hence the blood.

Besides, Victoria Ventoso, the Webbs' housemaid from March 1989 to May 1992, and Sgt.
Miguel Muñoz, the Webbs' security aide in 1991, testified that Gaviola worked for the Webbs
only from January 1991 to April 1991. Ventoso further testified that it was not Gaviola's duty
to collect the clothes from the 2nd floor bedrooms, this being the work of the housemaid
charged with cleaning the rooms.

What is more, it was most unlikely for a laundrywoman who had been there for only four
months to collect, as she claimed, the laundry from the rooms of her employers and their
grown up children at four in the morning while they were asleep.

And it did not make sense, if Alfaro’s testimony were to be believed that Webb, who was so
careful and clever that he called Biong to go to the Vizconde residence at 2 a.m. to clean up
the evidence against him and his group, would bring his bloodied shirt home and put it in
the hamper for laundrywoman Gaviola to collect and wash at 4 a.m. as was her supposed
habit.

Lolita De Birrer was accused Biong’s girlfriend around the time the Vizconde massacre
took place. Birrer testified that she was with Biong playing mahjong from the evening of
June 29, 1991 to the early morning of June 30, when Biong got a call at around 2 a.m. This
prompted him, according to De Birrer, to leave and go to BF. Someone sitting at the
backseat of a taxi picked him up. When Biong returned at 7 a.m. he washed off what looked
like dried blood from his fingernails. And he threw away a foul-smelling handkerchief. She
also saw Biong take out a knife with aluminum cover from his drawer and hid it in his steel
cabinet.21

The security guard at Pitong Daan did not notice any police investigator flashing a badge to
get into the village although Biong supposedly came in at the unholy hour of two in the
morning. His departure before 7 a.m. also remained unnoticed by the subdivision guards.
Besides, if he had cleaned up the crime scene shortly after midnight, what was the point of
his returning there on the following morning to dispose of some of the evidence in the
presence of other police investigators and on-lookers? In fact, why would he steal valuable
items from the Vizconde residence on his return there hours later if he had the opportunity
to do it earlier?

At most, Birrer’s testimony only established Biong’s theft of certain items from the Vizconde
residence and gross neglect for failing to maintain the sanctity of the crime scene by moving
around and altering the effects of the crime. Birrer’s testimony failed to connect Biong's acts
to Webb and the other accused.

Lauro Vizconde testified about how deeply he was affected by the loss of her wife and
two daughters. Carmella spoke to him of a rejected suitor she called "Bagyo," because he
was a Parañaque politician’s son. Unfortunately, Lauro did not appear curious enough to
insist on finding out who the rejected fellow was. Besides, his testimony contradicts that of
Alfaro who testified that Carmela and Webb had an on-going relation. Indeed, if Alfaro were
to be believed, Carmela wanted Webb to come to her house around midnight. She even left
the kitchen door open so he could enter the house.

5. The missing corroboration

There is something truly remarkable about this case: the prosecution’s core theory that
Carmela and Webb had been sweethearts, that she had been unfaithful to him, and that it
was for this reason that Webb brought his friends to her house to gang-rape her is totally
uncorroborated!

For instance, normally, if Webb, a Congressman’s son, courted the young Carmela, that
would be news among her circle of friends if not around town. But, here, none of her
friends or even those who knew either of them came forward to affirm this. And if Webb
hanged around with her, trying to win her favors, he would surely be seen with her. And
this would all the more be so if they had become sweethearts, a relation that Alfaro tried to
project with her testimony.

But, except for Alfaro, the NBI asset, no one among Carmela’s friends or her friends’ friends
would testify ever hearing of such relationship or ever seeing them together in some
popular hangouts in Parañaque or Makati. Alfaro’s claim of a five-hour drama is like an alien
page, rudely and unconnectedly inserted into Webb and Carmela’s life stories or like a piece
of jigsaw puzzle trimmed to fit into the shape on the board but does not belong because it
clashes with the surrounding pieces. It has neither antecedent nor concomitant support in
the verifiable facts of their personal histories. It is quite unreal.

