Sie sind auf Seite 1von 88

7. LEJANO VS. PEOPLE witness can make as positive an identification as a truthful witness can.

—The
trial court and the Court of Appeals are one in rejecting as weak Webb’s alibi.
G.R. No. 176389. December 14, 2010.* Their reason is uniform: Webb’s alibi cannot stand against Alfaro’s positive
ANTONIO LEJANO, petitioner, vs.  PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, identification of him as the rapist and killer of Carmela and, apparently, the
respondent. killer as well of her mother and younger sister. Because of this, to the lower
G.R. No. 176864. December 14, 2010.* courts, Webb’s denial and alibi were fabricated. But not all denials and alibis
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. HUBERT JEFFREY P. should be regarded as fabricated. Indeed, if the accused is truly innocent, he
WEBB, ANTONIO LEJANO, MICHAEL A. GATCHALIAN, HOSPICIO can have no other defense but denial and alibi. So how can such accused
FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, PETER ESTRADA and GERARDO penetrate a mind that has been made cynical by the rule drilled into his head
BIONG, appellants. that a defense of alibi is a hangman’s noose in the face of a witness
Criminal Procedure; Due Process; Legal Research; Webb is not positively swearing, “I saw him do it.”? Most judges believe that such
entitled to acquittal for the failure of the State to produce the semen assertion automatically dooms an alibi which is so easy to fabricate. This
specimen at this late stage; The ruling in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 quick stereotype thinking, however, is distressing. For how else can the truth
(1963), that he cites has long been overtaken by the decision in Arizona v. that the accused is really innocent have any chance of prevailing over such a
Youngblood, 488 U.S. 41 (1988), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that stone-cast tenet? There is only one way. A judge must keep an open mind.
due process does not require the State to preserve the semen specimen He must guard against slipping into hasty conclusion, often arising from a
although it might be useful to the accused unless the latter is able to show desire to quickly finish the job of deciding a case. A positive declaration from
bad faith on the part of the prosecution or the police.—Still, Webb is not a witness that he saw the accused commit the crime should not automatically
entitled to acquittal for the failure of the State to produce the semen cancel out the accused’s claim that he did not do it. A lying witness can make
specimen at this late stage. For one thing, the ruling in Brady v. as positive an identification as a truthful witness can. The lying witness can
Maryland that he cites has long been overtaken by the decision in Arizona v. also say as forthrightly and unequivocally, “He did it!” without blinking an
Youngblood, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that eye.106
_______________ 106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
* EN BANC. Lejano vs. People
105 Same; Same; Witnesses; The positive identification must meet at least
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 105 two criteria—first, the positive identification of the offender must come from a
Lejano vs. People credible witness, and, second, the witness’ story of what she personally saw
due process does not require the State to preserve the semen must be believable, not inherently contrived.—Rather, to be acceptable, the
specimen although it might be useful to the accused unless the latter is able positive identification must meet at least two criteria: First, the positive
to show bad faith on the part of the prosecution or the police. Here, the State identification of the offender must come from a credible witness. She is
presented a medical expert who testified on the existence of the specimen credible who can be trusted to tell the truth, usually based on past
and Webb in fact sought to have the same subjected to DNA test. For, experiences with her. Her word has, to one who knows her, its weight in gold.
another, when Webb raised the DNA issue, the rule governing DNA evidence And second, the witness’ story of what she personally saw must be
did not yet exist, the country did not yet have the technology for conducting believable, not inherently contrived. A witness who testifies about something
the test, and no Philippine precedent had as yet recognized its admissibility she never saw runs into inconsistencies and makes bewildering claims.
as evidence. Consequently, the idea of keeping the specimen secure even Same; Same; Same; Police assets are often criminals themselves.—
after the trial court rejected the motion for DNA testing did not come up. Here, as already fully discussed above, Alfaro and her testimony fail to meet
Indeed, neither Webb nor his co-accused brought up the matter of preserving the above criteria. She did not show up at the NBI as a spontaneous witness
the specimen in the meantime. bothered by her conscience. She had been hanging around that agency for
Criminal Law; Alibis and Denials; Judges; Impartiality; Not all denials sometime as a stool pigeon, one paid for mixing up with criminals and
and alibis should be regarded as fabricated—indeed, if the accused is truly squealing on them. Police assets are often criminals themselves. She was
innocent, he can have no other defense but denial and alibi; A judge must the prosecution’s worst possible choice for a witness. Indeed, her superior
keep an open mind, guarding against slipping into hasty conclusion, often testified that she volunteered to play the role of a witness in the Vizconde
arising from a desire to quickly finish the job of deciding a case—a positive killings when she could not produce a man she promised to the NBI.
declaration from a witness that he saw the accused commit the crime should Same; Same; Alibi; Requisites.—To establish alibi, the accused must
not automatically cancel out the accused’s claim that he did not do it; A lying prove by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence that (a) he was present at

Page 1 of 88
another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was and the State Department. Still the Court of Appeals refused to accept these
physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. documents for the reason that Webb failed to present in court the
Same; Same; If one is cynical about the Philippine system, he could immigration official who prepared the same. But this was unnecessary.
probably claim that Webb, with his father’s connections, can arrange for the Webb’s passport is a document issued by the Philippine government, which
local immigration to put a March 9, 1991 departure stamp on his passport under international practice, is the official record of travels of the citizen to
and an October 27, 1992 arrival stamp on the same.—If one is cynical about whom it is issued. The entries in that passport are presumed true. The U.S.
the Philippine system, he could probably claim that Webb, with his father’s Immigration certification and computer print-out, the official certifications of
connections, can arrange for the local immigration to put a March 9, 1991 which have been authenticated by the Philippine Department of Foreign
departure stamp on his passport and an October 27, 1992 arrival stamp on Affairs, merely validated the arrival and departure stamps of the U.S.
the same. But this is pure speculation since there had been no indication that Immigration office on Webb’s passport. They have the same evidentiary
such arrangement was made. Besides, how could Webb fix a foreign airlines’ value. The officers who issued these certifications need not be presented in
passenger manifest, officially filed in the Philippines and at the airport in the court to testify on them. Their trustworthiness arises from the sense of official
U.S. that had his name on them? How could Webb fix with the U.S. duty and the penalty attached to a breached
Immigration’s record system those two dates in its record of his travels as 108
well as the dates when he supposedly departed in secret from the U.S. to 108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
commit the crime in the Philippines and then return there? No one has come Lejano vs. People
up with a logical and plausible answer to these questions.107 duty, in the routine and disinterested origin of such statement and in the
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 107 publicity of the record.
Lejano vs. People Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; If the Supreme Court were to
Same; Same; Best Evidence Rule; Pleadings, Practice and Procedure; subscribe to the extremely skeptical view taken by the trial court and the
While the best evidence of a document is the original, this means that the Court of Appeals regarding travel documents like the passport as well as the
same is exhibited in court for the adverse party to examine and for the judge domestic and foreign records of departures and arrivals from the airports, it
to see—the practice when a party does not want to leave an important might as well tear the rules of evidence out of the law books and regard
document with the trial court is to have a photocopy of it marked as exhibit suspicions, surmises, or speculations as reasons for impeaching evidence.—
and stipulated among the parties as a faithful reproduction of the original.— The trial court and the Court of Appeals expressed marked cynicism over the
The Court of Appeals rejected the evidence of Webb’s passport since he did accuracy of travel documents like the passport as well as the domestic and
not leave the original to be attached to the record. But, while the best foreign records of departures and arrivals from airports. They claim that it
evidence of a document is the original, this means that the same is exhibited would not have been impossible for Webb to secretly return to the Philippines
in court for the adverse party to examine and for the judge to see. As Court after he supposedly left it on March 9, 1991, commit the crime, go back to the
of Appeals Justice Tagle said in his dissent, the practice when a party does U.S., and openly return to the Philippines again on October 26, 1992. Travel
not want to leave an important document with the trial court is to have a between the U.S. and the Philippines, said the lower courts took only about
photocopy of it marked as exhibit and stipulated among the parties as a twelve to fourteen hours. If the Court were to subscribe to this extremely
faithful reproduction of the original. Stipulations in the course of trial are skeptical view, it might as well tear the rules of evidence out of the law books
binding on the parties and on the court. and regard suspicions, surmises, or speculations as reasons for impeaching
Same; Same; Evidence; Official Documents; Passports; Webb’s evidence. It is not that official records, which carry the presumption of truth of
passport is a document issued by the Philippine government, which under what they state, are immune to attack. They are not. That presumption can
international practice, is the official record of travels of the citizen to whom it be overcome by evidence. Here, however, the prosecution did not bother to
is issued, and the entries in that passport are presumed true; The U.S. present evidence to impeach the entries in Webb’s passport and the
Immigration certification and computer print-out, the official certifications of certifications of the Philippine and U.S.’ immigration services regarding his
which have been authenticated by the Philippine Department of Foreign travel to the U.S. and back. The prosecution’s rebuttal evidence is the fear of
Affairs, merely validated the arrival and departure stamps of the U.S. the unknown that it planted in the lower court’s minds.
Immigration office on Webb’s passport—they have the same evidentiary Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Webb’s documented alibi
value—and, the officers who issued these certifications need not be altogether impeaches Alfaro’s testimony, not only with respect to him, but
presented in court to testify on them.—The U.S. Immigration certification and also with respect to the other co-accused.—Webb’s documented alibi
the computer print-out of Webb’s arrival in and departure from that country altogether impeaches Alfaro’s testimony, not only with respect to him, but
were authenticated by no less than the Office of the U.S. Attorney General also with respect to Lejano, Estrada, Fernandez, Gatchalian, Rodriguez, and

