EN BANC

ANTONIO LEJANO, G.R. No. 176389

Petitioner,
Present:

CORONA, C.J.,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO,
- versus - BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA, and
SERENO, JJ.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

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

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 176864

Appellee,

- versus -

HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB,

ANTONIO LEJANO, MICHAEL
A. GATCHALIAN, HOSPICIO
FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ,
PETER ESTRADA and GERARDO Promulgated:
BIONG,
Appellants. December 14, 2010

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

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[1]

The Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 274, presided

1[1]
Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-3.
over by Judge Amelita G. Tolentino, tried only seven of the accused since
Artemio Ventura and Joey Filart remained at large. 2[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.

2[2]
Rollo (G.R. 176389), pp. 393-399 and rollo (G.R. 176864), pp. 80-104.
 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[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[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[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
3[3]
Records, Vol. 25, pp. 170-71.
4[4]
CA rollo, Vol. IV, pp. 3478-3479.
5[5]
Resolution dated January 26, 2007, rollo (G.R. 176839), pp. 197-214.
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[6] 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:
6[6]
A.M. 06-11-5-SC effective October 15, 2007.
 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.

The Right to Acquittal

Due to Loss of DNA Evidence

Webb claims, citing Brady v. Maryland,7[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
7[7]
373 U.S. 83 (1963).
twins.8[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[9] that he cites has long be overtaken by the
decision in Arizona v. Youngblood,10[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
8[8]
People v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224, May 19, 2004, 425 SCRA 504, 514.
9[9]
Supra note 7.
10[10]
488 U.S. 41 (1988).
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[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
11[11]
Webb v. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995, 247 SCRA 652; Webb v. People, G.R. No.
127262, July 24, 1997, 276 SCRA 243.
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[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)
12[12]
The ponencia, pp. 4-9.
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. 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[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
13[13]
TSN, August 6, 1996, pp. 13-41; TSN, May 22, 1997, pp. 72, 81-131, 142-157; Exhibits “274” and
“275”.
(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[14] and the presence of semen in Carmela’s genitalia, 15[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[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

14[14]
Exhibits “G” to “G-2”, “Q” to “R”, “V”, “W” and “X”, Records, Vol. 8, pp. 308-310, 323-324,
328-330.
15[15]
Exhibits “H” to “K”, Records, Vol. 8, pp. 311-315; TSN, January 30, 1996, pp. xx.
16[16]
TSN, March 25, 1996, pp. 8-14, 17-34.
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[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.

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

17[17]
TSN October 10, 1995, pp. 97-98 (Records, Vol. 4, pp. 271-272).
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[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[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.

18[18]
TSN, March 14, 1996, pp. 79-89, 103-104.
19[19]
TSN, December 5, 1995, pp. 21-65.
 Gaviola tried to corroborate Alfaro’'s testimony by claiming that on
June 30, 1991 she noticed bloodstains on Webb's t-shirt.20[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
20[20]
Id.
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[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.
21[21]
TSN, April 16, 1996, pp. 18-38, 79.
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[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
22[22]
TSN, August 14, 1997 and September 1, 1997.
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[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[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[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[26] He was
listed on the United Airlines Flight’s Passenger Manifest.27[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

23[23]
TSN, July 9, 1997, pp. 22-26.
24[24]
TSN, July 8, 1997, pp. 15-19; and TSN, June 9, 1997, pp. 22-26.
25[25]
Exhibit “227”.
26[26]
TSN, May 28, 1997, pp. 112-118, 121-122.
27[27]
Exhibit “223”.
March 9, 1991. Webb presented at the trial the INS Certification issued
by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service,28[28] the computer-
generated print-out of the US-INS indicating Webb's entry on March 9,
1991,29[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[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[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[32]

In May 1991, on invitation of another aunt, Susan Brottman, Webb

moved to Anaheim Hills, California.33[33] During his stay there, he
occupied himself with playing basketball once or twice a week with
Steven Keeler34[34] and working at his cousin-in-law’s pest control
company.35[35] Webb presented the company’s logbook showing the tasks