What is more, Alfaro testified that she saw Carmela drive out of her house with a male
passenger, Mr. X, whom Alfaro thought the way it looked was also Carmela’s lover. This was
the all-important reason Webb supposedly had for wanting to harm her. Again, none of
Carmela’s relatives, friends, or people who knew her ever testified about the existence of
Mr.X in her life. Nobody has come forward to testify having ever seen him with Carmela.
And despite the gruesome news about her death and how Mr. X had played a role in it, he
never presented himself like anyone who had lost a special friend normally would.
Obviously, Mr. X did not exist, a mere ghost of the imagination of Alfaro, the woman who
made a living informing on criminals.

Webb’s U.S. Alibi

Among the accused, Webb presented the strongest alibi.

a. The travel preparations

Webb claims that in 1991 his parents, Senator Freddie Webb and his wife, Elizabeth, sent
their son to the United States (U.S.) to learn the value of independence, hard work, and
money.22 Gloria Webb, his aunt, accompanied him. Rajah Tours booked their flight to San
Francisco via United Airlines. Josefina Nolasco of Rajah Tours confirmed that Webb and his
aunt used their plane tickets.

Webb told his friends, including his neighbor, Jennifer Claire Cabrera, and his basketball
buddy, Joselito Orendain Escobar, of his travel plans. He even invited them to his despedida
party on March 8, 1991 at Faces Disco along Makati Ave.23 On March 8,1991, the eve of his
departure, he took girlfriend Milagros Castillo to a dinner at Bunchums at the Makati Cinema
Square. His basketball buddy Rafael Jose with Tina Calma, a blind date arranged by Webb,
joined them. They afterwards went to Faces Disco for Webb's despedida party. Among
those present were his friends Paulo Santos and Jay Ortega.24

b. The two immigration checks

The following day, March 9, 1991, Webb left for San Francisco, California, with his Aunt
Gloria on board United Airlines Flight 808.25 Before boarding his plane, Webb passed
through the Philippine Immigration booth at the airport to have his passport cleared and
stamped. Immigration Officer, Ferdinand Sampol checked Webb’s visa, stamped, and
initialed his passport, and let him pass through.26 He was listed on the United Airlines
Flight’s Passenger Manifest.27
On arrival at San Francisco, Webb went through the U.S. Immigration where his entry into
that country was recorded. Thus, the U.S. Immigration Naturalization Service, checking with
its Non-immigrant Information System, confirmed Webb's entry into the U.S. on March 9,
1991. Webb presented at the trial the INS Certification issued by the U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service,28 the computer-generated print-out of the US-INS indicating Webb's
entry on March 9, 1991,29 and the US-INS Certification dated August 31, 1995,
authenticated by the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, correcting an earlier August
10, 1995 Certification.30

c. Details of U.S. sojourn

In San Francisco, Webb and his aunt Gloria were met by the latter’s daughter, Maria Teresa
Keame, who brought them to Gloria’s house in Daly City, California. During his stay with his
aunt, Webb met Christopher Paul Legaspi Esguerra, Gloria’s grandson. In April 1991, Webb,
Christopher, and a certain Daphne Domingo watched the concert of Deelite Band in San
Francisco.31 In the same month, Dorothy Wheelock and her family invited Webb to Lake
Tahoe to return the Webbs’ hospitality when she was in the Philippines.32

In May 1991, on invitation of another aunt, Susan Brottman, Webb moved to Anaheim Hills,
California.33 During his stay there, he occupied himself with playing basketball once or twice
a week with Steven Keeler34 and working at his cousin-in-law’s pest control
company.35 Webb presented the company’s logbook showing the tasks he performed,36 his
paycheck,37 his ID, and other employment papers. On June 14, 1991 he applied for a
driver's license38 and wrote three letters to his friend Jennifer Cabrera.39

On June 28, 1991, Webb’s parents visited him at Anaheim and stayed with the Brottmans.
On the same day, his father introduced Honesto Aragon to his son when he came to
visit.40 On the following day, June 29, Webb, in the company of his father and Aragon went
to Riverside, California, to look for a car. They bought an MR2 Toyota car.41 Later that day,
a visitor at the Brottman’s, Louis Whittacker, saw Webb looking at the plates of his new
car.42 To prove the purchase, Webb presented the Public Records of California Department
of Motor Vehicle43 and a car plate "LEW WEBB."44 In using the car in the U.S., Webb even
received traffic citations.45