Page 2 of 88
Biong. For, if the Court accepts the proposition that Webb was in the U.S. confession of having for years, after the commission of the crimes, been
when the crime took place, Alfaro’s testimony will not hold together. Webb’s numbed by the effects of drug abuse, would the dissenters take as gospel
participation is the anchor of Alfaro’s story. Without it, the evidence against truth her what they termed “vivid” and “infallible” recollection of the minutiae
the others must necessarily fall. surrounding the commission of the crime in June 1991, and point to the
Same; Presumption of Innocence; In our criminal justice system, what accused as the male-
is important is, not whether the court entertains doubts about the innocence 110
of the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all possibilities, but 110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt.—In our Lejano vs. People
criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court enter- factors, particularly Webb, despite evidence, documentary and
109 testimonial, supporting his alibi? The explanation for this feat of wizardry is
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 109 within arms-length—Alfaro appears to be a rehearsed witness. Prior to her
Lejano vs. People decision to surface and claim to tell what she “knew” about the crimes, the
tains doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is crimes had already been played out in the media, both print and broadcast,
willing to explore all possibilities, but whether it entertains a reasonable, in every gory detail. It was a raging topic that drew intense discussions in
lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it would be a serious mistake to send an both talk shows and informal gatherings, and all sorts of speculations about it
innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs on to one’s inner being, were rife. In fact, prior to the arrest of the accused, members of the Philippine
like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth. Will the Court send National Police (PNP) arrested some members of an “akyat-bahay” gang
the accused to spend the rest of their lives in prison on the testimony of an who were charged accordingly. These gang members were later released
NBI asset who proposed to her handlers that she take the role of the witness upon orders of the Makati Regional Trial Court after it was discovered that
to the Vizconde massacre that she could not produce? their confessions were fabricated by the PNP to conform to the physical
CARPIO-MORALES,  J., Concurring Opinion: evidence found at the crime scene. It is not thus difficult to believe that Alfaro
Criminal Law; Evidence; Witnesses; Dangerous Drugs Act; Evidence could have become familiar with the evidentiary details of the crimes, given
derived from the testimony of a witness who was under the influence of that she was practically a resident at the offices of the NBI which was actively
drugs during the incident to which he is testifying is indeed very unreliable.— investigating the crimes, not to mention her being an NBI “star” witness.
The paper of authors Burrus and Marks, “Testimonial Reliability of Drug Same; Same; Same; A testimony given four years after the occurrence
Addicts,” teaches: . . . [W]here the prolonged use of drugs has impaired the of crime which gives minute details that even contradict tales earlier given is
witness’ ability to perceive, recall or relate, impeaching testimony is uniformly too incredible as to draw dubiety.—A testimony given four years after the
sustained by the courts. Aside from organic deterioration, however, testimony occurrence of crime which gives minute details that even contradict tales
may be impugned if the witness was under the influence of drugs at the time earlier given is too incredible as to draw dubiety. The lucid observations of
of perceiving the event about which he is testifying or at the time he is on the Court of Appeals Justice Renato C. Dacudao in his Dissent for the acquittal
stand. This necessarily follows, for even the temporary presence of drugs of the accused, and the graphic analysis of Justice Roberto Abad in
affects the functioning of the body’s organs, and thus bears directly on the his ponencia on why Alfaro’s testimony can not be relied upon are thus well
credibility of the witness’ testimony… (underscoring supplied) Evidence taken. It bears stressing that the defense’s earnest assertion that the
derived from the testimony of a witness who was under the influence of drugs prosecution failed to rebut the pieces of evidence, highlighted by the
during the incident to which he is testifying is indeed very unreliable. So it defense, that seriously dent its (the prosecution’s) case has  not been
has been held that “habitual users of narcotics become notorious liars and controverted.
that their testimony is likely to be affected thereby.” We believe it will be Same; Same; Facts decide cases—conjectures and suspicions are not
admitted that habitual users of opium, or other like narcotics, facts, hence, they have no evidentiary value, and they cannot be the bases
become notorious liars. The habit of lying comes doubtless from the fact that of conviction as they cannot substitute for the constitutional requirement of
the users of those narcotics pass the greater part of their lives in an unreal proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.—It is now the dissenters’ reasoning
world, and thus become unable to distinguish between images and facts, which turns highly speculative and conjectural, one borne out of unfounded
between illusions and realities. suspicion. It suspects that the Webb family may have used its “financial
Same; Same; Same; The prosecution’s star witness appears to be a resources and political influence” to control all the U.S. and Philippine
rehearsed witness—prior to her decision to surface and claim to tell what she immigration people, thus allowing Webb to secretly “travel back to the
“knew” about the crimes, the crimes had already been played out in the country and again fly to the U.S. several times” between March 9, 1991 and
media, both print and broadcast, in every gory detail.—Given Alfaro’s October 26, 1992. It bears noting that the prosecution proffered no evidence

Page 3 of 88
to establish that during the interregnum Webb had surreptitiously slipped out Same; Same; Same; We have long recognized in this jurisdiction that
of the U.S.A. to the Philippines, and that he subsequently re-entered the the freedom of speech under Section 4, Article III of the Constitution is not
U.S.A. by bypassing absolute; While the sub judice rule may be considered as a curtailment of the
111 right to free speech, it is “necessary to ensure the proper administration of
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 111 justice and the right of an accused to a fair trial.”—Persons facing charges
Lejano vs. People for indirect contempt for violation of the sub judice rule often invoke as
all immigration controls and protocols in both countries. This is the stuff defense their right to free speech and claim that the citation for contempt
of which spy novels are made, but not in the real world where the lives of constitutes a form of impermissible subsequent punishment. We have long
innocent individuals are at stake. Facts decide cases. Conjectures and recognized in this jurisdiction that the freedom of speech under Section 4,
suspicions are not facts, hence, they have no evidentiary value. They cannot Article III of the Constitution is not absolute. A very literal construction of the
be the bases of conviction as they cannot substitute for the constitutional provision, as espoused by US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, may lead
requirement of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicions, no matter to the disregard of other equally compelling constitutional rights and
how strong they are, must never sway judgment. principles. In Vicente v. Majaducon, 461 SCRA 12 (2005), this Court
Same; Same; Witnesses; If half the world away could not even be declared that “[the freedom of speech] needs on occasion to be adjusted to
considered to be “so far removed from the crime scene” as to evince the and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public
physical impossibility of actual presence, then the defense of alibi can only interests such as the maintenance of the integrity of courts and orderly
be appreciated when an accused lands in a different planet.—While alibi is, functioning of the administration of justice.” Courts, both within and outside
indeed, a weak defense because the accused can easily fabricate his story this jurisdiction, have long grappled with the dilemma of balancing the
to escape criminal liability, in the present case, Webb’s alibi could not have public’s right to free speech and the government’s duty to administer fair and
been fabricated with ease. His travel and immigration documents showing his impartial justice. While the sub judice rule may be considered as a
departure from the Philippines and arrival in the U.S.A., not to mention the curtailment of the right to free speech, it is “necessary to ensure the proper
testimonial and documentary evidence on his activities while in the U.S.A. administration of justice and the right of an accused to a fair trial.” Both these
between March 9, 1991 and October 26, 1992, deserve full credit. If half the latter concerns are equally paramount and cannot lightly be disregarded.
world away could not even be considered to be “so far removed from the Same; Same; Same; The Constitution simply gives the citizens the right
crime scene” as to evince the physical impossibility of actual presence, then to speech, not the right to unrestricted publicized speech.—Before
the defense of alibi can only be appreciated when an accused lands in a proceeding with this line of thought, however, let me clarify that the sub
different planet. judice rule is not imposed on all forms of speech. In so far as criminal
BRION, J., Supplemental Opinion: proceedings are concerned, two classes of publicized speech made during
Courts; Sub Judice Rule; Freedom of Expression; The sub judice rule the pendency of the proceedings can be considered as contemptuous: first,
restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to pending judicial comments on the merits of the case, and second, intemperate and
proceedings—the restriction applies not only to participants in the pending unreasonable comments on the conduct of the courts with respect to the
case, i.e., to members of the bar and bench, and to litigants and witnesses, case. Publicized speech should be understood to be limited to those aired or
but also to the public in general, which necessarily includes the media.—In printed in the various forms of media such as television, radio, newspapers,
essence, the sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to magazines, and internet, and excludes discussions, in public or in private,
pending judicial proceedings. The restriction applies not only to participants between and among ordinary citizens. The Constitution simply gives the
in the pending case, i.e., to members of the bar and bench, and to litigants citizens the right to speech, not the right to unrestricted publicized speech.
and witnesses, but also to the public in general, which necessarily includes Same; Same; Same; Due Process; The right to a fair trial is an adjunct
the media. Although the Rules of Court does not contain a specific provision of the accused’s right to due process.—The right to a fair trial is an adjunct of
imposing the sub judice rule, it supports the observance of the restriction by the accused’s right to due process which “guarantees [him] a presumption of
punishing its violation as indirect contempt under Section 3(d) of Rule 71: 113
Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing.—x x x VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 113
a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect Lejano vs. People
contempt: x x x x (d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to innocence until the contrary is proved in a trial x x x where the
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice[.]112 conclusions reached are induced not by any outside force or influence but
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED only by evidence and argument given in open court, where fitting dignity and
Lejano vs. People calm ambiance is demanded.”

