Webb, 5 others freed

MANILA, Philippines - After 15 years behind bars, Hubert Webb and five others convicted for the sensational Vizconde massacre in 1991 walked out of prison yesterday after being cleared by the Supreme Court (SC).

Voting 7-4 with four abstentions, the High Court ruled that Parañaque Regional Trial Court Branch 274 judge and now Court of Appeals Justice Amelita Tolentino erred in handing down in January 2000 a guilty verdict on Webb, Hospicio “Pyke” Fernandez, Antonio “Tony Boy” Lejano, Michael Gatchalian, Peter Estrada, and Miguel “Ging” Rodriguez for the crime of rape with homicide.

The SC’s ruling covered former policeman Gerardo Biong who was released last month after serving his 12-year sentence for destroying evidence including bloodstained clothing.

The CA upheld Tolentino’s ruling on Dec. 15, 2005.

“They should be released soon unless they are held for any other unlawful cause,” court administrator and SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez told a press conference.

“There is no more motion for reconsideration that can be filed. That would be tantamount to double jeopardy,” he added.

Marquez stressed that even if guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the freed convict cannot be automatically considered innocent.

He added that Webb and the other convicts may claim damages from the government for being wrongly imprisoned.

“They would have to file a separate case for that, and their claims would have to be proven,” Marquez said.

Marquez also vehemently denied allegations of the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption that money changed hands in the acquittal of Webb and the six others.

“It would be better if they read the majority decision,” he said.

He declined to comment when asked if VACC founding chair Dante Jimenez could be penalized for hurling profanities at the justices in a press conference.

 ‘Lingering doubt’

The 38-page decision penned by Associate Justice Roberto Abad cited “reasonable and lingering doubt on the guilt of the accused” as well as “failure of prosecution to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”

“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,” the SC stressed.

Six magistrates concurred with the ruling: Associate Justices Conchita Carpio-Morales, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza and Ma. Lourdes Sereno.

The SC also cited “inherent inconsistencies” in the testimony of Jessica Alfaro, saying she was an asset of the National Bureau of Investigation and that she was coached to testify after she presented herself as replacement of a witness she had promised but failed to produce.

“Alfaro was the NBI’s star witness, their badge of excellent investigative work. 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,” it explained.

“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,” the SC added.

The SC cited for instance Alfaro’s error in personally identifying Rodriguez. She pinpointed a certain Michael Rodriguez in a police lineup, a drug dependent from the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center.

“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’ but as it turned out, he was not the Miguel Rodriguez the accused in this case,” it recalled.

Another inconsistency in Alfaro’s testimony, according to the High Court, was her claim that she left the house and went to her car because she was afraid to be caught. But this was inconsistent with her subsequent claim that she went back to the house to watch Webb rape Carmela on the floor of the master’s bedroom and kill Carmela’s mother and younger sister.

Alfaro then testified that she got scared again and went out of the house after Webb gave her a threatening look.

“This emotional pendulum swing indicates a witness who was confused with her own lies,” the SC stressed.

Webb in the US

The High Court also believed Webb’s alibi that he was in the US when the crime was committed on June 29, 1991, saying documents supported his claim. 

“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,” it stressed.

The SC ruled that the documents submitted by Webb’s lawyers during the trial, including two immigration checks showing he left for San Francisco in California on March 9, 1991 and returned to the country on Oct. 26, 1992, were authentic.

“The prosecution did not bother to present evidence to impeach the entries in Webb’s passport and the certifications of the Philippine and US immigration services regarding his travel to the US and back. The prosecution’s rebuttal evidence of the fear of the unknown (was) planted in the lower court’s minds,” the SC added.

Dissenting opinion

Chief Justice Renato Corona dissented along with Associate Justices Martin Villarama Jr., Teresita Leonardo-de Castro and Arturo Brion.

In an 88-page dissenting opinion penned by Justice Villarama, the minority upheld the findings of the RTC and CA that Alfaro’s testimony was credible.

Villarama said five witnesses had corroborated Alfaro’s testimony.

“Appellants’ (Webb and co-accused) presence at the scene of the crime before, during and after its commission was duly established. Their respective participation, acts and declarations were likewise detailed by Alfaro, who was shown to be a credible witness,” he said.

Villarama said Webb’s defense of “alibi” that he was in the US from March 9, 1991 to Oct. 26, 1992 “is inherently weak.”

“Given the financial resources and political influence of his family, it was not unlikely that Webb could have traveled back to the Philippines before June 29-30, 1991 and then departed for the US again, and returning to the Philippines in October 1992,” Villarama said.

“There clearly exists, therefore, such possibility of Webb’s presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and his excuse cannot be deemed airtight,” he added.

According to Villarama, Webb’s travel documents were “unreliable proof of his absence in the Philippines at the time of the commission of the crime charged.”

“The non-submission in evidence of his original passport, which was not formally offered and made part of the records, had deprived the RTC, CA and this Court the opportunity to examine the same. Such original is a crucial piece of evidence which unfortunately was placed beyond judicial scrutiny,” Villarama said.

He also said the existence of conspiracy among the accused was “satisfactorily proven by the prosecution.”

Four other magistrates inhibited from the case – Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Mariano del Castillo, Presbitero Velasco Jr. and Antonio Eduardo Nachura.

Carpio had testified during trial while Nachura had handled the case when he was still solicitor general. Del Castillo opted not to take part in the voting since his wife had served as lawyer for one of the accused, while Velasco is related to one of the parties in the case, according to Marquez.   

No need to air stand

President Aquino said he sympathized with Vizconde but said it was up to the SC to explain its decision to the public.

“Initially of course we sympathize with Mr. Lauro Vizconde. I asked for a brief to be prepared,” the President said in a text message.

Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said it was not for Malacañang to comment on why it took the courts 19 years to decide on the case with finality or on why the accused had been convicted in the first place.

“The Palace has no position one way or the other on the Vizconde case. We leave it entirely to the parties to comment on that,” he added.

Lacierda said it was irrelevant that the final ruling on the case was done under the Aquino administration.

“The case was decided based on the assessment of the justices on the appeal. So we can’t comment any further than that. Again, it’s a decision made entirely by a separate branch of government so we leave it up to them,” he said.

Meanwhile, Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Director General Raul Bacalzo said the police organization respects the decision of the SC.

“We respect the wisdom of the justices and the decision of highest court of the land,” said Bacalzo in a text message to The STAR. “While we commiserate with the Vizconde family and denounce the tragic incident, we are bound by the democratic principles under the Constitution that the SC is the final arbiter,” he said.

“I can only hope and pray that justice will in the end be served,” the PNP chief pointed out.

Senor Superintendent Noel Baraceros, PNP deputy spokesman, said the PNP is updating its guidelines for criminal investigation. Biong, a former policeman, mishandled evidence in the Vizconde trial and got convicted for it.

“The PNP has already issued guidelines and an investigation manual, which is continuously being updated,” Baraceros told The STAR.

“In addition the PNP is conducting different investigation courses both locally and abroad to enhance investigative capabilities of our personnel.” With Aurea Calica and Cecille Suerte Felipe