On June 30, 1991 Webb, again accompanied by his father and Aragon,46 bought a bicycle at
Orange Cycle Center.47 The Center issued Webb a receipt dated June 30, 1991.48 On July 4,
1991, Independence Day, the Webbs, the Brottmans, and the Vaca family had a lakeside
picnic.49

Webb stayed with the Brottmans until mid July and rented a place for less than a month. On
August 4, 1991 he left for Longwood, Florida, to stay with the spouses Jack and Sonja
Rodriguez.50 There, he met Armando Rodriguez with whom he spent time, playing
basketball on weekends, watching movies, and playing billiards.51 In November 1991, Webb
met performing artist Gary Valenciano, a friend of Jack Rodriguez, who was invited for a
dinner at the Rodriguez’s house.52 He left the Rodriguez’s home in August 1992, returned to
Anaheim and stayed with his aunt Imelda Pagaspas. He stayed there until he left for the
Philippines on October 26, 1992.

d. The second immigration checks

As with his trip going to the U.S., Webb also went through both the U.S. and Philippine
immigrations on his return trip. Thus, his departure from the U.S. was confirmed by the
same certifications that confirmed his entry.53 Furthermore, a Diplomatic Note of the U.S.
Department of State with enclosed letter from Acting Director Debora A. Farmer of the
Records Operations, Office of Records of the US-INS stated that the Certification dated
August 31, 1995 is a true and accurate statement. And when he boarded his plane, the
Passenger Manifest of Philippine Airlines Flight No. 103,54 certified by Agnes
Tabuena55 confirmed his return trip.
When he arrived in Manila, Webb again went through the Philippine Immigration. In fact,
the arrival stamp and initial on his passport indicated his return to Manila on October 27,
1992. This was authenticated by Carmelita Alipio, the immigration officer who processed
Webb’s reentry.56 Upon his return, in October 1992, Paolo Santos, Joselito Erondain
Escobar, and Rafael Jose once again saw Webb playing basketball at the BF's Phase III
basketball court.

e. Alibi versus positive identification

The trial court and the Court of Appeals are one in rejecting as weak Webb’s alibi. Their
reason is uniform: Webb’s alibi cannot stand against Alfaro’s positive identification of him as
the rapist and killer of Carmela and, apparently, the killer as well of her mother and younger
sister. Because of this, to the lower courts, Webb’s denial and alibi were fabricated.

But not all denials and alibis should be regarded as fabricated. Indeed, if the accused is
truly innocent, he can have no other defense but denial and alibi. So how can such accused
penetrate a mind that has been made cynical by the rule drilled into his head that a defense
of alibi is a hangman’s noose in the face of a witness positively swearing, "I saw him do it."?
Most judges believe that such assertion automatically dooms an alibi which is so easy to
fabricate. This quick stereotype thinking, however, is distressing. For how else can the truth
that the accused is really innocent have any chance of prevailing over such a stone-cast
tenet?

There is only one way. A judge must keep an open mind. He must guard against slipping
into hasty conclusion, often arising from a desire to quickly finish the job of deciding a case.
A positive declaration from a witness that he saw the accused commit the crime should not
automatically cancel out the accused’s claim that he did not do it. A lying witness can make
as positive an identification as a truthful witness can. The lying witness can also say as
forthrightly and unequivocally, "He did it!" without blinking an eye.

Rather, to be acceptable, the positive identification must meet at least two criteria:

First, the positive identification of the offender must come from a credible witness. She is
credible who can be trusted to tell the truth, usually based on past experiences with her.
Her word has, to one who knows her, its weight in gold.

And second, the witness’ story of what she personally saw must be believable, not
inherently contrived. A witness who testifies about something she never saw runs into
inconsistencies and makes bewildering claims.

Here, as already fully discussed above, Alfaro and her testimony fail to meet the above
criteria.

She did not show up at the NBI as a spontaneous witness bothered by her conscience. She
had been hanging around that agency for sometime as a stool pigeon, one paid for mixing
up with criminals and squealing on them. Police assets are often criminals themselves. She
was the prosecution’s worst possible choice for a witness. Indeed, her superior testified that
she volunteered to play the role of a witness in the Vizconde killings when she could not
produce a man she promised to the NBI.