Page 4 of 88
Same; Same; Same; The fact that the jury system is not adopted in this justified by the more compelling interests to uphold the rights of the accused
jurisdiction is not an argument against our observance of the sub judice rule and promote the fair and orderly administration of justice.
—justices and judges are no different from members of the jury, they are not Same; Same; Same; If we do not apply at all the sub judice rule to the
immune from the pervasive effects of media.—As may be observed from the present case, the reason is obvious to those who have followed the case in
cited material, the sub judice rule is used by foreign courts to insulate the media—both parties are in pari delicto as both have apparently gone to
members of the jury from being influenced by prejudicial publicity. But the the media to campaign for the merits of their respective causes—the
fact that the jury system is not adopted in this jurisdiction is not an argument egregious action of one has been cancelled by a similar action by the other.
against our observance of the sub judice rule; justices and judges are no —If we do not apply at all the sub judice rule to the present case, the reason
different from members of the jury, they are not immune from the pervasive is obvious to those who have followed the case in the media—both parties
effects of media. “It might be farcical to build around them an impregnable are in pari delicto as both have apparently gone to the media to campaign for
armor against the influence of the most powerful media of public opinion.” As the merits of their respective causes. Thus, the egregious action of one has
I said in another case, in a slightly different context, even those who are been cancelled by a similar action by the other. It is in this sense that this
determined, in their conscious minds, to avoid bias may be affected. Supplemental Opinion is  independent of the merits of the case. Their
Same; Same; Same; Principle of Open Justice; Words and Phrases; common action, however, cannot have their prejudicial effects on both;
The people’s freedom to criticize the government includes the right to whatever the results may be, doubts will linger about the real merits of the
criticize the courts, their proceedings and decisions—this is the principle of case due to the inordinate media campaign that transpired. Lest we be
open justice, which is fundamental to our democratic society and ensures misunderstood, our application of the sub judice rule to this case cannot
that (a) there is a safeguard against judicial arbitrariness or idiosyncrasy, and serve as a precedent for similar future violations. Precisely, this
that (b) the public’s confidence in the administration of justice is maintained. Supplemental Opinion is a signal to all that this Court has not forgotten, and
—This, of course, is not meant to stifle all forms of criticism against the court. is in fact keenly aware of, the limits of what can be publicly ventilated on the
As the third branch of the government, the courts remain accountable to the merits of a case while sub judice, and on the comments on the conduct of the
people. The people’s freedom to criticize the government includes the right to courts with respect to the case. This Court will not standby idly and helplessly
criticize the courts, their proceedings and decisions. This is the principle of as its integrity as an institution and its processes are shamelessly brought to
open justice, which is fundamental to our democratic society and ensures disrepute.
that (a) there is a safeguard against judicial arbitrariness or idiosyncrasy, and VILLARAMA, JR., J., Dissenting Opinion:
that (b) the public’s confidence in the administration of justice is maintained. Criminal Law; Presumption of Innocence; Evidence; The Supreme
The criticism must, however, be fair, made in good faith, and “not spill over Court has consistently held that the rule on the trial court’s appreciation of
the walls of decency and propriety.” And to enhance the open court principle evidence must bow to the superior rule that the prosecution must prove the
and allow the people to make fair and reasoned criticism of the courts, guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.—This Court has consistently
the sub judice  rule excludes from its coverage fair and accurate reports held that the rule on the trial court’s appreciation of evidence must bow to the
(without comment) of what have actually taken place in open court. superior rule that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond
Same; Same; Same; Due Process; The resulting (but temporary) reasonable doubt. The law presumes an accused innocent, and this
curtailment of speech because of the sub judice rule is necessary and presumption must prevail unless overturned by competent and credible
justified by the more compelling interests to uphold the rights of the accused proof. Thus, we
and promote the fair and orderly administration of justice.—In sum, the court, 115
in a pending VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 115
114 Lejano vs. People
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED are tasked to consider two crucial points in sustaining a judgment of
Lejano vs. People conviction: first, the identification of the accused as perpetrator of the crime,
litigation, must be shielded from embarrassment or influence in its all- taking into account the credibility of the prosecution witness who made the
important duty of deciding the case. Any publication pending a suit, reflecting identification as well as the prosecution’s compliance with legal and
upon the court, the parties, the officers of the court, the counsel, etc., with constitutional standards; and second,  all the elements constituting the crime
reference to the suit, or tending to influence the decision of the controversy, were duly proven by the prosecution to be present.
is contempt of court and is punishable. The resulting (but temporary) Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; It is axiomatic that a witness who
curtailment of speech because of the sub judice  rule is necessary and testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and
remains consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.—The

Page 5 of 88
testimony of Alfaro on its material points was corroborated by Birrer, Dr. weighed, not numbered.—The rule is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that
Cabanayan, White, Jr., Cabanacan and Gaviola. Appellants’ presence at the in determining the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be
scene of the crime before, during and after its commission was duly weighed, not numbered. The testimony of only one witness, if credible and
established. Their respective participation, acts and declarations were positive, is sufficient to convict. As to appellant Webb’s voluminous
likewise detailed by Alfaro who was shown to be a credible witness. It is documentary evidence, both the RTC and CA judiciously examined each
axiomatic that a witness who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, exhibit and concluded that these do not pass the test of admissibility and
spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent on cross-examination materiality insofar as proving the physical impossibility of his presence at the
is a credible witness. Vizconde residence on June 29, 1991 until the early morning of June 30,
Same; Same; Same; Same; A criminal case rises or falls on the 1991.
strength of the prosecution’s case, not on the weakness of the defense.—A Same; Same; Alibi; While it is true that presentation of passport, plane
criminal case rises or falls on the strength of the prosecution’s case, not on ticket and other travel documents can serve as proof that an accused was
the weakness of the defense. Once the prosecution overcomes the indeed out of the country at the time of the killings, it must still be shown that
presumption of innocence by proving the elements of the crime and the the evidence is clear and convincing, and the totality of such evidence
identity of the accused as perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt, the burden constitutes an airtight excuse as to exclude the least possibility of his
of evidence then shifts to the defense which shall then test the strength of the presence at the crime scene.—As to the travel documents consisting of his
prosecution’s case either by showing that no crime was in fact committed or US passport, US INS certifications and other evidence presented by
that the accused could not have committed or did not commit the imputed appellant Webb in support of his alibi, while it is true that such presentation of
crime, or at the very least, by casting doubt on the guilt of the accused. passport, plane ticket and other travel documents can serve as proof that he
Same; Alibi; We have held in a   number of cases that alibi is an was indeed out of the country at the time of the Vizconde killings, it must still
inherently weak and unreliable defense, for it is easy to fabricate and difficult be shown that the evidence is clear and convincing, and the totality of such
to disprove.—We have held in a number of cases that alibi is an inherently evidence constitutes an airtight excuse as to exclude the least possibility of
weak and unreliable defense, for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to his presence at the crime scene. However, appellant Webb failed in this
disprove. To establish alibi, the accused must prove (a) that he was present regard and the RTC and CA did not err in giving scant weight to his arsenal
at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it of evidence, particularly so on the strength of the positive identification of
was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Physical appellant Webb as Carmela’s rapist and one of those who actually took part
impossibility “refers to the distance between the place where the accused in the brutal killing of Carmela, her mother and sister between midnight of
was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well June 29, 1991 and early morning of June 30, 1991.
as the facility of access between the two places.” Due to its doubtful Same; Same; Same; Verily, it is only when the identification of the
nature, alibi  must be supported by clear and convincing proof. “Alibi, the plea accused as the author of the crime charged is inconclusive or unreliable that
of having been elsewhere than at the scene of the crime at the time of the 117
commission VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 117
116 Lejano vs. People
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED alibi assumes importance.—Alibi cannot be sustained where it is not
Lejano vs. People only without credible corroboration, but also where it does not, on its face,
of the felony, is a plausible excuse for the accused. Let there be no demonstrate the physical impossibility of the accused’s presence at the place
mistake about it. Contrary to the common notion, alibi is in fact a good and time of the commission of the crime. Against positive
defense. But, to be valid for purposes of exoneration from a criminal evidence, alibi becomes most unsatisfactory. Alibi cannot prevail over the
charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have been positive identification of a credible witness. Appellant Webb was placed at
physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the the crime scene by Alfaro who positively identified him as the one (1) who
locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason being that no plotted and committed the rape of Carmela, and later fatally stabbed her, her
person can be in two places at the same time. The excuse must be so mother and sister, aided by or in concert with Lejano and Ventura. Gaviola
airtight that it would admit of no exception. Where there is the least and Cabanacan gave corroborating testimonies that appellant Webb was
possibility of accused’s presence at the crime scene, the alibi will not here in the country, as he was just in his house at BF Homes Subdivision
hold water. Phase III, at least a few weeks prior to and on June 29 to 30, 1991. Verily, it
Same; Witnesses; The rule is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that in is only when the identification of the accused as the author of the crime
determining the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be charged is inconclusive or unreliable that alibi assumes importance. Such is

Page 6 of 88
not the situation in the case at bar where the identification of the perpetrators Gatchalian, Fernandez, Rodriguez and Filart was satisfactorily proven by the
by a lone eyewitness satisfied the moral certainty standard. prosecution. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
Same; Same; Same; Presumption of Innocence; Words and Phrases; agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Definitely, “reasonable doubt” is not mere guesswork whether or not the Conspiracy comes to life at the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or
accused is guilty, but such uncertainty that “a reasonable man may entertain impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to actually pursue it. It
after a fair review and consideration of the evidence.”—It is the prosecution’s may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Although only one (1)
burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Definitely, rape was actually proven by the prosecution, as conspirators who mutually
“reasonable doubt” is not mere guesswork whether or not the accused is agreed to commit the crime and assisted one (1) another in its commission,
guilty, but such uncertainty that “a reasonable man may entertain after a fair on the occasion of which the rape victim Carmela, her mother Estrellita and
review and consideration of the evidence.” Reasonable doubt is present sister Jennifer, were killed, each of the accused-appellants shall be criminally
when—after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidences, liable for rape with homicide.
leaves the minds of the [judges] in that condition that they cannot say they Same; Same; Accessories; Words and Phrases; Accessory is one who
feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge; a has knowledge of the commission of the crime, yet did not take part in its
certainty that convinces and directs the understanding, and satisfies the commission as principal or accomplice, but took part in it subsequent to its
reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it. commission.—The Revised Penal Code in Article 19 defines an accessory as
Same; Same; Same; Judicial Notice; Philippine Passport Act of 1996 one who has knowledge of the commission of the crime, yet did not take part
(R.A. No. 8239); The Court takes judicial notice of reported irregularities and in its commission as principal or accomplice, but took part in it subsequent to
tampering of passports in the years prior to the recent issuance by the its commission by any of three modes: (1) profiting himself or assisting the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) of machine-readable passports—in fact, offender to profit by the effects of the crime; (2) concealing or destroying the
the proliferation of photo-substituted passports, fake immigration stamps, body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof in order to prevent its
assumed identity and double passports, among others, have been cited as discovery; and (3) harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the
grounds to justify the necessity of amending the Philippine Passport Act of principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his
1996.—That reasonable doubt is not engendered by the presentation of 119
certifications of entry into and exit from the US, passport with stamp marks of VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 119
departure and declarations of witnesses who are mostly relatives and friends Lejano vs. People
118 public functions or when the offender is guilty of treason, parricide,
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to
Lejano vs. People be habitually guilty of some other crime.
of appellant Webb, can be gleaned from the fact that passports and Same; Same; Same; Under paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised
plane tickets indicating dates of arrival and departure do not necessarily Penal Code, as amended, there are two (2) classes of accessories, one of
prove that the very same person actually took the flight. This Court takes which is a public officer who harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the
judicial notice of reported irregularities and tampering of passports in the principal—such public officer must have acted with abuse of his public
years prior to the recent issuance by the DFA of machine-readable functions, and the crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided it
passports. In fact, the proliferation of photo-substituted passports, fake is not a light felony.—Under paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal
immigration stamps, assumed identity and double passports, among others, Code, as amended, there are two (2) classes of accessories, one of which is
have been cited as grounds to justify the necessity of amending a public officer who harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the
the Philippine Passport Act of 1996 (R.A. No. 8239) as proposed in the principal. Such public officer must have acted with abuse of his public
Senate, “x x x to rally for the issuance of passports using tamper proof and functions, and the crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided it
the latest data encryption technology; and provide stiffer penalties against is not a light felony. Appellant Biong is one (1) such public officer, and he
proliferators of fake passports.” abused his public function when, instead of immediately arresting the
Same; Rape with Homicide; Conspiracy; Although only one (1) rape perpetrators of the crime, he acceded to the bidding of appellant Webb to
was actually proven by the prosecution, as conspirators who mutually agreed “clean the Vizconde house,” which means he must help hide any possible
to commit the crime and assisted one (1) another in its commission, on the trace or sign linking them to the crime, and not necessarily to prevent the
occasion of which the rape victim, her mother and sister, were killed, each of discovery of the bodies in such actual condition upon their deaths. Hence,
the accused-appellants shall be criminally liable for rape with homicide.—The such “cleaning” would include obliterating fingerprints and other identifying
existence of conspiracy between appellants Webb, Ventura, Lejano,

Page 7 of 88
marks which appellants Webb, Lejano and Ventura might have left at the smear confirming the presence of spermatozoa merely corroborated Alfaro’s
scene of the crime. testimony that Carmela was raped before she was killed. Indeed, the
Same; Rape; Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Testing; With the great presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial in a prosecution for rape.
advances in forensic science and under pertinent state laws, American The important consideration in rape cases is not the emission of semen but
courts allow post-conviction Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) testing when its the unlawful penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ. On the
application has strong indications that the result could potentially exonerate other hand, a negative result of DNA examination of the semen specimen
the convict.—Appellant Gatchalian reiterates his and appellant Webb’s could not have exonerated Webb of the crime charged as his identity as a
motion for DNA testing of the semen specimen taken from the vaginal cavity principal in the rape-slay of Carmela was satisfactorily established by the
of Carmela during the autopsy conducted by Dr. Cabanayan, which motion totality of the evidence. A finding that the semen specimen did not match
was denied by the RTC for lack of available scientific expertise and Webb’s DNA does not necessarily negate his presence at the locus criminis.
technology at the time. With the great advances in forensic science and SERENO, J., Separate Concurring Opinion:
under pertinent state laws, American courts allow post-conviction DNA Criminal Procedure; Public Prosecutors; It cannot be overemphasized
testing when its application has strong indications that the result could that the prosecuting officer is the representative not of an ordinary party to a
potentially exonerate the convict. Indeed, even a convicted felon has the right controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as
to avail of new technology not available during his trial. compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in
Same; Same; Same; The source of the semen extracted from the a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall
vaginal cavity of the deceased victim is immaterial in determining Webb’s be  done.—At the outset, it cannot be overemphasized that the prosecuting
guilt—from the totality of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and officer “is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a
the defense,  Webb was positively identified as Carmela’s rapist.—We hold sov-
that the source of the semen extracted from the vaginal cavity of the 121
deceased victim is im- VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 121
120 Lejano vs. People
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED ereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its
Lejano vs. People obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal
material in determining Webb’s guilt. From the totality of the evidence prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As
presented by both the prosecution and the defense, Webb was positively such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the
identified as Carmela’s rapist. As the records bear out, the positive twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He
identification of appellant Webb as Carmela’s rapist satisfied the test of moral may prosecute with earnestness and vigor—indeed, he should do so. But,
certainty, and the prosecution had equally established beyond reasonable while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as
doubt the fact of rape and the unlawful killing of Carmela, Estrellita and much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a
Jennifer on the occasion thereof. Even assuming that the DNA analysis of wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a
the semen specimen taken from Carmela’s body hours after her death just one.”
excludes Webb as the source thereof, it will not exonerate him from the crime Same; Due Process; What is in truth referred to when expanding on the
charged. Alfaro did not testify that Webb had ejaculated or did not use a concept of “fair trial” is that the rights of the accused are protected, to the
condom while raping Carmela. She testified that she saw Webb rape extent necessary to ensure fairness for him—rights of the victim are not
Carmela and it was only him she had witnessed to have committed the rape ignored, but they are respected only to the extent that they are consistent
inside the Vizconde residence between late evening of June 29, 1991 and with the fairness of the trial for the accused.—In the words of Richard
early morning of June 30, 1991. Moreover, she did not testify that Carmela Refshauge: “The adversarial system … is rooted in the notion of a contest
had no sexual relations with any other man at least 24 hours prior to that with winners and losers, yet the prosecutor is ethically forbidden from
time. On the other hand, a positive result of DNA examination of the semen embracing that notion. The question then, is not what will make the prospect
specimen extracted by Dr. Cabanayan from Carmela’s cadaver would merely of a conviction more certain, but what is fair and what will contribute to
serve as corroborative evidence. justice.” Thus, a criminal trial is not about personal redress for the victims,
Same; Same; Same; The presence or absence of spermatozoa is but about determining the guilt and the just punishment of the accused. What
immaterial in a prosecution for rape—the important consideration in rape is in truth referred to when expanding on the concept of “fair trial” is that the
cases is not the emission of semen but the unlawful penetration of the rights of the accused are protected, to the extent necessary to ensure
female genitalia by the male organ.—We thus reiterate that the vaginal fairness for him. Rights of the victim are not ignored, but they are respected

Page 8 of 88
only to the extent that they are consistent with the fairness of the trial for the is also necessarily obliged to preserve the said evidence. To hold otherwise
accused. would be to render illusory the existence of such right. The advent of DNA
Same; Same; Presumption of Innocence; The presumption of technology prompted this Court’s promulgation of the New Rules for DNA
innocence of the accused is at the center of our criminal justice system—the Evidence. As DNA evidence provides objective proof of identification and
cornerstone, as it were, of all the other rights accorded to the accused, may be obtained from evidence left in the scene of the crime or in the victim’s
including the right to due process of law; Because the accused must be person, it also gives new meaning to the above duty of the prosecution. The
presumed innocent, and because they are entitled to due process of law, it is prosecution did not fare well when measured against this standard.
the duty of the prosecution not to issue prejudicial statements about them Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA)
while the trial is being conducted, a standard which applies with even more Testing; If a negative Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) test result could not be
force to the trial judge.—The presumption of innocence of the accused is at considered as providing certainty that Webb did not commit the crime, would
the center of our criminal justice system—the cornerstone, as it were, of all it not have at least cast a reasonable doubt that he committed it?—The idea
the other rights accorded to the accused, including the right to due process of that a negative DNA test result would not have necessarily exculpated Webb,
law. In pronouncing the presumption of innocence of the accused and their because previous sexual congress by Carmela with another man prior to the
right to due process, the Constitution declares that the risk of letting the guilty crime could not be discounted, would unrealistically raise the bar of evidence
walk free would be error on the side of justice. This outcome is infinitely —and for the wrong party, i.e., for the part of the defense, instead of for the
better than imprisoning an innocent person. Because the accused must be prosecu-
presumed innocent, and because they are entitled to due process of law, it is 123
the duty of the prosecution VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 123
122 Lejano vs. People
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED tion. If a negative DNA test result could not be considered as providing
Lejano vs. People certainty that Webb did not commit the crime, would it not have at least cast
not to issue prejudicial statements about them while the trial is being a reasonable doubt that he committed it?
conducted. This standard applies with even more force to the trial judge who Same; Same; Since “the task of the pillars of the criminal justice system
must at all times not only be impartial, but also appear to be so. is to preserve our democratic society u+nder the rule of law, ensuring that all
Same; Same; Same; Judges; Bias and Partiality; When allegations of those who appear before or are brought to the bar of justice are afforded a
instances of the trial judge’s bias were first brought to this Court, it was fair opportunity to present their side,” the measure of whether the accused
understandable that the Court would accord the judge the presumption of herein has been deprived of due process of law should not be limited to the
regularity in the performance of her duties, but her subsequent acts, as well state of mind of the prosecution, but should include fundamental principles of
as her Decision—taken together—showed a pattern now recognizable in fair play.—In our various decisions relating to interlucotory orders and
retrospect as bias against the accused, amounting to denial of due process. incidents pertaining to this case, this court’s adherence to instrumentalism
—Allegations of issuance of prejudicial comments about the accused in this has led to our finding in each instance that there was no due process
case pertained to the acts of the trial judge, and not the prosecution. When violation committed against petitioner, because bad faith was not shown by
allegations of instances of the trial judge’s bias were first brought to this the prosecution or the trial judge. However, since “the task of the pillars of
Court, it was understandable that the Court would accord the judge the the criminal justice system is to preserve our democratic society under the
presumption of regularity in the performance of her duties. Her subsequent rule of law, ensuring that all those who appear before or are brought to the
acts, however, as well as her Decision—taken together—showed a pattern bar of justice are afforded a fair opportunity to present their side,” the
now recognizable in retrospect as bias against the accused, amounting to measure of whether the accused herein has been deprived of due process of
denial of due process. law should not be limited to the state of mind of the prosecution, but should
Same; Same; Same; Same; Right of Access to Evidence; The include fundamental principles of fair play. Hence, as we write finis to this
accused’s right to access to evidence necessitates in the correlative duty of case, it is time we evaluate the total picture that the prosecution’s acts or
the prosecution to produce and permit the inspection of the evidence, and omissions have wrought upon the accused’s rights with each seemingly
not to suppress or alter it.—As discussed in the preceding section, the innocuous stroke, whatever its intention may have been. The various
accused’s right to access to evidence necessitates in the correlative duty of violations of the accused’s rights have resulted in his failure to secure a just
the prosecution to produce and permit the inspection of the evidence, and trial. As such, the judgment of conviction cannot stand.
not to suppress or alter it. When the prosecution is called upon not to PETITIONS for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the
suppress or alter evidence in its possession that may benefit the accused, it Court of Appeals.

Page 9 of 88
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. former laundrywoman of the Webb’s household, police officer Biong’s former
  Vicente Millora  and Florante Arceo Bautista for Antonio Lejano. girlfriend, and Lauro G. Vizconde, Estrellita’s husband.
  Jose Flaminiano for Hospicio Fernandez. For their part, some of the accused testified, denying any part in the crime
  Vitaliano N. Aguirre II, Divinagracia S. San Juan, Demetrio C. Custodio, and saying they were elsewhere when it took place. Webb’s alibi appeared
Jr., Eloysa G. Sicam, and Joaquin Miguel Z. Hizon for Hubert Webb, et al. the strongest since he claimed that he was then across the ocean in the
  Ramon Miguel Ongsiako for M. Rodriguez, Ongsiako and De la United States of America. He presented the testimonies of witnesses as well
Cruz.124 as documentary and object evidence to prove this. In addition, the defense
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED presented witnesses to show Alfaro’s bad reputation for truth and the
Lejano vs. People incredible nature of her testimony.
But impressed by Alfaro’s detailed narration of the crime and the events
      Acerey C. Pacheco for Peter Estrada. surrounding it, the trial court found a credible witness in her. It noted her
  Ricardo Valmonte for Gerardo Biong. categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank testimony, undamaged
  Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De Los by grueling cross-examinations. The trial court remained unfazed by
Angeles and  Francisco C. Gatchalian for Michael A. Gatchalian. significant discrepancies between Alfaro’s April 28 and May 22, 1995
ABAD, J.: affidavits, accepting her explanation that she at first wanted to protect her
Brief Background former boyfriend, accused Estrada, and a relative, accused Gatchalian; that
On June 30, 1991 Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela, no lawyer assisted her; that she did not trust the investigators who helped
nineteen years old, and Jennifer, seven, were brutally slain at their home in her prepare her first affidavit; and that she felt unsure if she would get the
Parañaque City. Following an intense investigation, the police arrested a support and security she needed once she disclosed all about the Vizconde
group of suspects, some of whom gave detailed confessions. But the trial killings.
court smelled a frame-up and eventually ordered them discharged. Thus, the In contrast, the trial court thought little of the denials and alibis that Webb,
identities of the real perpetrators remained a mystery especially to the public Lejano, Rodriguez, and Gatchalian set up for their defense. They paled,
whose interests were aroused by the gripping details of what everybody according to the court, compared to Alfaro’s testimony that other witnesses
referred to as the Vizconde massacre. and the physical evidence corroborated. Thus, on January 4, 2000, after four
Four years later in 1995, the National Bureau of Investigation or NBI years of arduous hearings, the trial court rendered judgment, finding all the
announced that it had solved the crime. It presented star-witness Jessica M. accused guilty as charged and imposing on Webb, Lejano, Gatchalian,
Alfaro, one of its informers, who claimed that she witnessed the crime. She Fernandez, Estrada, and Rodriguez the penalty of reclusion perpetua and on
pointed to accused Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio “Tony Boy” Lejano, Biong, an indeterminate prison term of eleven years, four months, and one
Artemio “Dong” Ventura, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio “Pyke” Fernandez, day to twelve years. The trial court also awarded damages to Lauro
Peter Estrada, Miguel “Ging” Rodriguez, and Joey Filart as the culprits. She Vizconde.3
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 3 Records, Vol. 25, pp. 170-71.
prosecutors filed an information for rape with homicide against Webb, et al.1 126
The Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 274, presided over 126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
by Judge Amelita G. Tolentino, tried only seven of the accused since Artemio Lejano vs. People
Ventura and Joey Filart remained at large. 2 The prosecution presented Alfaro On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision,
as its main witness with the others corrobo- modifying the penalty imposed on Biong to six years minimum and twelve
_______________ years maximum and increasing the award of damages to Lauro
1 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-3. Vizconde.4 The appellate court did not agree that the accused were tried by
2 Rollo (G.R. 176389), pp. 393-399 and Rollo (G.R. 176864), pp. 80-104. publicity or that the trial judge was biased. It found sufficient evidence of
125 conspiracy that rendered Rodriguez, Gatchalian, Fernandez, and Estrada
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 125 equally guilty with those who had a part in raping and killing Carmela and in
Lejano vs. People executing her mother and sister.
rating her testimony. These included the medico-legal officer who autopsied On motion for reconsideration by the accused, the Court of Appeals’
the bodies of the victims, the security guards of Pitong Daan Subdivision, the Special Division of five members voted three against two to deny the
motion,5 hence, the present appeal.

Page 10 of 88
On April 20, 2010, as a result of its initial deliberation in this case, the The medical evidence clearly established that Carmela was raped and,
Court issued a Resolution granting the request of Webb to submit for DNA consistent with this, semen specimen was found in her. It is true that Alfaro
analysis the semen specimen taken from Carmela’s cadaver, which identified Webb in her testimony as Carmela’s rapist and killer but serious
specimen was then believed still under the safekeeping of the NBI. The Court questions had been raised about her credibility. At the very least, there exists
granted the request pursuant to section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence 6 to a possibility that Alfaro had lied. On the other hand, the semen specimen
give the accused and the prosecution access to scientific evidence that they taken from Carmela cannot possibly lie. It cannot be coached or allured by a
might want to avail themselves of, leading to a correct decision in the case. promise of reward or financial support. No two persons have the same DNA
Unfortunately, on April 27, 2010 the NBI informed the Court that it no fingerprint, with the
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 7 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
among the object evidence that the prosecution offered in evidence in the 128
case. 128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
This outcome prompted accused Webb to file an urgent motion to acquit Lejano vs. People
on the ground that the government’s failure to preserve such vital evidence exception of identical twins. 8 If, on examination, the DNA of the subject
has resulted in the denial of his right to due process. specimen does not belong to Webb, then he did not rape Carmela. It is that
Issues Presented simple. Thus, the Court would have been able to determine that Alfaro
Accused Webb’s motion to acquit presents a threshold issue: whether or committed perjury in saying that he did.
not the Court should acquit him outright, given the gov- 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.
4 CA Rollo, Vol. IV, pp. 3478-3479. Maryland9 that he cites has long be overtaken by the decision in Arizona v.
5 Resolution dated January 26, 2007, Rollo (G.R. 176839), pp. 197-214. Youngblood,10 where the U.S. Supreme Court held that due process does not
6 A.M. 06-11-5-SC effective October 15, 2007. require the State to preserve the semen specimen although it might be useful
127 to the accused unless the latter is able to show bad faith on the part of the
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 127 prosecution or the police. Here, the State presented a medical expert who
Lejano vs. People testified on the existence of the specimen and Webb in fact sought to have
ernment’s failure to produce the semen specimen that the NBI found on the same subjected to DNA test.
Carmela’s cadaver, thus depriving him of evidence that would prove his For, another, when Webb raised the DNA issue, the rule governing DNA
innocence. evidence did not yet exist, the country did not yet have the technology for
In the main, all the accused raise the central issue of whether or not conducting the test, and no Philippine precedent had as yet recognized its
Webb, acting in conspiracy with Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, admissibility as evidence. Consequently, the idea of keeping the specimen
Rodriguez, Ventura, and Filart, raped and killed Carmela and put to death secure even after the trial court rejected the motion for DNA testing did not
her mother and sister. But, ultimately, the controlling issues are: come up. Indeed, neither Webb nor his co-accused brought up the matter of
1. Whether or not Alfaro’s testimony as eyewitness, describing the preserving the specimen in the meantime.
crime and identifying Webb, Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, Parenthetically, after the trial court denied Webb’s application for DNA
Rodriguez, and two others as the persons who committed it, is entitled to testing, he allowed the proceeding to move on when he had on at least two
belief; and occasions gone up to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to
2. Whether or not Webb presented sufficient evidence to prove his alibi challenge alleged arbitrary actions taken against him and the other
and rebut Alfaro’s testimony that he led the others in committing the crime. accused.11 They raised the DNA issue before the Court of Appeals but
The issue respecting accused Biong is whether or not he acted to cover merely as an error committed by the trial court in rendering its decision in the
up the crime after its commission. case. None of the accused filed a motion with the appeals court to have the
The Right to Acquittal DNA test done pending adjudication of
Due to Loss of DNA Evidence _______________
Webb claims, citing Brady v. Maryland,7 that he is entitled to outright 8  People v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224, May 19, 2004, 425 SCRA 504, 514.
acquittal on the ground of violation of his right to due process given the 9  Supra note 7.
State’s failure to produce on order of the Court either by negligence or willful 10 488 U.S. 41 (1988).
suppression the semen specimen taken from Carmela.

Page 11 of 88
11 Webb v. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995, 247 SCRA midnight and she would leave the pedestrian gate, the iron grills that led to
652; Webb v. People, G.R. No. 127262, July 24, 1997, 276 SCRA 243. the kitchen, and the kitchen door unlocked. Carmela also told Alfaro to blink
129 her car’s headlights twice when she approached the pedestrian gate so
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 129 Carmela would know that she had arrived.
Lejano vs. People Alfaro returned to her car but waited for Carmela to drive out of the house
their appeal. This, even when the Supreme Court had in the meantime in her own car. Alfaro trailed Carmela up to Aguirre Avenue where she
passed the rules allowing such test. Considering the accused’s lack of dropped off a man whom Alfaro believed was Carmela’s boyfriend. Alfaro
interest in having such test done, the State cannot be deemed put on looked for her group, found them, and relayed Carmela’s instructions to
reasonable notice that it would be required to produce the semen specimen Webb. They then all went back to the Ayala Alabang Commercial Center. At
at some future time. the parking lot, Alfaro told the group about her talk with Carmela. When she
Now, to the merit of the case. told Webb of Carmela’s male companion, Webb’s mood changed for the rest
Alfaro’s Story of the evening (“bad trip”).
Based on the prosecution’s version, culled from the decisions of the trial Webb gave out free cocaine. They all used it and some shabu, too. After
court and the Court of Appeals, on June 29, 1991 at around 8:30 in the about 40 to 45 minutes, Webb decided that it was time for them to leave. He
evening, Jessica Alfaro drove her Mitsubishi Lancer, with boyfriend Peter said, “Pipilahan natin siya  [Carmela] at ako ang mauuna.” Lejano said, “Ako
Estrada as passenger, to the Ayala Alabang Commercial Center parking lot ang susunod” and the others responded “Okay, okay.” They all left the
to buy shabu from Artemio “Dong” Ventura. There, Ventura introduced her to parking lot in a convoy of three vehicles and drove into Pitong Daan
his friends: Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio “Tony Boy” Lejano, Miguel Subdivision for the third time. They arrived at Carmela’s house shortly before
“Ging” Rodriguez, Hospicio “Pyke” Fernandez, Michael Gatchalian, and Joey midnight.
Filart. Alfaro recalled frequently seeing them at a shabu house in Parañaque Alfaro parked her car between Vizconde’s house and the next. While
in January 1991, except Ventura whom she had known earlier in December waiting for the others to alight from their cars, Fernandez approached Alfaro
1990. with a suggestion that they blow up the transformer near the Vizconde’s
As Alfaro smoked her shabu, Webb approached and requested her to residence to cause a brownout (“Pasabugin kaya natin ang transformer na
relay a message for him to a girl, whom she later identified as Carmela ito”).  But Alfaro shrugged off the idea, telling Fernandez, “Malakas lang ang
Vizconde. Alfaro agreed. After using up their shabu, the group drove to tama mo.”  When Webb, Lejano, and Ventura were already before the house,
Carmela’s house at 80 Vinzons Street, Pitong Daan Subdivision, BF Homes, Webb told the others again that they would line up for Carmela but he would
Parañaque City. Riding in her car, Alfaro and Estrada trailed Filart and be the first. The others replied, “O sige, dito lang kami, magbabantay lang
Rodriguez who rode a Mazda pick-up and Webb, Lejano, Ventura, kami.”
Fernandez, and Gatchalian who were on a Nissan Patrol car. 131
On reaching their destination, Alfaro parked her car on Vinzons Street, VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 131
alighted, and approached Carmela’s house. Alfaro pressed the buzzer and a Lejano vs. People
woman came out. Alfaro queried her about Carmela. Alfaro had met Carmela    Alfaro was the first to pass through the pedestrian gate that had been left
twice before in January 1991. When Carmela came out, Alfaro gave her open. Webb, Lejano, and Ventura followed her. On entering the garage,
Webb’s message that he was just around. Carmela replied, however, that Ventura using a chair mounted the hood of the Vizcondes’ Nissan Sentra and
she could not go out yet since she had just arrived home. She told Alfaro to loosened the electric bulb over it (“para daw walang ilaw”). The small group
return after twenty minutes. Alfaro relayed this to Webb who then told the went through the open iron grill gate and passed the dirty kitchen. Carmela
group to drive back to the Ayala Alabang Commercial Center. opened the aluminum screen door of the kitchen for them. She and Webb
130 looked each other in the eyes for a moment and, together, headed for the
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED dining area.
Lejano vs. People As she lost sight of Carmela and Webb, Alfaro decided to go out. Lejano
The group had another shabu session at the parking lot. After sometime, asked her where she was going and she replied that she was going out to
they drove back but only Alfaro proceeded to Vinzons Street where Carmela smoke. As she eased her way out through the kitchen door, she saw Ventura
lived. The Nissan Patrol and the Mazda pick-up, with their passengers, pulling out a kitchen drawer. Alfaro smoked a cigarette at the garden. After
parked somewhere along Aguirre Avenue. Carmela was at their garden. She about twenty minutes, she was surprised to hear a woman’s voice ask, “Sino
approached Alfaro on seeing her and told the latter that she (Carmela) had to yan?”  Alfaro immediately walked out of the garden to her car. She found her
leave the house for a while. Carmela requested Alfaro to return before

Page 12 of 88
other companions milling around it. Estrada who sat in the car asked stabbed her. Lejano excused himself at this point to use the telephone in the
her, “Okay ba?” house. Meanwhile, Webb called up someone on his cellular phone.
After sitting in the car for about ten minutes, Alfaro returned to the At around 2:00 in the morning, accused Gerardo Biong arrived. Webb
Vizconde house, using the same route. The interior of the house was dark ordered him to go and clean up the Vizconde house and said to him, “Pera
but some light filtered in from outside. In the kitchen, Alfaro saw Ventura lang ang katapat nyan.” Biong answered, “Okay lang.” Webb spoke to his
searching a lady’s bag that lay on the dining table. When she asked him what companions and told them, “We don’t know each other. We haven’t seen
he was looking for, he said: “Ikaw na nga dito, maghanap ka ng susi.”  She each other…baka maulit yan.”  Alfaro and Estrada left and they drove to her
asked him what key he wanted and he replied: “Basta maghanap ka ng susi father’s house.12
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 12  The  ponencia, pp. 4-9.
did not find the car key. 133
Unable to open the main door, Alfaro returned to the kitchen. While she VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 133
was at a spot leading to the dining area, she heard a static noise (like a Lejano vs. People
television that remained on after the station had signed off). Out of curiosity, 1. The quality of the witness
she approached the master’s bedroom from where the noise came, opened Was Alfaro an ordinary subdivision girl who showed up at the NBI after
the door a little, and peeked inside. The unusual sound grew even louder. As four years, bothered by her conscience or egged on by relatives or friends to
she walked in, she saw Webb on top of Carmela while she lay with her back come forward and do what was right? No. She was, at the time she revealed
on the floor. Two bloodied bodies lay on the bed. Lejano was at the foot of her story, working for the NBI as an “asset,” a stool pigeon, one who earned
the bed about to wear his jacket. Carmela was gagged, moaning, and in her living by fraternizing with criminals so she could squeal on them to her
tears while Webb raped her, his bare buttocks exposed. NBI handlers. She had to live a life of lies to get rewards that would pay for
132 her subsistence and vices.
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED According to Atty. Artemio Sacaguing, former head of the NBI Anti-
Lejano vs. People Kidnapping, Hijacking, and Armed Robbery Task Force (AKHAR) Section,
Webb gave Alfaro a meaningful look and she immediately left the room. Alfaro had been hanging around at the NBI since November or December
She met Ventura at the dining area. He told her, “Prepare an escape. Aalis 1994 as an “asset.” She supplied her handlers with information against drug
na tayo.”  Shocked with what she saw, Alfaro rushed out of the house to the pushers and other criminal elements. Some of this information led to the
others who were either sitting in her car or milling on the sidewalk. She capture of notorious drug pushers like Christopher Cruz Santos and Orlando
entered her car and turned on the engine but she did not know where to go. Bacquir. Alfaro’s tip led to the arrest of the leader of the “Martilyo gang” that
Webb, Lejano, and Ventura came out of the house just then. Webb suddenly killed a police officer. Because of her talent, the task force gave her “very
picked up a stone and threw it at the main door, breaking its glass frame. special treatment” and she became its “darling,” allowed the privilege of
As the three men approached the pedestrian gate, Webb told Ventura spending nights in one of the rooms at the NBI offices.
that he forgot his jacket in the house. But Ventura told him that they could not When Alfaro seemed unproductive for sometime, however, they teased
get in anymore as the iron grills had already locked. They all rode in their her about it and she was piqued. One day, she unexpectedly told Sacaguing
cars and drove away until they reached Aguirre Avenue. As they got near an that she knew someone who had the real story behind the Vizconde
old hotel at the Tropical Palace area, Alfaro noticed the Nissan Patrol slow massacre. Sacaguing showed interest. Alfaro promised to bring that
down. Someone threw something out of the car into the cogonal area. someone to the NBI to tell his story. When this did not happen and
The convoy of cars went to a large house with high walls, concrete fence, Sacaguing continued to press her, she told him that she might as well
steel gate, and a long driveway at BF Executive Village. They entered the assume the role of her informant. Sacaguing testified thus:
compound and gathered at the lawn where the “blaming session” took place. ATTY. ONGKIKO:
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 Q. Atty. Sacaguing, how did Jessica Alfaro become a witness in the
Jennifer, and finally, Carmella. Ventura blamed Webb, telling him, “Bakit Vizconde murder case? Will you tell the Honorable Court?
naman pati yung bata?” Webb replied that the girl woke up and on seeing   x x x x
him molesting Carmela, she jumped on him, bit his shoulders, and pulled his     A.  She told me. Your Honor, that she knew somebody who
hair. Webb got mad, grabbed the girl, pushed her to the wall, and repeatedly     related to her the circumstances, I mean, the details of
    the

Page 13 of 88
134 Quite significantly, Alfaro never refuted Sacaguing’s above testimony.
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 2. The suspicious details
Lejano vs. People But was it possible for Alfaro to lie with such abundant details some of
           massacre of the Vizconde family. That’s what she told me, which even tallied with the physical evidence at the scene of the crime? No
    Your Honor. doubt, yes.
ATTY. ONGKIKO: Firstly, the Vizconde massacre had been reported in the media with
Q. And what did you say? dizzying details. Everybody was talking about what the police found at the
  x x x x crime scene and there were lots of speculations about them.
A. I was quite interested and I tried to persuade her to introduce to Secondly, the police had arrested some “akyat-bahay” group in
me that man and she promised that in due time, she will bring to Parañaque and charged them with the crime. The police prepared the
me the man, and together with her, we will try to convince him to confessions of the men they apprehended and filled these up with details that
act as a state witness and help us in the solution of the case. the evidence of the crime scene provided. Alfaro’s NBI handlers who were
  x x x x doing their own investigation knew of these details as well. Since Alfaro
Q. Atty. Sacaguing, were you able to interview this alleged witness? hanged out at the NBI offices and practically lived there, it was not too
WITNESS SACAGUING: difficult for her to hear of these evidentiary details and gain access to the
A. No, sir. documents.
ATTY. ONGKIKO: Not surprisingly, the confessions of some members of the Barroso “akyat
Q.  Why not? bahay” gang, condemned by the Makati RTC as fabricated by the police to
WITNESS SACAGUING: pin the crime on them, shows how crime investigators could make a
A. Because Jessica Alfaro was never able to comply with her confession ring true by matching some of its details with the physical
promise to bring the man to me. She told me later that she could evidence at the crime scene. Consider the following:136
not and the man does not like to testify. 136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
ATTY. ONGKIKO: Lejano vs. People
Q.  All right, and what happened after that?       a. The Barroso gang members said that they got into Carmela’s
WITNESS SACAGUING: house by breaking the glass panel of the front door using a stone wrapped in
A. She told me, “easy lang kayo, Sir,” if I may quote, “easy lang Sir, cloth to deaden the noise. Alfaro could not use this line since the core of her
huwag kayong…” story was that Webb was Carmela’s boyfriend. Webb had no reason to
COURT: smash her front door to get to see her.
  How was that? Consequently, to explain the smashed door, Alfaro had to settle for
WITNESS SACAGUING: claiming that, on the way out of the house, Webb picked up some stone and,
A. “Easy lang, Sir. Sir, relax lang, Sir, papapelan ko, papapelan ko na out of the blue, hurled it at the glass-paneled front door of the Vizconde
lang ‘yan.” residence. His action really made no sense. From Alfaro’s narration, Webb
  x x x x appeared rational in his decisions. It was past midnight, the house was dark,
135 and they wanted to get away quickly to avoid detection. Hurling a stone at
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 135 that glass door and causing a tremendous noise was bizarre, like inviting the
Lejano vs. People neighbors to come.
ATTY. ONGKIKO: b. The crime scene showed that the house had been ransacked. The
Q. All right, and what was your reaction when Ms. Alfaro stated that rejected confessions of the Barroso “akyat-bahay” gang members said that
“papapelan ko na lang yan?” they tried to rob the house. To explain this physical evidence, Alfaro claimed
WITNESS SACAGUING: that at one point Ventura was pulling a kitchen drawer, and at another point,
A. I said, “hindi puwede yan, kasi hindi ka naman eye witness.” going through a handbag on the dining table. He said he was looking for the
ATTY. ONGKIKO: front-door key and the car key.
Q. And what was the reply of Ms. Alfaro? Again, this portion of Alfaro’s story appears tortured to accommodate the
WITNESS SACAGUING: physical evidence of the ransacked house. She never mentioned Ventura
A. Hindi siya nakakibo, until she went away. having taken some valuables with him when they left Carmela’s house. And
(TSN, May 28, 1996, pp. 49-50, 58, 77-79) why would Ventura rummage a bag on the table for the front-door key,

Page 14 of 88
spilling the contents, when they had already gotten into the house. It is a 138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
story made to fit in with the crime scene although robbery was supposedly Lejano vs. People
not the reason Webb and his companions entered that house. 3. The quality of the testimony
c. It is the same thing with the garage light. The police investigators There is another thing about a lying witness: her story lacks sense or
found that the bulb had been loosened to turn off the light. The confessions suffers from inherent inconsistencies. An understanding of the nature of
of the Barroso gang claimed that one of them climbed the things and the common behavior of people will help expose a lie. And it has
parked car’s hood to reach up and darken that light. This made sense an abundant presence in this case.
since they were going to rob the place and they needed time to work in the One. In her desire to implicate Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada,
dark trying to open the front door. Some passersby might look in and see Rodriguez, and Filart, who were supposed to be Webb’s co-principals in the
what they were doing. crime, Alfaro made it a point to testify that Webb proposed twice to his
137 friends the gang-rape of Carmela who had hurt him. And twice, they
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 137 (including, if one believes Alfaro, her own boyfriend Estrada) agreed in a
Lejano vs. People chorus to his proposal. But when they got to Carmela’s house, only Webb,
Alfaro had to adjust her testimony to take into account that darkened Lejano, Ventura, and Alfaro entered the house.
garage light. So she claimed that Ventura climbed the car’s hood, using a Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, and Rodriguez supposedly stayed
chair, to turn the light off. But, unlike the Barroso “akyat-bahay” gang, Webb around Alfaro’s car, which was parked on the street between Carmela’s
and his friends did not have anything to do in a darkened garage. They house and the next. Some of these men sat on top of the car’s lid while
supposedly knew in advance that Carmela left the doors to the kitchen open others milled on the sidewalk, visible under the street light to anyone who
for them. It did not make sense for Ventura to risk standing on the car’s hood cared to watch them, particularly to the people who were having a drinking
and be seen in such an awkward position instead of going straight into the party in a nearby house. Obviously, the behavior of Webb’s companions out
house. on the street did not figure in a planned gang-rape of Carmela.
And, thirdly, Alfaro was the NBI’s star witness, their badge of excellent Two. Ventura, Alfaro’s dope supplier, introduced her for the first time in
investigative work. After claiming that they had solved the crime of the her life to Webb and his friends in a parking lot by a mall. So why would she
decade, the NBI people had a stake in making her sound credible and, agree to act as Webb’s messenger, using her gas, to bring his message to
obviously, they gave her all the preparations she needed for the job of Carmela at her home. More inexplicably, what motivated Alfaro to stick it out
becoming a fairly good substitute witness. She was their “darling” of an the whole night with Webb and his friends?
asset. And this is not pure speculation. As pointed out above, Sacaguing of They were practically strangers to her and her boyfriend Estrada. When it
the NBI, a lawyer and a ranking official, confirmed this to be a cold fact. Why came to a point that Webb decided with his friends to gang-rape Carmela,
the trial court and the Court of Appeals failed to see this is mystifying. clearly, there was nothing in it for Alfaro. Yet, she stuck it out with them, as a
At any rate, did Alfaro at least have a fine memory for faces that had a police asset would, hanging in there until she had a crime to report, only she
strong effect on her, given the circumstances? Not likely. She named Miguel was not yet an “asset” then. If, on the other hand, Alfaro had been too
“Ging” Rodriguez as one of the culprits in the Vizconde killings. But when the soaked in drugs to think clearly and just followed along where the group took
NBI found a certain Michael Rodriguez, a drug dependent from the Bicutan her, how could she remember so much details that only a drug-free mind
Rehabilitation Center, initially suspected to be Alfaro’s Miguel Rodriguez and can?
showed him to Alfaro at the NBI office, she ran berserk, slapping and kicking 139
Michael, exclaiming: “How can I forget your face. We just saw each other in a VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 139
disco one month ago and you told me then that you will kill me.” As it turned Lejano vs. People
out, he was not Miguel Rodriguez, the accused in this case. 13 Three. When Alfaro went to see Carmela at her house for the second
Two possibilities exist: Michael was really the one Alfaro wanted to time, Carmella told her that she still had to go out and that Webb and his
implicate to settle some score with him but it was too late to change the friends should come back around midnight. Alfaro returned to her car and
name she already gave or she had myopic vision, tagging the wrong people waited for Carmela to drive out in her own car. And she trailed her up to
for what they did not do. Aguirre Avenue where she supposedly dropped off a man whom she thought
_______________ was Carmela’s boyfriend. Alfaro’s trailing Carmela to spy on her
13 TSN, August 6, 1996, pp. 13-41; TSN, May 22, 1997, pp. 72, 81-131, unfaithfulness to Webb did not make sense since she was on limited errand.
142-157; Exhibits “274” and “275”. But, as a critical witness, Alfaro had to provide a reason for Webb to freak
138 out and decide to come with his friends and harm Carmela.