28[28]
Exhibits “207” to “219”.
29[29]
Exhibit “207-B”.
30[30]
Exhibit “212-D”.
31[31]
TSN, June 3, 1997, pp. 14-33; photograph before the concert Exhibit “295,” Records (Vol.2), p.
208.
32[32]
TSN, April 23, 1997, pp. 128-129, 134-148.
33[33]
TSN, April 30, 1997, pp. 69-71.
34[34]
TSN, June 2, 1997, pp. 51-64, 75-78.
35[35]
TSN, June 16, 1997, pp. 12, 16-38, 43-59 and 69-93.
he performed,36[36] his paycheck,37[37] his ID, and other employment
papers. On June 14, 1991 he applied for a driver's license 38[38] and wrote
three letters to his friend Jennifer Cabrera.39[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[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[41] Later that day, a visitor at the Brottman’s, Louis Whittacker, saw
Webb looking at the plates of his new car. 42[42] To prove the purchase,
Webb presented the Public Records of California Department of Motor
Vehicle43[43] and a car plate “LEW WEBB.”44[44] In using the car in the
U.S., Webb even received traffic citations.45[45]

On June 30, 1991 Webb, again accompanied by his father and

Aragon,46[46] bought a bicycle at Orange Cycle Center.47[47] The Center
issued Webb a receipt dated June 30, 1991.48[48] On July 4, 1991,
Independence Day, the Webbs, the Brottmans, and the Vaca family had a
lakeside picnic.49[49]

Webb stayed with the Brottmans until mid July and rented a place
36[36]
Exhibits “305”.
37[37]
Exhibits “306” and “307”.
38 [38]
Exhibits “344” and “346”.
39[39]
Exhibits “244”, “245” and “246”.
40[40]
TSN, July 16, 1997, pp. 35, 41-42, 48-49, 58, 61-62.
41[41]
TSN, July 16, 1996, pp. 16-17, 23-32, 61-63, 78-84.
42[42]
TSN, June 26, 1997, pp. 13-28.
43[43]
Exhibit “338”.
44[44]
Exhibit “348”.
45[45]
Exhibits “341” and “342”.
46[46]
TSN, July 16, 1996, pp. 16-17, 23-32, 61-63, 78-84.
47[47]
Exhibit “349”.
48[48]
Exhibit “337-B”.
49[49]
TSN, May 9, 1996, pp. 26-32, 37, 44-57.
for less than a month. On August 4, 1991 he left for Longwood, Florida,
to stay with the spouses Jack and Sonja Rodriguez. 50[50] There, he met
Armando Rodriguez with whom he spent time, playing basketball on
weekends, watching movies, and playing billiards.51[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[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[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[54] certified by Agnes Tabuena55[55] 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
50[50]
Id.
51[51]
TSN, July 7, 1997, pp. 19-35.
52[52]
TSN, July 2, 1997, pp. 33-37.
53[53]
Exhibit “212-D”.
54[54]
Exhibit “261”.
55[55]
Exhibit “260”.
authenticated by Carmelita Alipio, the immigration officer who processed
Webb’s reentry.56[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
56[56]
TSN, June 23, 1997.
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[57] 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[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.

57[57]
People v. Hillado, 367 Phil. 29 (1999).
58[58]
People v. Saban, G.R. No. 110559, November 24, 1999, 319 SCRA 36, 46.
 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[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
59[59]
Rollo (G.R. 176839), pp. 216-217.
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[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[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

60[60]
Section 44, Rule 130, Rules of Court.
61[61]
Antilon v. Barcelona, 37 Phil. 148 (1917).
 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[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

62[62]
Rollo (G.R. 176839), pp. 218-219.
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
 ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ANTONIO EDUARDO B.

NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO ARTURO D. BRION

Associate Justice Associate Justice

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO MARTIN S. VILLARAMA,

JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ JOSE CATRAL

MENDOZA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
 MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice