TAB 1:

1
Trial information:

Judge:

The honorable Amelita G. Tolentino-( Presiding judge of Regional Trial Court Branch 274 )

Prosecution

Plaintiff:

People of the Philippines,

The honorable Amelita G. Tolentino ( Presiding judge of Regional Trial Court Branch 274 )

LauroVizconde, (Estrellita's husband and father of Carmela and Jennifer)

Defense

Attorney(s):

Rene Saguisag

Vitaliano Aguirre

Jose Flaminiano

Ricardo Valmonte

Defendants:

Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, c

Michael A. Gatchalian

2
Hospicio "Pyke" Fernandez

Peter Estrada

Miguel "Ging" Rodriguez

Artemio "Dong" Ventura (Trial in absentia)

Joey Filart( Trial In absentia)

3
Case 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,

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.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,

4
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

5
eleven years, four months, and one day to twelve years. The trial court also awarded damages to

Lauro Vizconde.

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. 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 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 Evidence 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.

6
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.

7
The Right to Acquittal

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. Maryland[9] 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

8
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. [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

9
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.

10
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.

11
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
Tab 2:

13
Witness List

Main witness: Jessica M. Alfaro ( A self-Confessed former drug addict)

Collaborating witnesses:

Dr. Prospero Cabanayan (The medico-legal officer)

Justo Cabanacan and Normal White (Security guards of PitongDaan Subdivision)

Mila Gaviola and Nerissa Rosales (The former laundrywoman of the Webb's household)

Lolita Birrer (Police officer Biong's former girlfriend)

Lauro G. Vizconde, (Estrellita's husband and father of Carmela and Jennifer)

Atty. Artemio sacaquing- -(Former head of the NBI Anti-Kidnapping, Hijacking, and Armed
Robbery Task Force (AKHAR) Section)

(
Dr.Ray san pedro- Deputy Executive Director of the Dangerous Drugs Board)

Epimaco Velasco – (Former National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director)

Atty. Arturo Mercader

Main witness: Jessica M. Alfaro ( A self-Confessed former drug addict)

14
Collaborating witnesses:

Dr. Prospero Cabanayan (The medico-legal officer)

Justo Cabanacan and Normal White (Security guards of PitongDaan Subdivision)

Mila Gaviola and Nerissa Rosales (The former laundrywoman of the Webb's household)

Lolita Birrer (Police officer Biong's former girlfriend)

Lauro G. Vizconde, (Estrellita's husband and father of Carmela and Jennifer)

Atty. Artemio sacaquing- -(Former head of the NBI Anti-Kidnapping, Hijacking, and Armed

Robbery Task Force (AKHAR) Section)

Dr.Ray san pedro- (Deputy Executive Director of the Dangerous Drugs Board)

Epimaco Velasco – (Former National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director)

Atty. Arturo Mercader

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

15
handlers. She had to live a life of lies to get rewards that would pay for her subsistence and

vices.

WITNESS JESSICA ALFARO ON CLARIFICATORY

QUESTIONS BY THE COURT:

Court:

Q After that incident, did it not occur to your mind to immediately report the same to the

police authorities?

Witness Alfaro:

A No, Your Honor, I did not.

Court:

Q Why?

Witness Alfaro:

A: Because at first, I was so scared. I just want to my Dad, but I didn't have a chance to

tell him.

Court:

Q: No, after the lapse of a reasonable time, after witnessing that incident, did it not also

occur to your mind to finally report it to the proper authorities?

Witness Alfaro:

16
A: I did not first have that in mind, only recently when I was out on drugs.

Court:

Q: When?

Witness Alfaro:

A: When I got out on drugs.

Court:

Q When was that?

Witness Alfaro:

A: About October of 1994.

Court:

Q What prompted you to finally reveal what you have witnessed?

Witness Alfaro:

A: Well, when I started having these nightmares about my daughter instead of that

Jennifer that I see in my dreams. It's my daughter whom I see crying, and that

triggered me, and then I got out from drugs, and then it came to the point when I saw

them accidentally, so, that's the thing which triggered me, Your Honor.

Court:

Q: Any other reason?

17
Witness Alfaro:

A: Those are my main reasons.

Court:

Q: Is that your principal reason?

Witness Alfaro:

A: I wanted to change my life already.[27] (underscoring supplied)

Given Alfaro's confession of having for years, after the commission of the crimes, been numbed

by the effects of drug abuse, would the dissenters take as gospel truth her what they termed

"vivid" and "infallible" recollection of the minutiae surrounding the commission of the crime in

June 1991, and point to the accused as the malefactors, particularly Webb, despite evidence,

documentary and testimonial, supporting his alibi?

The explanation for this feat of wizardry is within arms-length - Alfaro appears to be a rehearsed

witness. Prior to her decision to surface and claim to tell what she "knew" about the crimes, the

crimes had already been played out in the media, both print and broadcast, in every gory detail.

It was a raging topic that drew intense discussions in both talk shows and informal gatherings,

and all sorts of speculations about it were rife. In fact, prior to the arrest of the accused,

members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) arrested some members of an "akyat-bahay"

gang who were charged accordingly. These gang members were later released upon orders of the

Makati Regional Trial Court after it was discovered that their confessions were fabricated by the

18
PNP to conform to the physical evidence found at the crime scene.

It is not thus difficult to believe that Alfaro could have become familiar with the evidentiary

details of the crimes, given that she was practically a resident at the offices of the NBI which was

actively investigating the crimes, not to mention her being an NBI "star" witness.

Sadly, dissenters choose to gloss over the strikingly uncanny similarities between the confessions

of the "akyat-bahay" gang members and Alfaro's testimony. The nature and extent of the

similarities were amplified by Justice Dacudao in his Dissenting Opinion, which is quoted at

length:

It also bothers me that Ms. Alfaro's narration of the events in the case under review was in

many points uncannily similar to that set forth in the extrajudicial confessions or

sinumpaang salaysay executed by certain members of the so-called "Akyat Bahay Gang" of

the Barroso group (the brothers Villardo Datuin Barroso, Jr. and Roberto Datuin Barroso and

their several companions Rolando Mendoza y Gomez, Ernesto Cesar, Bienvenido Baydo,

Angelito Santos y Bisen, Boy Kulit, Rey Doe and several other John Does). These persons were

earlier charged with two cases of robbery with homicide, and one case of rape with homicide that

is now the very subject of the case under review. Indeed, I cannot understand why the three

criminal cases that were instituted before the Makati City RTC, Brnach 63, (presided over by

Judge Julio R. Logarta,) which recited facts and events that are so strikingly akin to those set

forth in the information filed in the case under review, hardly commanded the attention of the

trial court. The records of these criminal cases, which were introduced in evidence by the

accused-appellants during the trial of the case under review, covered the following:

19
(1) Criminal Case No. 91-7135 filed by then Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe

before the sale of Judge Julio R. Logarta of the Makati City RTC, Branch 63, on November 11,

1991 (for robbery with homicide) against Villardo Barroso y Datuin, Roberto Barroso y Datuin¸

Rolando Mendoza y Gomez, Ernesto Cesar, Bienvenido Baydo, Angelito Santos y Bisen, Rey

Doe and several other John Does still at large

Testimony of Atty. Artemio Sacaguing:

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

20
her, she told him that she might as well assume the role of her informant. Sacaguing testified

thus:

How Alfaro got to be a "star" witness in this case was narrated by then NBI agent Artemio

Sacaguing:

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q All right, Atty. Sacaguing, how did the NBI treat Ms. Alfaro considering the assistance

that he was giving your group?

Witness Sacaguing:

A We gave her very special treatment. So, we consider her already the darling of the

group because she was giving us good projects and she loved it.

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q What do you mean by she loved it, she loved what?

Witness Sacaguing:

A She liked being treated that way.

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q Now tell the Honorable Court, was there ever any time where the group got tired of

giving Ms. Alfaro the VIP treatment?

xxxx

21
Atty. Ongkiko:

All right, Atty. Sacaguing, how long did you give Ms. Alfaro this VIP treatment?

Witness Sacaguing:

A Well, she was always there and we treated her very nicely, but later on, about . . . after

the lapse of about one or two weeks, the boys, I mean, my associates in my team,

began teasing her because she could not give us any project anymore.

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q What do you mean by projects, leads?

Witness Sacaguing:

A Projects, cases we could work on.

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q I see, and what do you mean by teasing?

xxxx

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q Mr. Sacaguing, after your group teased her because, according to you, she could not

give you anymore projects, what was the reaction of Ms. Alfaro, if any?

Please look at the judge, please do not look at me.

22
Witness Sacaguing:

A She seemed to have been piqued and she said . . .

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q She seemed to have been what?

Witness Sacaguing:

A Piqued, yes, "napikon".

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q I see, piqued.

Witness Sacaguing:

A Piqued.

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q Piqued. Ano yun, napikon?

Court:

p i c q u e d. (underscoring in the original)

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q And when she was piqued or "napikon", what did she say or what did she do?

xxxx

23
Atty. Ongkiko:

xxxx

Q Atty. Sacaguing, how did Jessica Alfaro become a witness in the Vizconde murder

case. Will you tell the Honorable Court?

Witness Sacaguing:

A She told me, she knew somebody who . . .

Court:

Face the Court.

Witness Sacaguing:

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 us, Your Honor.

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q And what did you say?

Please look at the Court.

Witness Sacaguing:

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

24
 try to convince him to act as a state witness and help us in the solution of the case.

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q Did she ever bring to you or to your office this man that, according to her, knew about

the Vizconde murder case?

xxxx

Atty. Ongkiko:

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:

25
A She told me, "easy lang kayo, Sir", if I may quote, "easy lang, Sir, huwag kayong . . ."

Court:

Q How was that?

Witness Sacaguing:

A "Easy lang, Sir. Sir, relax lang, Sir, papapelan ko yan, papapelan ko na lang yan."

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q And what did you understand by her statement as you quoted it?

Witness Sacaguing:

A I thought it . . .

Prosecutor Zuño:

Objection, Your Honor, that is asking for the opinion of this witness, Your Honor.

Court:

Reform your question.

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q All right, and what was your reaction when Ms. Alfaro stated that "papapelan ko na

lang yan"?

Witness Sacaguing:

26
A I said, "hindi pwede 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.

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q She what?

Witness Sacaguing:

A She went away, she went out of my office.

Court:

You speak clearly, Mr. Witness, I could hardly get you.

Witness Sacaguing:

A She did not answer anymore, Your Honor. She just went out of the office.

x x x x[26] (emphasis and underscoring supplied.

27
 (TSN, May 28, 1996, pp. 49-50, 58, 77-79)

Quite significantly, Alfaro never refuted Sacaguing's above testimony.

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:

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

29
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.

30
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.

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

31
(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?

32
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.

33
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.

WITNESSES TESTIMONIES:

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 sustained[14] and the presence of semen in Carmela's

genitalia,[15] indicating that she had been raped.

34
Defense witness Dr. Rey San Pedro, then Deputy Executive Director of the Dangerous Drugs

Board, opined that drug addicts or dependents are generally liars who would lie for less than

noble objectives, such as for money and/or to satisfy their craving for attention, viz:

Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: Based on your experience, Doctor, will this dependency of shabu affect the character of

a person specifically, for example, the capacity to tell the truth, would that affect?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A: Our general examination of patients showed that they become liars.

Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: They become liars. Yes, what would be the usual motivation for a shabu-dependent

person to become liars. Why, why do they lie?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A: My experience, Sir, is because they are aware that what they are doing is wrong and

therefore they want to hide it. Not only from the family, but also from their friends.

Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: Yes. They could lie on the persons they go out with?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A: Yes, Sir.

35
Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: They could lie on the persons they meet?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A: Yes, Sir.

Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: They could lie on the persons from whom they allegedly get the drugs?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A: Yes, Sir.

Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: Is it not correct, Doctor, that the tendency of a drug dependent is to hide the identity of

the drug suppliers. Is this correct?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A: This is our experience. I have not encountered a patient who would tell you where they

get their supply.

Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: Who would tell you the correct name of the drug supplier?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

36
A: Yes, Sir.

Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: And who would tell you the correct address of the drug supplier, correct?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A: Correct.

Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: Their tendency is to give you misleading information, correct?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A: Yes, Sir.

Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: Now, would a drug dependent on shabu lie for money?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A: Yes.

Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: Yes. When I say lie for money so that she could get money?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A: She could get money.

37
Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: He will, from her relatives, from her friends, or even from third persons?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A: Yes, Sir. They even sell the family belongings.

Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: They even sell their personal effects?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A: Yes, Sir.

Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: Would they sell their honor to get money, like a woman becoming a prostitute?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A I have not encountered a case like that.

Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: You have not encountered that much. But tell me, Doctor, would they lie in order to

get attention?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A: Yes, they do.

38
Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: Yes, because they want to be the center of attention to cover up for their drug

dependency, correct?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A: Yes, Sir.

Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: Now, Doctor, if a person were drug dependent on shabu since 1990, 1991, up to and

including December, 1994. So, that is a long time, isn't it?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A: '90 to '94?

Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: Yes, drug dependent. What would it take, Doctor, in order that we can cure this patient

of his or her dependency on shabu, what would it take?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A: They have to be rehabilitated, Sir, treated and rehabilitated.

Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: Treated and rehabilitated, where?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

39
A: In a hospital.

Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Q: In a hospital. Does the government provide for such facilities?

Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:

A: Yes, Sir.

x x x x[23] (underscoring supplied)

Testimony of Mr. Arturo Mercader Jr.

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q And after the typing of the statement was finished by Agent Tamayo, what happened?

Witness Mercader:

A Well, I received the statement and showed it to Jessica and asked her to read it also.

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q Did Jessica Alfaro read her statement?

Witness Mercader:

40
A Yes, Your Honor.

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q How long did it take her to read the statement?

Witness Mercvader:

A Just for few minutes, Your Honor.

Atty. Ongkiko:

Q And after she read the statement, what happened next?

Witness Mercader:

A Well, she signed the statement and afterwards, I also affixed my signature on it, Your

Honor.

x xxx

Atty. Aguirre:

Q While assisting Jessica Alfaro, did you notice any action on the part of anybody which

pressured Jessica Alfaro to finish her statement?

Witness Mercader:

A No, Your Honor, none that I have noticed. If I did, I would have objected to. [31]

x xxx

41
Prosecutor Zuno:

Q And that, I believe, to your own perception, at that time she was giving the facts, the

answer, in accordance with her recollection?

x xxx

Witness Mercader:

A Your Honor, at that time what I noticed only was the spontaneity of the answers of

Jessica. Of course, I could not tell whether from where Jessica was basing it.

From the recollection or from a memorize script, I do not know, Your Honor,

about that. But definitely, whenever she was asked a question, she answers them

readily as if she knows the answer personally. [32] (emphasis and underscoring

supplied)

42
Testimony OF EPIMACO VELASCO:

ATTY. ONGKIKO:

Q:

As an investigator, Governor, will you tell the Honorable Court how did you relate or rather

assess the reliability of any information furnished by a drug addict?

WITNESS VELASCO:

A: Well, I will consider it, Your Honor, not generally reliable.

ATTY. ONGKIKO:

Q: Why do you say that?

WITNESS VELASCO:

A: Well, because, you know, if one is under the influence of drugs or one is considered to be an

addict, you could hardly believe his information.

ATTY. ONGKIKO:

Q: Why, why so?

43
WITNESS VELASCO:

A: Because he is not in his state of mind.

ATTY. ONGKIKO:

Q: Well, what about the capacity to lie, Governor?

WITNESS VELASCO:

A: Well, the capacity to lie may be very great, Your Honor.

ATTY. ONGKIKO:

Q: Well, because, you know, for maintaining or for in order to get money, they will lie."

(underscoring supplied)

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.

44
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

45
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, how 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

46
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.

47
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?

48
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.

49
Tab 3:

50
Defense Miguel Rodriguez alibi:

Miguel Rodriguez maintained he was at home when the killings took place. He presented as

witness his first cousin Mark Josef Andres Rualo who testified that at around 1:00 in the morning

of June 30, 1991, he called up Rodriguez asking why he has not yet proceeded to the birthday

party of Rualo at their house. Rodriguez replied that he could not make it because he was not

fetched by his brother Art (who was the one with a car). So he handed the telephone to Art (who

had arrived at the party around 9:30 to 10:00 p.m.) for them to talk. From Rodriguez's residence

at Pilar Village, it will take about fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes by car. It was a big party

attended by some eighty (80) guests and which ended by 3:30 to 4:00 a.m. But it was only the

first time he had invited Rodriguez to his birthday party. He knows Lejano, Rodriguez's close

friend and classmate, because Rodriguez used to bring him along when Rodriguez comes to his

house.The other witnesses presented by Rodriguez, Col. Charles Calima, Jr. and Michael

Rodriguez, testified on the alleged incident of "mistaken identity" wherein Alfaro supposedly

pointed to one (1) "Michael Rodriguez," a drug dependent who was pulled out by Col. Calima

from the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center on the basis of the description given by NBI agents. They

testified that when Alfaro confronted this "Michael Rodriguez," she became very emotional and

immediately slapped and kicked him telling him, "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." Contrary to the

physical description given by the NBI, the accused Miguel Rodriguez he saw inside the court

room had no tattoo on his arm and definitely not the same "Michael Rodriguez" whom Alfaro

slapped and kicked at the NBI premises. Michael Rodriguez testified that he was blindfolded and

brought to the comfort room by NBI agents and forced to admit that he was Miguel Rodriguez;

51
he identified Alfaro and Atty. Figueras from a collage of photographs shown to him in court.[98]

Defense Gerardo Biong Alibi:

Gerardo Biong testified that the last time he handled this case was when General Filart

announced the case as solved with the presentation of suspects sometime in October 1991.

However, he was subpoenaed by the NBI for the taking of his statement because LauroVizconde

complained that he had stolen jewelries at the Vizconde house. He had sought the examination

of latent fingerprints lifted from the crime scene but the suspects turned out negative when

tested. He denied the accusation regarding the destruction of evidence as well as missing items

during his investigation at the Vizconde residence. The bloodied bed, mats, pillows and bed

sheets were burned by people at the funeral parlor as ordered by Mr. Gatmaitan. Among the

suspects he had then were Michael Gatchalian, Tony Boy Lejano and Cas Syap. As to the

testimony of Birrer that they played "mahjong" on the night of June 29, 1991, he said it was not

true because the place was closed on Saturdays and Sundays. After a surveillance on Birrer, he

discovered she had in her possession Carmela's driver's license and was driving a car already.

He denied Birrer's account that he went to a place after receiving a telephone call at 2:30 in the

morning of June 30, 1991. As to Alfaro, he met her for the first time at the NBI on June 23,

1995. His brown jacket was given to him long ago by a couple whose dispute he was able to

settle. He only met Webb and Estrada at the NBI. Biong denied the accusations of Birrer, saying

that she was angry at him because they separated and he had hit her after he heard about her

infidelity. Neither has he seen Alfaro before the filing of this case. He was administratively

charged before the Philippine National Police (PNP) for Grave Misconduct due to non-

52
preservation of evidence. He was offered by the NBI to turn state witness but he declined as he

found it difficult to involve his co-accused whom he does not really know.[99]

Biong admitted that Birrer went along with him, Galvan and Capt. Bartolome to the Vizconde

residence in the morning of June 30, 1991. Upon arriving at the Vizconde house, he looked for

the victims' relatives and the homeowners' association president; Atty. Lopez and Mrs. Mia

came. In going inside the house, they passed through the kitchen door which was open already.

On top of the kitchen table, there was a lady's bag with things scattered; he later inspected them

but did not think of examining the bag or taking note of the calling cards and other items for

possible relevance to the investigation. Upon entering the master's bedroom, he saw the

bloodied bodies. Mrs. Vizconde's hands were hogtied from behind and her mouth gagged while

Jennifer's body was also bloodied. Carmela who was lying on a floor carpet was likewise

gagged, her hands hogtied from behind and her legs spread out, her clothes raised up and a

pillow case was placed on top of her private part. He had the bodies photographed and prepared

a spot report.[100]

Biong also admitted that before the pictures were taken, he removed with his bare hands the

object, which was like a stocking cloth, that was wrapped around Carmela's mouth and neck. As

to the main door glass, it was the upper part which he broke. There was a red jewelry box they

saw where a pearl necklace inside could be seen; he remembered he had it photographed but he

had not seen those pictures. They left the Vizconde house and brought the cadavers to the funeral

parlor. He did not take steps to preserve the bloodied carpet, bed sheets and blankets because

they have been previously told by NBI that no evidence can be found on such items. As for the

53
footprint and shoe print found on the hood of the car and at the back of the house, he also could

not recall if he had those photographed. It was only the following day that he brought an

employee of the Parañaque police to lift fingerprints from the crime scene; he was the one (1)

giving instructions at the time. However, no latent fingerprints had been taken; despite attempts,

no clear fingerprint had been lifted and he did not any more ask why.

Biong further admitted that he was so angry with the Vizconde housemaids as he did not believe

they did not hear anything despite the loud sound of the breaking of the main door glass. He also

admitted mauling Normal E. White, Jr. because he thought he was withholding information

during the investigation. Edgar Mendez did not tell him about the entry of a three (3)-vehicle

convoy into the subdivision on the night of June 29, 1991. As for Michael Gatchalian, he knows

him because on July 3, 1991 at 4:30 a.m., they caught him at Vinzons St. at the entrance of

PitongDaan Subdivision for possession of marijuana. However, he does not know any more what

happened to that case he filed against Gatchalian as he was already dismissed from the

service.[102] He also admitted having mauled Gatchalian while interrogating him for his

participation in the Vizconde killings. [103]

54
 Defense Hubbert Jeffrey Webbs Alibi:

Webb submitted the following documentary evidence in connection with his sojourn in the US:

Exhibit Description Date

Number

1 Video Tape recording of Disneyland trip July 3, 1991

2 Official Receipt issued by Orange Cycle Center ] photographs of the bicycle purchased June 30 1991

by Webb from said store

3 Car plate with the name "Lew Webb";

4 Passport with Philippine Immigration arrival stamp

5 Photographs of Webb with Rodriguez family

6 California Driver's License of Webb, Original License Card of Webb issued on June 14 1991

7 Statement of Account issued to Environment First Termite Control showing Check No.

0180;[75] Bank of America Certification on Check Nos. 0122 and 0180;

8 Public Records of California Department of Motor Vehicle on sale to Webb of Toyota

MR2 car;Traffic citations issued to WebbImport documents of said car into the

Philippines;

9 Certification issued by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service and

correspondence between US and Philippine Government; computer-generated print-out

of the US-INS indicating date of Webb's entry in USA as March 9, 1991 and his date of