And, although her testimony included details, Alfaro had prior access to the details that the
investigators knew of the case. She took advantage of her familiarity with these details to
include in her testimony the clearly incompatible act of Webb hurling a stone at the front
door glass frames even when they were trying to slip away quietly—just so she can
accommodate this crime scene feature. She also had Ventura rummaging a bag on the
dining table for a front door key that nobody needed just to explain the physical evidence of
that bag and its scattered contents. And she had Ventura climbing the car’s hood, risking
being seen in such an awkward position, when they did not need to darken the garage to
force open the front door—just so to explain the darkened light and foot prints on the car
hood.

Further, her testimony was inherently incredible. Her story that Gatchalian, Fernandez,
Estrada, Rodriguez, and Filart agreed to take their turns raping Carmela is incongruent with
their indifference, exemplified by remaining outside the house, milling under a street light,
visible to neighbors and passersby, and showing no interest in the developments inside the
house, like if it was their turn to rape Carmela. Alfaro’s story that she agreed to serve as
Webb’s messenger to Carmela, using up her gas, and staying with him till the bizarre end
when they were practically strangers, also taxes incredulity.

To provide basis for Webb’s outrage, Alfaro said that she followed Carmela to the main road
to watch her let off a lover on Aguirre Avenue. And, inexplicably, although Alfaro had only
played the role of messenger, she claimed leading Webb, Lejano, and Ventura into the
house to gang-rape Carmella, as if Alfaro was establishing a reason for later on testifying on
personal knowledge. Her swing from an emotion of fear when a woman woke up to their
presence in the house and of absolute courage when she nonetheless returned to become
the lone witness to a grim scene is also quite inexplicable.

Ultimately, Alfaro’s quality as a witness and her inconsistent, if not inherently unbelievable,
testimony cannot be the positive identification that jurisprudence acknowledges as sufficient
to jettison a denial and an alibi.

f. A documented alibi

To establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence57 that
(a) he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b)
that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.58

The courts below held that, despite his evidence, Webb was actually in Parañaque when the
Vizconde killings took place; he was not in the U.S. from March 9, 1991 to October 27,
1992; and if he did leave on March 9, 1991, he actually returned before June 29, 1991,
committed the crime, erased the fact of his return to the Philippines from the records of the
U.S. and Philippine Immigrations, smuggled himself out of the Philippines and into the U.S.,
and returned the normal way on October 27, 1992. But this ruling practically makes the
death of Webb and his passage into the next life the only acceptable alibi in the Philippines.
Courts must abandon this unjust and inhuman paradigm.

If one is cynical about the Philippine system, he could probably claim that Webb, with his
father’s connections, can arrange for the local immigration to put a March 9, 1991 departure
stamp on his passport and an October 27, 1992 arrival stamp on the same. But this is pure
speculation since there had been no indication that such arrangement was made. Besides,
how could Webb fix a foreign airlines’ passenger manifest, officially filed in the Philippines
and at the airport in the U.S. that had his name on them? How could Webb fix with the U.S.
Immigration’s record system those two dates in its record of his travels as well as the dates
when he supposedly departed in secret from the U.S. to commit the crime in the Philippines
and then return there? No one has come up with a logical and plausible answer to these
questions.

The Court of Appeals rejected the evidence of Webb’s passport since he did not leave the
original to be attached to the record. But, while the best evidence of a document is the
original, this means that the same is exhibited in court for the adverse party to examine and
for the judge to see. As Court of Appeals Justice Tagle said in his dissent,59 the practice
when a party does not want to leave an important document with the trial court is to have a
photocopy of it marked as exhibit and stipulated among the parties as a faithful
reproduction of the original. Stipulations in the course of trial are binding on the parties and
on the court.
The U.S. Immigration certification and the computer print-out of Webb’s arrival in and
departure from that country were authenticated by no less than the Office of the U.S.
Attorney General and the State Department. Still the Court of Appeals refused to accept
these documents for the reason that Webb failed to present in court the immigration official
who prepared the same. But this was unnecessary. Webb’s passport is a document issued
by the Philippine government, which under international practice, is the official record of
travels of the citizen to whom it is issued. The entries in that passport are presumed true.60

The U.S. Immigration certification and computer print-out, the official certifications of which
have been authenticated by the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, merely validated
the arrival and departure stamps of the U.S. Immigration office on Webb’s passport. They
have the same evidentiary value. The officers who issued these certifications need not be
presented in court to testify on them. Their trustworthiness arises from the sense of official
duty and the penalty attached to a breached duty, in the routine and disinterested origin of
such statement and in the publicity of the record.61

