Webb: NBI obstructed justice in Vizconde case

MANILA, Philippines - Hubert Webb, one of the convicts in the Vizconde massacre case, asked the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday to penalize previous and current officials of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for what he alleged to be acts to “impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice” in the two-decade old case.

In a 60-page petition, Webb, through lawyer Demetrio Custodio Jr., asked the SC to cite the NBI officials in contempt for allegedly losing the semen sample taken from the body of victim Carmela Vizconde for the DNA testing needed to prove that his client was not among those who raped her.

Webb argued that the failure of NBI to keep the sample is tantamount to “willful suppression of evidence.”

“Submitting the semen sample for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) examination was the last hope that the petitioner (Webb) had to reverse his conviction and be released after 15 years of incarceration,” petitioner lamented.

Webb said the NBI knew that Jessica Alfaro merely “volunteered herself to act out the role of an eyewitness” when the real eyewitness to the Vizconde killings became unavailable.

He also alleged that Alfaro was coached during the execution of her second affidavit, which converted her into an instant eyewitness to the crime and cured the “defects” of her first affidavit, in which she say she did not personally witness the killings.

A Parañaque regional trial court gave weight to Alfaro’s testimony in convicting Webb and other accused in 2000.

Webb named as respondents in his petition incumbent NBI chief Magtanggol Gatdula and former directors Carlos Caabay and Nestor Mantaring; NBI deputy director for technical services Reynaldo Esmeralda; medico-legal division chief Dr. Floresto Arizala Jr. and his predecessor, Dr. Prospero Cabanayan; medico-legal officer Dr. Renato Bautista; NBI lawyers Arturo Figueras and Pedro Rivera; and NBI agent John Herra.

The SC was supposed to release its final ruling on the case last Nov. 23, but has deferred it indefinitely upon the request of some of the justices, who asked for more time to review the case before they cast their votes.