55
 departure as October 26, 1992; US-INS Certification dated August 31, 1995

authenticated by the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, correcting the earlier

August 10, 1995 Certification;

10 Certification issued by Agnes Tabuena;Passenger Manifest of PAL Flight No. 103;PAL

ticket issued to Webb, Arrival in Manila Certification issued by the Philippine

Immigration,Diplomatic Note of the US Department of State with enclosed letter from

Acting Director Debora A. Farmer of the Records Operations, Office of Records of the

US-INS stating that the Certification dated August 31, 1995 is a true and accurate

statement; and Certificate of Authentication of Philippine Consul Herrera-Lim

56
Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb testified that at the time of the killings between June 29 and 30, 1991, he

was still in Anaheim Hills, California, U.S.A., having departed from the Philippines on March 9,

1991 on board a United Airlines flight bound for San Francisco. He was accompanied by Gloria

Webb, whose husband Richard Webb is the eldest brother of his father Senator Freddie Webb. It

was the first time he traveled to the US and he returned to the Philippines only on October 25,

1992. On the eve of his departure, he, Rael, Tina and his then girlfriend Milagros Castillo went

out and had dinner at Bunchchums. Later that night, they went to Faces Disco at Makati Avenue

where his friends Paulo Santos and Jay Ortega followed. They went home at 3:00 o'clock in the

morning already. After driving around in the city and bringing Milagros home, he arrived at his

house at around 5:00 a.m. His parents were already preparing to leave and so they headed to the

airport.[48] Webb's friend Rafael Jose, Paulo Santos, Senator Webb's security staff Miguel

Muñoz, Webbs' secretary Cristina Magpusao and house girl Victoria Ventoso corroborated

Webb's testimony that he departed from the Philippines on March 9, 1991. [49]

Webb further testified that he stayed at the house of her Auntie Gloria and Uncle Dinky at San

Francisco until late April to May 1991. Upon the invitation of her aunt Susan Brottman, sister of

his mother, he rode a train and went to Anaheim where he stayed until mid-July 1991.

Thereafter, he rented a nearby place but did not complete the one (1) month pre-paid lease period

as he proceeded to Longwood, Florida. He stayed at the residence of his Uncle Jack and Sonia

Rodriguez for almost a year (August 1991-August 1992). He went back to Anaheim and stayed

at the house of his godmother and sister of his mother, Imelda Pagaspas, until October 1992. He

met his relatives and other personalities while in the US; visited Lake Tahoe with the Wheelock

57
family; toured Disneyland where Luis Wheelock filmed them and attended a concert with

Christopher Esguerra who also took him out to the malls. [50]

Webb further testified that in the later part of June 1991, his parents joined him in the US. He

applied for and was issued a driver's license on June 14, 1991. He also worked at the pest control

company of his cousin-in-law Alex del Toro. Aside from his passport and airline ticket for return

flight to the Philippines, Webb presented before the court the logbook of jobs/tasks kept by del

Toro, in which he pointed to the entries therein which were actually performed by him; and also

his purported pay check ($150 "pay to Cash"), ID and other employment papers. He also

identified some handwritten letters he mailed while he was in the US and sent to his friend

Jennifer Cabrera in the Philippines; photographs and video tape clips taken during his cousin

Marie Manlapit's wedding to Alex del Toro which wedding he attended in the US together with

his mother; and receipt issued for the mountain bicycle he bought on June 30, 1991 from the

Orange Cycle store in Anaheim.

Webb denied having met Carmela Vizconde and neither does he know Jessica Alfaro. He had

been jailed since August 9, 1995. When asked about his co-accused, Webb said the only ones he

had met before June 29, 1991 were Fernandez and Rodriguez. He used to play basketball with

Fernandez at BF Homes Phase III, during which he also met Rodriguez. While he admitted

having gone out on a group with Fernandez to the houses of their basketball buddies, he denied

having gone out with Rodriguez at any time.[52] He also denied knowing Biong who is neither a

driver nor security aide of his father.

58
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]

59
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,

60
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 Keeler[34] 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 license[38] 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 Vehicle [43] 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

61
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 Tabuena[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

62
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

63
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

64
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

65
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 evidence [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]

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

66
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]

67
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

68
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.

69
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.

70
Tab IIII:

71
EVIDENCE:

Evidence derived from the testimony of a witness who was under the influence of drugs during

the incident to which he is testifying is indeed very unreliable. So it has been held that "habitual

users of narcotics become notorious liars and that their testimony is likely to be affected thereby.

It would seem to follow that, so far as medical evidence is concerned, expert testimony should be

admissible to impeach the cocaine addict. Both in its long-run effect of organic deterioration and

in its short run influence, the drug severs the user's contact with reality, and renders him, to that

extent, unreliable. Even the majority admits impeaching testimony in cases of organic

deterioration. There are few instances of deterioration more pronounced than that found in the

habitual user of cocaine.

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.

72
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 loosed 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

73
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.

Defense Evidence:

The accused chiefly assailed the credibility of prosecution star witness Alfaro, in particular her

execution of two (2) allegedly inconsistent affidavits (one on April 28, 1995 and another on May

22, 1995) and raised alibi and denial as defenses to the charge of rape with homicide attended by

conspiracy. During the trial, no less than 95 witnesses[47] were presented, and voluminous

documentary exhibits were submitted.

The testimonies of the principal witnesses for the defense are summarized as follows:

Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb testified that at the time of the killings between June 29 and 30, 1991,

he was still in Anaheim Hills, California, U.S.A., having departed from the Philippines on March

9, 1991 on board a United Airlines flight bound for San Francisco. He was accompanied by

Gloria Webb, whose husband Richard Webb is the eldest brother of his father Senator Freddie

Webb. It was the first time he traveled to the US and he returned to the Philippines only on

October 25, 1992. On the eve of his departure, he, Rael, Tina and his then girlfriend Milagros

Castillo went out and had dinner at Bunchchums. Later that night, they went to Faces Disco at

Makati Avenue where his friends Paulo Santos and Jay Ortega followed. They went home at

3:00 o'clock in the morning already. After driving around in the city and bringing Milagros

74
home, he arrived at his house at around 5:00 a.m. His parents were already preparing to leave

and so they headed to the airport. [48] Webb's friend Rafael Jose, Paulo Santos, Senator Webb's

security staff Miguel Muñoz, Webbs' secretary Cristina Magpusao and house girl Victoria

Ventoso corroborated Webb's testimony that he departed from the Philippines on March 9,

1991.[49]

Webb further testified that he stayed at the house of her Auntie Gloria and Uncle Dinky at San

Francisco until late April to May 1991. Upon the invitation of her aunt Susan Brottman, sister of

his mother, he rode a train and went to Anaheim where he stayed until mid-July 1991.

Thereafter, he rented a nearby place but did not complete the one (1) month pre-paid lease period

as he proceeded to Longwood, Florida. He stayed at the residence of his Uncle Jack and Sonia

Rodriguez for almost a year (August 1991-August 1992). He went back to Anaheim and stayed

at the house of his godmother and sister of his mother, Imelda Pagaspas, until October 1992. He

met his relatives and other personalities while in the US; visited Lake Tahoe with the Wheelock

family; toured Disneyland where Luis Wheelock filmed them and attended a concert with

Christopher Esguerra who also took him out to the malls. [50]

Webb further testified that in the later part of June 1991, his parents joined him in the US. He

applied for and was issued a driver's license on June 14, 1991. He also worked at the pest control

company of his cousin-in-law Alex del Toro. Aside from his passport and airline ticket for return

flight to the Philippines, Webb presented before the court the logbook of jobs/tasks kept by del

Toro, in which he pointed to the entries therein which were actually performed by him; and also

his purported pay check ($150 "pay to Cash"), ID and other employment papers. He also

75
identified some handwritten letters he mailed while he was in the US and sent to his friend

Jennifer Cabrera in the Philippines; photographs and video tape clips taken during his cousin

Marie Manlapit's wedding to Alex del Toro which wedding he attended in the US together with

his mother; and receipt issued for the mountain bicycle he bought on June 30, 1991 from the

Orange Cycle store in Anaheim.[51]

Webb denied having met Carmela Vizconde and neither does he know Jessica Alfaro. He had

been jailed since August 9, 1995. When asked about his co-accused, Webb said the only ones he

had met before June 29, 1991 were Fernandez and Rodriguez. He used to play basketball with

Fernandez at BF Homes Phase III, during which he also met Rodriguez. While he admitted

having gone out on a group with Fernandez to the houses of their basketball buddies, he denied

having gone out with Rodriguez at any time. [52] He also denied knowing Biong who is neither a

driver nor security aide of his father. [53]

Gloria Webb testified that on March 9, 1991, she traveled with Webb on a United Airlines flight

to San Francisco. Webb stayed at her residence at 639 Gellert Boulevard, Daly City, California

until May 1991 when he left to be with his mother's sister and relatives in Anaheim. Webb and

her grandson attended a "concierto" in the evenings and he also joined and helped her son-in-law

with his business. Webb went with them to church, to the malls and in shopping. In April 1991,

Webb went on a trip to Lake Tahoe with Mr. Wheelock and family. [54]

Dorothy Wheelock testified that she became a US citizen in 1974 and has been residing at 877

Las Lomas Drive, Milpitas, California. Webb's mother is her childhood friend and schoolmate.

76
When she heard that Webb was in the US looking for a job, she invited him, and her husband

Louis Wheelock picked him up at Daly City in April 1991. To reciprocate the Webbs' hospitality

while they visited the Philippines in 1990, she and her family took Webb to a trip to Lake Tahoe

in Nevada during which they even took a video tape. Senator Freddie and Mrs. Webb also

visited and stayed with them for four (4) days in July 1991. They took them to a trip to

Yosemite Park, also with video footages taken by her husband. [55]

Steven Keeler testified that he had been an American citizen since 1982 and resident of 4002

River Street, Newport Beach, California. He met Webb at a dinner in the house of Webb's aunt

Susan Brottman in Anaheim Hills around May or June 1991. Brottman's son, Rey Manlapit, was

his good friend. They played basketball with Webb, went to bars, shopped and watched TV. He

also knew that Webb bought a car and worked for Alex del Toro for Environment First Termite

Control. He believed that Webb left for Florida towards the end of summer (July 1991). He

could not recall any specific dates he was with Webb. [56]

Honesto Aragon testified that he went to the US in 1967 and became a US citizen in 1989. On

June 28, 1991, he met then Congressman Freddie Webb at the house of the latter's sister-in-law,

Susan, at Anaheim. Congressman Webb introduced to him his son Hubert Webb. He,

Congressman Webb and Hubert went to some stores to go shopping for a bicycle for Hubert.

But they only bought bike accessories. He invited them to snack before he brought them to his

own house where he introduced to them his son Andrew. The following day, June 29, 1991, they

went to Riverside, California to shop for a car for Hubert; though they found a Toyota MR2, they

did not buy it because it has questionable ownership. Early morning the next day, he picked up

77
Congressman Webb and they played tennis from 7:00 to 10:00 a.m. He and Congressman Webb

were close friends, as both of them were members of a basketball team in Letran. The first time

he saw Hubert was when he was still a small kid and the other time on June 28, 1991 at the

Brottman's residence in Anaheim.[57]

Senator Freddie Webb testified that his son Hubert left for the US on March 9, 1991, the first

time he had gone out of the country. Hubert stayed with his sister-in-law Gloria. They wanted to

show Hubert the value of independence, hard work and perseverance, and for him to learn how

to get along and live with other people. Hubert resigned from his job at Saztec before departing

for the US. He and his wife also went to the US on June 28, 1991. They stayed at the house of

his sister-in-law, Susan Brottman at Anaheim. From San Francisco, they went to Orlando,

Florida, then back to Los Angeles and returned to the Philippines on July 21, 1991. Among the

places he visited while in the US were the Yosemite Park, Nordstrom, Disneyland, Disneyworld.

Upon arriving at Anaheim, he saw his son Hubert and also informed Honesto Aragon regarding

their plan to procure a bicycle for Hubert. Hubert was with them again on June 29, 1991 at

dinner in the residence of his sister-in-law. On July 1, 1991, they went shopping for some

clothes. Together with Aragon, he and Hubert looked for a Toyota MR2 car and paid for it with

a check (the car was priced at $6,000-$7,000).[58]

Senator Webb further testified that he knows Mila Gaviola who used to be their "labandera."

She left their house but returned to work for them again about a couple of months after the Mt.

Pinatubo eruption. As to Alfaro's statements implicating his son Hubert in the Vizconde killings,

he said the statements were not accurate because it was physically impossible for Hubert to have

78
participated in the crime as he was abroad at the time. [59]

Louis Whitaker testified that he left the Philippines and resided in the US since September

1964. He met Jack Rodriguez when the latter fetched him and his wife Sonia at the Los Angeles

International Airport on June 28, 1991 upon their arrival from the Philippines. They proceeded to

the house of a mutual friend, Salvador Vaca, at Moresbay Street in Lake Forest. They went to see

Congressman Webb at a house in Anaheim. That was the first time he met Congressman Webb,

Mrs. Webb, the sister-in-law and a Mr. Aragon. On June 29, 1991, he and Rodriguez invited

Congressman Webb to see Mr. Vaca perform at La Calesa Restaurant in the City of Testin.

When they fetched Congressman Webb at his sister-in-law's house, he met again Mrs. Webb, and

also Hubert. He saw Hubert for the second time at Orlando, Florida when he went to the house

of Jack Rodriguez there; this was about July or August 1991.[60]

Sonia H. Rodriguez testified that she was appointed UNESCO Commissioner by then President

Fidel V. Ramos. She has known accused Webb since he was a child. On June 28, 1991, she and

her husband boarded a plane for Los Angeles, California. They were fetched at the LA airport by

old-time friend Salvador Vaca and proceeded to the latter's house in Orange County, California.

They had dinner that evening with spouses Freddie and Elizabeth Webb at the house of Susan

Brottman. The next day, in the afternoon of June 29, 1991, her husband and Salvador Vaca

picked up Senator Webb from the house of Susan Brottman and then came back to fetch her and

Mrs. Vaca to go to La Calesa, a restaurant owned by Mario Benitez, also a Filipino. However,

she and Mrs. Vaca decided to stay home. On June 30, 1991 at around 8:00 p.m., she and her

husband went to the house of Susan Brottman, together with Salvador and Mrs. Vaca and Louis

79
Whitaker. She recalled that Hubert was there at the time. She saw Hubert again on July 4, 1991

when they went on a lakeside picnic with the Webb family, Brottmans and Vacas. After

watching the fireworks, they went to Sizzler Restaurant. The next day, she and her husband

stayed overnight at San Francisco where they also met Senator and Mrs. Webb. On August

August 4, 1991, Hubert arrived in her home in Florida with her son Tony, daughter-in-law Ana,

and stayed with them for almost one (1) year. The last time she saw Hubert was when he left

Orlando, Florida on January 27, 1992.[61]

Webb presented other witnesses to buttress his defense of alibi: Victor Yap (who took video

shots of Congressman Webb during a boat ride in Disneyland);[62] Armando Rodriguez (who

testified seeing Hubert in Orlando either August or September 1991);[63] performing artist Gary

Valenciano (who testified meeting Hubert at a dinner at the Rodriguez residence in Orlando on

November 24, 1991, Jack Rodriguez being the father of his high school classmate Antonio

Rodriguez;[64] and Christopher Paul Legaspi Esguerra (grandson of Gloria Webb who went with

Hubert Webb to watch the concert of the Deelite Band in San Francisco in the later part of April

1991 and saw Hubert Webb for the last time in May 1991). [65]

Then a practicing lawyer, Atty. Antonio T. Carpio (now an Associate Justice of this Court)

testified that on June 29, 1991 between 10:00 and 11:00 o'clock in the morning, he had a

telephone conversation with former Congressman Webb who said he was calling from Anaheim,

U.S.A., where he and his wife went to look for a job for their son Hubert. They also talked about

bills to be drafted as his law office had been engaged by Congressman Webb for bill drafting

services as well as preparation of his speeches and statements. When asked if he had personal

80
knowledge that Congressman Webb was really in the US at that time, he replied that since Webb

had told him he was leaving for the US, he just presumed it was so when Webb said he was then

at Anaheim. Neither did he have personal knowledge that Hubert Webb was in the US at the time

of his conversation with Congressman Webb. [66]

Webb submitted the following documentary evidence in connection with his sojourn in the US:

1) Video Tape recording of Disneyland trip on July 3, 1991;[67]

2) Official Receipt issued by Orange Cycle Center dated June 30, 1991, [68] photographs of the

bicycle purchased by Webb from said store;[69]

3) Car plate with the name "Lew Webb";[70]

4) Passport with Philippine Immigration arrival stamp;[71]

5) Photographs of Webb with Rodriguez family;[72]

6) California Driver's License of Webb, [73] Original License Card of Webb issued on June 14,

1991;[74]

7) Statement of Account issued to Environment First Termite Control showing Check No.

0180;[75] Bank of America Certification on Check Nos. 0122 and 0180;[76]

81
8) Public Records of California Department of Motor Vehicle on sale to Webb of Toyota MR2

car;[77] Traffic citations issued to Webb;[78] Import documents of said car into the Philippines;[79]

9) Certification issued by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service and correspondence

between US and Philippine Government;[80] computer-generated print-out of the US-INS

indicating date of Webb's entry in USA as March 9, 1991 and his date of departure as October

26, 1992;[81] US-INS Certification dated August 31, 1995 authenticated by the Philippine

Department of Foreign Affairs, correcting the earlier August 10, 1995 Certification;[82]

10) Certification issued by Agnes Tabuena;[83] Passenger Manifest of PAL Flight No.

103;[84] PAL ticket issued to Webb,[85] Arrival in Manila Certification issued by the Philippine

Immigration,[86] Diplomatic Note of the US Department of State with enclosed letter from Acting

Director Debora A. Farmer of the Records Operations, Office of Records of the US-INS stating

that the Certification dated August 31, 1995 is a true and accurate statement;[87] and

Certificate of Authentication of Philippine Consul Herrera-Lim. [88]

Accused Antonio Lejano and Michael Gatchalian likewise raised the defense of alibi claiming

that they spent the night of June 29, 1991 until early morning of June 30, 1991 watching video

tapes at the house of Carlos Syap at Ayala Alabang Village.

Lejano further testified that with the exception of Miguel "Ging" Rodriguez and Michael "Mike"

Gatchalian who are his former schoolmates, he does not know any of his co-accused. They left

the house of Syap brothers early morning of June 30, 1991; it was Cas Syap who brought him

82
and Mike home. On July 5, 1991, he and Cas Syap went to the police station where Mike, who

was picked up as a suspect by the police on July 4, was detained. When they met Biong there,

they told him they are willing to vouch for Mike's innocence and even volunteered to give

statements. Biong told them to return the following day. However, when he returned in the

morning of July 6, 1991, Biong wanted his fingerprints taken right away but he told Biong he

needed to consult someone first. He eventually submitted himself for fingerprinting after his

name came out in the media. Lejano pointed out that Alfaro failed to identify him even as she

passed by him three (3) times, and was able to do so only when she was coached by the

prosecution camp.[89]

On the part of Michael Gatchalian, he presented nine (9) witnesses: Atty.

Porfirio "Perry" Pimentel, RPN 9 broadcast executive who testified that he personally took

video footages of Mon Tulfo's interviews with some persons in America (including Honesto

Aragon and the bicycle shop owner) who attested that Hubert Webb was there at the time of the

Vizconde killings, but which segment was edited out in the program he produced (Action

9);[90] Mark Anthony So, a former NBI intelligence agent who was tasked to confirm photos of

Hubert Webb (his classmate at DLSU St. Benilde) to familiarize Alfaro with his facial

features;[91] Matthew John Almogino, a childhood friend and neighbor of Gatchalian, who

testified that he was among those who went inside the Vizconde house in the morning of June

30, 1991 and Biong even asked him to take pictures; thereupon at around 9:30 a.m., he saw

Gatchalian in front of the Vizconde residence telling him that he just woke up and exchanged

pleasantries with him; and that as far as he knows, Webb, Fernandez, Lejano and Gatchalian are

not "magbabarkada";[92] Atty. Leny Mauricio and Ana Marie Pamintuan of The Philippine Star

83
wherein a news article was published stating that Michael Gatchalian had rejected government's

offer for him to turn state witness in the Vizconde case;[93] Atty. Camilo Murillo who

accompanied Gatchalian on July 19, 1991 when he gave his statement to the NBI, testified that

Atty. Pete Rivera relayed to Gatchalian the request of then NBI Director Honesto Aragon for him

to turn state witness and which offer was refused by Gatchalian and his father;[94] and Atty.

Manuel Sunga who accompanied Gatchalian to the Department of Justice (DOJ) when he

submitted his counter-affidavit (where there were already media people), testified that they were

invited to the conference room where State Prosecutor Zuño in the presence of then Secretary

Guingona made the offer for Gatchalian to turn state witness but it was rejected. [95]

Atty. Francisco C. Gatchalian confirmed that the NBI and later the DOJ made offers for his

son to turn state witness in this case but they refused for the reason that his son was innocent of

the crime charged. Michael had told him that on the night of June 29, 1991 until early morning of

June 30, 1991, Michael was with his friends at Ayala Alabang Village in Muntinlupa at the

residence of the Syaps. Gatchalian narrated that when he woke up to jog in the morning of June

30, 1991 around 7:00 to 7:30, he passed by the Vizconde house and saw people milling in front.

At about 8:30 a.m., he saw the crowd getting bigger and so he instructed Michael who had

wakened up, to find out and check what happened to their neighbor. Michael rushed out towards

the Vizconde residence and when he came back about 10:00 o'clock that same morning, he

reported that the house was robbed and people were killed inside the house. Both of them stayed

in their house that day. He denied Alfaro's claim that she was their distant relative. [96]

Accused Miguel Rodriguez maintained he was at home when the killings took place. He

84
presented as witness his first cousin Mark Josef Andres Rualo who testified that at around 1:00

in the morning of June 30, 1991, he called up Rodriguez asking why he has not yet proceeded to

the birthday party of Rualo at their house. Rodriguez replied that he could not make it because he

was not fetched by his brother Art (who was the one with a car). So he handed the telephone to

Art (who had arrived at the party around 9:30 to 10:00 p.m.) for them to talk. From Rodriguez's

residence at Pilar Village, it will take about fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes by car. It was a

big party attended by some eighty (80) guests and which ended by 3:30 to 4:00 a.m. But it was

only the first time he had invited Rodriguez to his birthday party. He knows Lejano, Rodriguez's

close friend and classmate, because Rodriguez used to bring him along when Rodriguez comes

to his house.[97]

The other witnesses presented by Rodriguez, Col. Charles Calima, Jr. and Michael Rodriguez,

testified on the alleged incident of "mistaken identity" wherein Alfaro supposedly pointed to one

(1) "Michael Rodriguez," a drug dependent who was pulled out by Col. Calima from the Bicutan

Rehabilitation Center on the basis of the description given by NBI agents. They testified that

when Alfaro confronted this "Michael Rodriguez," she became very emotional and immediately

slapped and kicked him telling him, "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." Contrary to the physical

description given by the NBI, the accused Miguel Rodriguez he saw inside the court room had

no tattoo on his arm and definitely not the same "Michael Rodriguez" whom Alfaro slapped and

kicked at the NBI premises. Michael Rodriguez testified that he was blindfolded and brought to

the comfort room by NBI agents and forced to admit that he was Miguel Rodriguez; he identified

Alfaro and Atty. Figueras from a collage of photographs shown to him in court. [98]

85
Accused Gerardo Biong testified that the last time he handled this case was when General Filart

announced the case as solved with the presentation of suspects sometime in October 1991.

However, he was subpoenaed by the NBI for the taking of his statement because Lauro Vizconde

complained that he had stolen jewelries at the Vizconde house. He had sought the examination

of latent fingerprints lifted from the crime scene but the suspects turned out negative when

tested. He denied the accusation regarding the destruction of evidence as well as missing items

during his investigation at the Vizconde residence. The bloodied bed, mats, pillows and bed

sheets were burned by people at the funeral parlor as ordered by Mr. Gatmaitan. Among the

suspects he had then were Michael Gatchalian, Tony Boy Lejano and Cas Syap. As to the

testimony of Birrer that they played "mahjong" on the night of June 29, 1991, he said it was not

true because the place was closed on Saturdays and Sundays. After a surveillance on Birrer, he

discovered she had in her possession Carmela's driver's license and was driving a car already.

He denied Birrer's account that he went to a place after receiving a telephone call at 2:30 in the

morning of June 30, 1991. As to Alfaro, he met her for the first time at the NBI on June 23,

1995. His brown jacket was given to him long ago by a couple whose dispute he was able to

settle. He only met Webb and Estrada at the NBI. Biong denied the accusations of Birrer, saying

that she was angry at him because they separated and he had hit her after he heard about her

infidelity. Neither has he seen Alfaro before the filing of this case. He was administratively

charged before the Philippine National Police (PNP) for Grave Misconduct due to non-

preservation of evidence. He was offered by the NBI to turn state witness but he declined as he

found it difficult to involve his co-accused whom he does not really know.[99]

86
Biong admitted that Birrer went along with him, Galvan and Capt. Bartolome to the Vizconde

residence in the morning of June 30, 1991. Upon arriving at the Vizconde house, he looked for

the victims' relatives and the homeowners' association president; Atty. Lopez and Mrs. Mia

came. In going inside the house, they passed through the kitchen door which was open already.

On top of the kitchen table, there was a lady's bag with things scattered; he later inspected them

but did not think of examining the bag or taking note of the calling cards and other items for

possible relevance to the investigation. Upon entering the master's bedroom, he saw the

bloodied bodies. Mrs. Vizconde's hands were hogtied from behind and her mouth gagged while

Jennifer's body was also bloodied. Carmela who was lying on a floor carpet was likewise

gagged, her hands hogtied from behind and her legs spread out, her clothes raised up and a

pillow case was placed on top of her private part. He had the bodies photographed and prepared

a spot report.[100]

Biong also admitted that before the pictures were taken, he removed with his bare hands the

object, which was like a stocking cloth, that was wrapped around Carmela's mouth and neck. As

to the main door glass, it was the upper part which he broke. There was a red jewelry box they

saw where a pearl necklace inside could be seen; he remembered he had it photographed but he

had not seen those pictures. They left the Vizconde house and brought the cadavers to the funeral

parlor. He did not take steps to preserve the bloodied carpet, bed sheets and blankets because

they have been previously told by NBI that no evidence can be found on such items. As for the

footprint and shoe print found on the hood of the car and at the back of the house, he also could

not recall if he had those photographed. It was only the following day that he brought an

employee of the Parañaque police to lift fingerprints from the crime scene; he was the one (1)

87
giving instructions at the time. However, no latent fingerprints had been taken; despite attempts,

no clear fingerprint had been lifted and he did not any more ask why. [101]

Biong further admitted that he was so angry with the Vizconde housemaids as he did not believe

they did not hear anything despite the loud sound of the breaking of the main door glass. He also

admitted mauling Normal E. White, Jr. because he thought he was withholding information

during the investigation. Edgar Mendez did not tell him about the entry of a three (3)-vehicle

convoy into the subdivision on the night of June 29, 1991. As for Michael Gatchalian, he knows

him because on July 3, 1991 at 4:30 a.m., they caught him at Vinzons St. at the entrance of

Pitong Daan Subdivision for possession of marijuana. However, he does not know any more

what happened to that case he filed against Gatchalian as he was already dismissed from the

service.[102] He also admitted having mauled Gatchalian while interrogating him for his

participation in the Vizconde killings. [103]

88
Tab V:

89
Ruling of the Trial Court:

On January 4, 2000, the trial court rendered its Decision [104] finding all the accused guilty as

charged, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, this Court hereby finds all the principal accused GUILTY BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE WITH HOMICIDE AND HEREBY

SENTENCES EACH ONE OF THEM TO SUFFER THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION

PERPETUA. This Court likewise finds the accused Gerardo Biong GUILTY BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT AS AN ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT, AND HEREBY

SENTENCES HIM TO SUFFER AN IMPRISONMENT OF ELEVEN (11) YEARS, FOUR (4)

MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY TO TWELVE (12) YEARS. In addition, the Court hereby orders all

the accused to jointly and severally pay the victims' surviving heir, Mr. Lauro Vizconde, the

following sums by way of civil indemnity:

1. The amount of P150,000.00 for wrongful death of the victims;

2. The amount of P762,450.00 representing actual damages sustained by Mr. Lauro Vizconde;

3. The amount of P2,000,000.00 as moral damages sustained by Mr. Lauro Vizconde;

4. The amount of P97,404.55 as attorney's fees;

Let an alias warrant of arrest be issued against the accused Artemio "Dong" Ventura and Joey

Filart for their eventual apprehension so that they can immediately be brought to trial.

90
SO ORDERED.[105]

The trial court found Alfaro as a credible and truthful witness, considering the vast details she

disclosed relative to the incident she had witnessed inside the Vizconde house. The trial court

noted that Alfaro testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and

has remained consistent in her narration of the events despite a lengthy and grueling cross-

examination conducted on her by eight (8) defense lawyers. Neither was her credibility and

veracity of her declarations in court affected by the differences and inconsistencies between her

April 28, 1995 and May 22, 1995 affidavits, which she had satisfactorily explained during the

trial considering the circumstances that she initially desired to protect her former boyfriend

Estrada and her relative Gatchalian, the absence of a lawyer during the first taking of her

statements by the NBI, her distrust of the first investigators who took her statements and

prepared her April 28, 1995 affidavit, and her uncertainty if she could obtain adequate support

and security for her own life were she to disclose everything she knows about the Vizconde

killings.

On the other hand, the trial court ruled that principal accused Webb, Lejano, Rodriguez and

Gatchalian failed to establish their defense of alibi, the accused having been positively identified

by Alfaro as the group who conspired and assisted one (1) another in plotting and carrying out on

the same night the rape of Carmela, on the occasion of which Carmela's mother and sister were

also stabbed to death. The trial court held that Alfaro gave a clear, positive and convincing

91
testimony which was sufficiently corroborated on its material points by the testimonies of other

witnesses and confirmed by the physical evidence on record.