The Court of Appeals of course makes capital of the fact that an earlier certification from the
U.S. Immigration office said that it had no record of Webb entering the U.S. But that
erroneous first certification was amply explained by the U.S. Government and Court of
Appeals Justice Tagle stated it in his dissenting opinion, thus:

While it is true that an earlier Certification was issued by the U.S. INS on August 16, 1995
finding "no evidence of lawful admission of Webb," this was already clarified and deemed
erroneous by no less than the US INS Officials. As explained by witness Leo Herrera-Lim,
Consul and Second Secretary of the Philippine Embassy in Washington D.C., said
Certification did not pass through proper diplomatic channels and was obtained in violation
of the rules on protocol and standard procedure governing such request.

The initial request was merely initiated by BID Commissioner Verceles who directly
communicated with the Philippine Consulate in San Francisco, USA, bypassing the Secretary
of Foreign Affairs which is the proper protocol procedure. Mr. Steven Bucher, the acting
Chief of the Records Services Board of US-INS Washington D.C. in his letter addressed to
Philip Antweiler, Philippine Desk Officer, State Department, declared the earlier Certification
as incorrect and erroneous as it was "not exhaustive and did not reflect all available
information." Also, Richard L. Huff, Co-Director of the Office of Information and privacy, US
Department of Justice, in response to the appeal raised by Consul General Teresita V.
Marzan, explained that "the INS normally does not maintain records on individuals who are
entering the country as visitors rather than as immigrants: and that a notation concerning
the entry of a visitor may be made at the Nonimmigrant Information system. Since
appellant Webb entered the U.S. on a mere tourist visa, obviously, the initial search could
not have produced the desired result inasmuch as the data base that was looked into
contained entries of the names of IMMIGRANTS and not that of NON-IMMIGRANT visitors of
the U.S..62

The trial court and the Court of Appeals expressed marked cynicism over the accuracy of
travel documents like the passport as well as the domestic and foreign records of
departures and arrivals from airports. They claim that it would not have been impossible for
Webb to secretly return to the Philippines after he supposedly left it on March 9, 1991,
commit the crime, go back to the U.S., and openly return to the Philippines again on
October 26, 1992. Travel between the U.S. and the Philippines, said the lower courts took
only about twelve to fourteen hours.

If the Court were to subscribe to this extremely skeptical view, it might as well tear the
rules of evidence out of the law books and regard suspicions, surmises, or speculations as
reasons for impeaching evidence. It is not that official records, which carry the presumption
of truth of what they state, are immune to attack. They are not. That presumption can be
overcome by evidence. Here, however, the prosecution did not bother to present evidence
to impeach the entries in Webb’s passport and the certifications of the Philippine and U.S.’
immigration services regarding his travel to the U.S. and back. The prosecution’s rebuttal
evidence is the fear of the unknown that it planted in the lower court’s minds.

7. Effect of Webb’s alibi to others

Webb’s documented alibi altogether impeaches Alfaro's testimony, not only with respect to
him, but also with respect to Lejano, Estrada, Fernandez, Gatchalian, Rodriguez, and Biong.
For, if the Court accepts the proposition that Webb was in the U.S. when the crime took
place, Alfaro’s testimony will not hold together. Webb’s participation is the anchor of Alfaro’s
story. Without it, the evidence against the others must necessarily fall.

CONCLUSION

In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court entertains doubts
about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all possibilities,
but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it would be a
serious mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs on to one’s
inner being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth.

Will the Court send the accused to spend the rest of their lives in prison on the testimony of
an NBI asset who proposed to her handlers that she take the role of the witness to the
Vizconde massacre that she could not produce?

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision dated December 15, 2005
and Resolution dated January 26, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 00336
and ACQUITS accused-appellants Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael A.
Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and Gerardo Biong of the
crimes of which they were charged for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless they are
confined for another lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City
for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to
report the action he has taken to this Court within five days from receipt of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

G.R. No. 176389 January 18, 2011

ANTONIO LEJANO, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

G.R. No. 176864

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, ANTONIO LEJANO, MICHAEL A. GATCHALIAN,
HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, PETER ESTRADA and GERARDO
BIONG, Appellants.