The Court of Appeals Ruling:

By Decision of December 15, 2005, the CA affirmed with modification the trial court's decision:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 274 of

Parañaque City in Criminal Case No. 95-404, finding accused-appellants Hubert "Jeffrey" Webb

y Pagaspas, Antonio "Tony Boy" Lejano, Michael Gatchalian y Adviento, Hospicio "Pyke"

Fernandez, Peter Estrada, Miguel "Ging" Rodriguez GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE

DOUBT as principals, and Gerardo Biong as accessory, of the crime of RAPE with HOMICIDE,

is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, as indicated:

1). We AFFIRM the sentence of accused-appellants Webb. Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez,

Estrada, and Rodriguez to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and its corresponding

accessory penalties under Article 41 of the Revised Penal Code;

2). We MODIFY the penalty of Gerardo Biong who is an accessory to the crime. Accused-

appellant Biong is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years of prision

correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as maximum, and absolute

perpetual disqualification under Article 58 of the Revised Penal Code; and

92
3). We MODIFY the civil indemnity. Accused-appellants Webb. Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez,

Estrada and Rodriguez are ORDERED to pay jointly and severally the surviving heir of the

victims, Mr. Lauro Vizconde. the amounts of P200,000.00 as civil indemnity, P762,450.00 as

actual damages, P2,000,000.00 as moral damages and P97,404.55 as attorney's fees, with the

corresponding subsidiary liability against accused-appellant Biong pursuant to Article 110,

paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code.

SO ORDERED.[106]

The CA upheld the trial court in giving full weight and credence to the eyewitness testimony of

Alfaro which was duly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses who had not been shown to

have ill-motive and malicious intent in revealing what they know about the Vizconde killings. It

disagreed with the appellants' view that they were victims of an unjust judgment upon their mere

allegations that they were tried by publicity, and that the trial judge was biased whose

discriminatory and hostile attitude was demonstrated by her rejection of 132 out of 142 exhibits

of the defense during the bail hearings and her refusal to issue subpoenas to prospective defense

witnesses such as former Secretary Teofisto Guingona and Antonio Calvento.

The CA also fully concurred with the trial court's conclusion that all the principal accused failed

to establish their defense of alibi after carefully evaluating the voluminous documentary and

testimonial evidence presented by the defense. On the issue of conspiracy, the CA found that the

prosecution was able to clearly and convincingly establish its presence in the commission of the

crime, notwithstanding that appellants Rodriguez, Gatchalian, Estrada and Fernandez did not

93
actually rape Carmela, nor participated in killing her, her mother and sister.

On motion for reconsideration filed by the appellants, the CA's Special Division of Five, voting

3-2, affirmed the December 15, 2005 Decision. [107] In the Resolution dated January 26, 2007, the

majority reiterated that it has fully explained in its Decision why the US-INS Certifications

submitted by appellant Webb deserve little weight. It stressed that it is a case of positive

identification versus alibi founded on documentary evidence. On the basis of the rule

that alibi is accepted only upon the clearest proof that the accused was not and could not have

been at the crime scene when it was committed, the CA in resolving the appeal considered the

weight of documentary evidence in light of testimonial evidence -- an eyewitness account that

the accused was the principal malefactor. As to the issue of apparent inconsistencies between the

two (2) affidavits executed by Alfaro, the CA said this is a settled matter, citing the Joint

Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 42285 and CA-G.R. SP No. 42673 entitled "Rodriguez v.

Tolentino" and "Webb, et al. v. Tolentino, et al.," which had long become final.

94
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.

95
To Webb's credit, he had asked for the conduct of DNA evidence on October 6, 1997, during the

trial on the merits, when he filed a Motion to Direct NBI to Submit Semen Specimen to DNA

Analysis[36] which motion the prosecution opposed. [37] The motion was subsequently denied by

the trial court by its November 25, 1997 Order, [38] citing Lim v. Court of Appeals[39] to the effect

that DNA, "being a relatively new science, it has not as yet been accorded official recognition by

our courts." Besides, the trial court "believed" that no one in the Philippines had as yet the

knowledge and expertise to testify on matters involving DNA testing. What is worse, however, is

that it "believed" that DNA testing "will not subserve the ends of justice." [40] If the motion had

been granted and DNA analysis were carried out, nagging doubts on Webb's culpability for the

crimes or lack of it could have been dissipated.

FINALLY, even assuming arguendo that the burden of evidence had shifted to the defense, the

testimonial and documentary evidence of the defense indubitably establishes that, with respect to

accused Webb, he was out of the country when the crime occurred.

It is undisputed that accused Webb's travel and immigration documents, which have not been

found to be spurious, unquestionably show that he left the Philippines for the United States on

March 9, 1991 and returned to the Philippines only on October 26, 1992. In rejecting Webb's

alibi, the dissenters point out:

These dates [March 9, 1991 and October 26, 1992] are so distant from the time of the

commission of the crime, June 29, 1991 and June 30, 1991, and it would not have been

impossible during the interregnum for Webb to travel back to the country and again fly to the US

several times considering that the travel time on board an airline from the Philippines to San

96
Francisco, and from San Francisco to the Philippines takes only about twelve (12) hours to

fourteen (14) hours. 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. There clearly

exists, therefore, such possibility of Webb's presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its

commission, and its excuse cannot be deemed airtight. (underscoring and italics supplied)

It is now the dissenters' reasoning which turns highly speculative and conjectural, one borne out

of unfounded suspicion. It suspects that the Webb family may have used its "financial resources

and political influence" to control all the U.S. and Philippine immigration people, thus allowing

Webb to secretly "travel back to the country and again fly to the U.S. several times" between

March 9, 1991 and October 26, 1992. It bears noting that the prosecution proffered no evidence

to establish that during the interregnum Webb had surreptitiously slipped out of the U.S.A. to the

Philippines, and that he subsequently re-entered the U.S.A. by bypassing all immigration

controls and protocols in both countries. This is the stuff of which spy novels are made, but not

in the real world where the lives of innocent individuals are at stake.

Facts decide cases. Conjectures and suspicions are not facts, hence, they have no evidentiary

value. They cannot be the bases of conviction as they cannot substitute for the constitutional

requirement of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicions, no matter how strong they

are, must never sway judgment.[41]

At this juncture, given the evidence on record, it is crucial to heed the Court's caveat that when

97
an accused puts up the defense of alibi, "the courts should not at once have a mental prejudice

against him. For, taken in the light of all the evidence on record, it may be sufficient to acquit

him."[42] While alibi is, indeed, a weak defense because the accused can easily fabricate his story

to escape criminal liability,[43] in the present case, Webb's alibi could not have been fabricated

with ease. His travel and immigration documents showing his departure from the Philippines

and arrival in the U.S.A., not to mention the testimonial and documentary evidence on his

activities while in the U.S.A. between March 9, 1991 and October 26, 1992, deserve full

credit. If half the world away could not even be considered to be "so far removed from the crime

scene"[44] as to evince the physical impossibility of actual presence, then the defense of alibi can

only be appreciated when an accused lands in a different planet.

The dissenters cite People v. Larrañaga[45] to highlight the weakness of alibi as a defense. That

case did not involve foreign and travel immigration documents or even the use of a passport, the

accused therein having claimed that he was in Quezon City at the time the crime was committed

in Cebu City. Because he was positively identified by several prosecution witnesses whose

testimonies, unlike Alfaro's, were credible and trustworthy, this Court rejected Larrañaga's alibi.

WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the

accused, Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio "Tony Boy" Lejano, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio

"Pyke" Fernandez, Peter Estrada, and Miguel "Ging" Rodriguez, they are ACQUITTED of the

crime charged.

98