RESOLUTION

ABAD, J.:

On December 14, 2010 the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals (CA) and
acquitted the accused in this case, Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael A.
Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada, and Gerardo Biong of the
charges against them on the ground of lack of proof of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

On December 28, 2010 complainant Lauro G. Vizconde, an immediate relative of the

victims, asked the Court to reconsider its decision, claiming that it "denied the prosecution
due process of law; seriously misappreciated the facts; unreasonably regarded Alfaro as
lacking credibility; issued a tainted and erroneous decision; decided the case in a manner
that resulted in the miscarriage of justice; or committed grave abuse in its treatment of the
evidence and prosecution witnesses."1

But, as a rule, a judgment of acquittal cannot be reconsidered because it places the accused
under double jeopardy. The Constitution provides in Section 21, Article III, that:

Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. x
xx

To reconsider a judgment of acquittal places the accused twice in jeopardy of being

punished for the crime of which he has already been absolved. There is reason for this
provision of the Constitution. In criminal cases, the full power of the State is ranged against
the accused. If there is no limit to attempts to prosecute the accused for the same offense
after he has been acquitted, the infinite power and capacity of the State for a sustained and
repeated litigation would eventually overwhelm the accused in terms of resources, stamina,
and the will to fight.

As the Court said in People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan:2

[A]t the heart of this policy is the concern that permitting the sovereign freely to subject the
citizen to a second judgment for the same offense would arm the government with a potent
instrument of oppression. The provision therefore guarantees that the State shall not be
permitted to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense,
thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense, and ordeal and compelling him to live
in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even
though innocent he may be found guilty. Society’s awareness of the heavy personal strain
which a criminal trial represents for the individual defendant is manifested in the willingness
to limit the government to a single criminal proceeding to vindicate its very vital interest in
the enforcement of criminal laws.3

Of course, on occasions, a motion for reconsideration after an acquittal is possible. But the
grounds are exceptional and narrow as when the court that absolved the accused gravely
abused its discretion, resulting in loss of jurisdiction, or when a mistrial has occurred. In any
of such cases, the State may assail the decision by special civil action of certiorari under
Rule 65.4

Here, although complainant Vizconde invoked the exceptions, he has been unable to bring
his pleas for reconsideration under such exceptions. For instance, he avers that the Court
"must ensure that due process is afforded to all parties and there is no grave abuse of
discretion in the treatment of witnesses and the evidence."5 But he has not specified the
violations of due process or acts constituting grave abuse of discretion that the Court
supposedly committed. His claim that "the highly questionable and suspicious evidence for
the defense taints with serious doubts the validity of the decision"6 is, without more, a mere
conclusion drawn from personal perception.

Complainant Vizconde cites the decision in Galman v. Sandiganbayan7 as authority that the
Court can set aside the acquittal of the accused in the present case. But the government
proved in Galman that the prosecution was deprived of due process since the judgment of
acquittal in that case was "dictated, coerced and scripted."8 It was a sham trial. Here,
however, Vizconde does not allege that the Court held a sham review of the decision of the
CA. He has made out no case that the Court held a phony deliberation in this case such that
the seven Justices who voted to acquit the accused, the four who dissented, and the four
who inhibited themselves did not really go through the process.

Ultimately, what the complainant actually questions is the Court’s appreciation of the
evidence and assessment of the prosecution witnesses’ credibility. He ascribes grave error
on the Court’s finding that Alfaro was not a credible witness and assails the value assigned
by the Court to the evidence of the defense. In other words, private complainant wants the
Court to review the evidence anew and render another judgment based on such a re-
evaluation. This is not constitutionally allowed as it is merely a repeated attempt to secure
Webb, et al’s conviction. The judgment acquitting Webb, et al is final and can no longer be
disturbed.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES for lack of merit complainant Lauro G. Vizconde’s motion
for reconsideration dated December 28, 2010.

For essentially the same reason, the Court DENIES the motions for leave to intervene of Fr.
Robert P. Reyes, Sister Mary John R. Mananzan, Bishop Evangelio L. Mercado, and Dante
L.A. Jimenez, representing the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption and of former Vice
President Teofisto Guingona, Jr.

No further pleadings shall be entertained in this case.

SO ORDERED.