Page 15 of 88
Four. According to Alfaro, when they returned to Carmela’s house the happened at the Vizconde residence. He went there and saw the dead
third time around midnight, she led Webb, Lejano, and Ventura through the bodies in the master’s bedroom, the bag on the dining table, as well as the
pedestrian gate that Carmela had left open. Now, this is weird. Webb was the loud noise emanating from a television set.16
gang leader who decided what they were going to do. He decided and his White claimed that he noticed Gatchalian and his companions, none of
friends agreed with him to go to Carmela’s house and gang-rape her. Why whom he could identify, go in and out of Pitong Daan Subdivision. He also
would Alfaro, a woman, a stranger to Webb before that night, and obviously saw them along Vinzons Street. Later, they entered Pitong Daan Subdivision
with no role to play in the gang-rape of Carmela, lead him and the others into in a three-car convoy. White could not, however, describe the kind of
her house? It made no sense. It would only make sense if Alfaro wanted to vehicles they used or recall the time when
feign being a witness to something she did not see. _______________
Five. Alfaro went out of the house to smoke at the garden. After about 14 Exhibits “G” to “G-2”, “Q” to “R”, “V”, “W” and “X”, Records, Vol. 8, pp.
twenty minutes, a woman exclaimed, “Sino yan?” On hearing this, Alfaro 308-310, 323-324, 328-330.
immediately walked out of the garden and went to her car. Apparently, she 15 Exhibits “H” to “K”, Records, Vol. 8, pp. 311-315; TSN, January 30,
did this because she knew they came on a sly. Someone other than Carmela 1996, pp. xx.
became conscious of the presence of Webb and others in the house. Alfaro 16 TSN, March 25, 1996, pp. 8-14, 17-34.
walked away because, obviously, she did not want to get involved in a 141
potential confrontation. This was supposedly her frame of mind: fear of VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 141
getting involved in what was not her business. Lejano vs. People
But if that were the case, how could she testify based on personal he saw the group in those two instances. And he did not notice anything
knowledge of what went on in the house? Alfaro had to change that frame of suspicious about their coming and going.
mind to one of boldness and reckless curiosity. So that is what she next But White’s testimony cannot be relied on. His initial claim turned out to
claimed. She went back into the house to watch as Webb raped Carmela on be inaccurate. He actually saw Gatchalian and his group enter the Pitong
the floor of the master’s bedroom. He had apparently stabbed to death Daan Subdivision only once. They were not going in and out. Furthermore,
Carmela’s mom and her young sister whose bloodied bodies were sprawled Alfaro testified that when the convoy of cars went back the second time in the
on the bed. Now, Alfaro testified direction of Carmela’s house, she alone entered the subdivision and passed
140 the guardhouse without stopping. Yet, White who supposedly manned that
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED guardhouse did not notice her.
Lejano vs. People Surprisingly, White failed to note Biong, a police officer, entering or
that she got scared (another shift to fear) for she hurriedly got out of the exiting the subdivision on the early morning of June 30 when he supposedly
house after Webb supposedly gave her a meaningful look. “cleaned up” Vizconde residence on Webb’s orders. What is more, White did
Alfaro quickly went to her car, not minding Gatchalian, Fernandez, not notice Carmela arrive with her mom before Alfaro’s first visit that night.
Estrada, Rodriguez, and Filart who sat on the car or milled on the sidewalk. Carmela supposedly left with a male companion in her car at around 10:30
She did not speak to them, even to Estrada, her boyfriend. She entered her p.m. but White did not notice it. He also did not notice Carmela reenter the
car and turned on the engine but she testified that she did not know where to subdivision. White actually discredited Alfaro’s testimony about the
go. This woman who a few minutes back led Webb, Lejano, and Ventura into movements of the persons involved.
the house, knowing that they were decided to rape and harm Carmela, was Further, while Alfaro testified that it was the Mazda pick-up driven by
suddenly too shocked to know where to go! This emotional pendulum swing Filart that led the three-vehicle convoy, 17 White claimed it was the Nissan
indicates a witness who was confused with her own lies. Patrol with Gatchalian on it that led the convoy since he would not have let
4. The supposed corroborations the convoy in without ascertaining that Gatchalian, a resident, was in it.
Intending to provide corroboration to Alfaro’s testimony, the prosecution Security guard White did not, therefore, provide corroboration to Alfaro’s
presented six additional witnesses: testimony.
Dr. Prospero A. Cabanayan, the NBI Medico-Legal Officer who Justo Cabanacan, the security supervisor at Pitong Daan Subdivision
autopsied the bodies of the victims, testified on the stab wounds they testified that he saw Webb around the last week of May or the first week of
sustained14 and the presence of semen in Carmela’s genitalia, 15 indicating June 1991 to prove his presence in the Philippines when he claimed to be in
that she had been raped.Normal E. White, Jr., was the security guard on the United States. He was manning the guard house at the entrance of the
duty at Pitong Daan Subdivision from 7 p.m. of June 29 to 7 a.m. of June 30, subdivision of Pitong Daan when he flagged down a car driven by Webb.
1991. He got a report on the morning of June 30 that something untoward Webb said that he would see Lilet Sy. Cabanacan asked him for an ID but he

Page 16 of 88
pointed to his United BF Homes sticker and said that he resided there. that Gaviola worked for the Webbs only from January 1991 to April 1991.
Cabanacan replied, however, that Pitong Daan had a local sticker. 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
17 TSN October 10, 1995, pp. 97-98 (Records, Vol. 4, pp. 271-272). with cleaning the rooms.
142 What is more, it was most unlikely for a laundrywoman who had been
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED there for only four months to collect, as she claimed, the laundry from the
Lejano vs. People rooms of her employers and their grown up children at four in the morning
Cabanacan testified that, at this point, Webb introduced himself as the while they were asleep.
son of Congressman Webb. Still, the supervisor insisted on seeing his ID. And it did not make sense, if Alfaro’s testimony were to be believed that
Webb grudgingly gave it and after seeing the picture and the name on it, Webb, who was so careful and clever that he called Biong to go to the
Cabanacan returned the same and allowed Webb to pass without being Vizconde residence at 2 a.m. to clean up the evidence against him and his
logged in as their Standard Operating Procedure required. 18 group, would bring his bloodied shirt home and put it in the hamper for
But Cabanacan’s testimony could not be relied on. Although it was not laundrywoman Gaviola to collect and wash at 4 a.m. as was her supposed
common for a security guard to challenge a Congressman’s son with such habit.
vehemence, Cabanacan did not log the incident on the guardhouse book. Lolita De Birrer was accused Biong’s girlfriend around the time the
Nor did he, contrary to prescribed procedure, record the visitor’s entry into Vizconde massacre took place. Birrer testified that she was with Biong
the subdivision. It did not make sense that Cabanacan was strict in the playing mahjong from the evening of June 29, 1991 to the early morning of
matter of seeing Webb’s ID but not in recording the visit. June 30, when Biong got a call at around 2 a.m. This prompted him,
Mila Gaviola used to work as laundry woman for the Webbs at their according to De Birrer, to leave and go to BF. Someone sitting at the
house at BF Homes Executive Village. She testified that she saw Webb at backseat of a taxi picked him up. When Biong returned at 7 a.m. he washed
his parents’ house on the morning of June 30, 1991 when she got the dirty off what looked like dried blood from his fingernails. And he threw away a
clothes from the room that he and two brothers occupied at about 4.a.m. She foul-smelling handkerchief. She also saw Biong take out a knife with
saw him again pacing the floor at 9 a.m. At about 1 p.m., Webb left the house aluminum cover from his drawer and hid it in his steel cabinet. 21
in t-shirt and shorts, passing through a secret door near the maid’s quarters The security guard at Pitong Daan did not notice any police investigator
on the way out. Finally, she saw Webb at 4 p.m. of the same day. 19 flashing a badge to get into the village although Biong supposedly came in at
On cross-examination, however, Gaviola could not say what the unholy hour of two in the morning. His departure before 7 a.m. also
distinguished June 30, 1991 from the other days she was on service at the remained unnoticed by the subdivision guards. Besides, if he had cleaned up
Webb household as to enable her to distinctly remember, four years later, the crime scene shortly after midnight, what was the point of his returning
what one of the Webb boys did and at what time. She could not remember there on the following morning to
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 21 TSN, April 16, 1996, pp. 18-38, 79.
testimony. 144
Gaviola tried to corroborate Alfaro’s testimony by claiming that on June 144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
30, 1991 she noticed bloodstains on Webb’s t-shirt. 20 She did not call the Lejano vs. People
attention of anybody in the household about it when it would 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
18 TSN, March 14, 1996, pp. 79-89, 103-104. residence on his return there hours later if he had the opportunity to do it
19 TSN, December 5, 1995, pp. 21-65. earlier?
20 Id. At most, Birrer’s testimony only established Biong’s theft of certain items
143 from the Vizconde residence and gross neglect for failing to maintain the
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 143 sanctity of the crime scene by moving around and altering the effects of the
Lejano vs. People crime. Birrer’s testimony failed to connect Biong’s acts to Webb and the other
have been a point of concern that Webb may have been hurt, hence the accused.
blood. Lauro Vizconde testified about how deeply he was affected by the loss
Besides, Victoria Ventoso, the Webbs’ housemaid from March 1989 to of her wife and two daughters. Carmella spoke to him of a rejected suitor she
May 1992, and Sgt. Miguel Muñoz, the Webbs’ security aide in 1991, testified called “Bagyo,” because he was a Parañaque politician’s son. Unfortunately,

Page 17 of 88
Lauro did not appear curious enough to insist on finding out who the rejected him. Rajah Tours booked their flight to San Francisco via United Airlines.
fellow was. Besides, his testimony contradicts that of Alfaro who testified that Josefina Nolasco of Rajah Tours confirmed that Webb and his aunt used
Carmela and Webb had an on-going relation. Indeed, if Alfaro were to be their plane tickets.
believed, Carmela wanted Webb to come to her house around midnight. She Webb told his friends, including his neighbor, Jennifer Claire Cabrera,
even left the kitchen door open so he could enter the house. and his basketball buddy, Joselito Orendain Escobar, of his travel plans. He
5. The missing corroboration even invited them to his despedida party on March 8,
There is something truly remarkable about this case: the prosecution’s _______________
core theory that Carmela and Webb had been sweethearts, that she had 22 TSN, August 14, 1997 and September 1, 1997.
been unfaithful to him, and that it was for this reason that Webb brought his 146
friends to her house to gang-rape her is totally uncorroborated! 146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
For instance, normally, if Webb, a Congressman’s son, courted the young Lejano vs. People
Carmela, that would be news among her circle of friends if not around town. 1991 at Faces Disco along Makati Ave.23 On March 8, 1991, the eve of his
But, here, none of her friends or even those who knew either of them came departure, he took girlfriend Milagros Castillo to a dinner at Bunchums at the
forward to affirm this. And if Webb hanged around with her, trying to win her Makati Cinema Square. His basketball buddy Rafael Jose with Tina Calma, a
favors, he would surely be seen with her. And this would all the more be so if blind date arranged by Webb, joined them. They afterwards went to Faces
they had become sweethearts, a relation that Alfaro tried to project with her Disco for Webb’s despedida party. Among those present were his friends
testimony. Paulo Santos and Jay Ortega.24
But, except for Alfaro, the NBI asset, no one among Carmela’s friends or b. The two immigration checks
her friends’ friends would testify ever hearing of such relationship or ever The following day, March 9, 1991, Webb left for San Francisco,
seeing them together in some popular hangouts in California, with his Aunt Gloria on board United Airlines Flight 808. 25 Before
145 boarding his plane, Webb passed through the Philippine Immigration booth at
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 145 the airport to have his passport cleared and stamped. Immigration Officer,
Lejano vs. People Ferdinand Sampol checked Webb’s visa, stamped, and initialed his passport,
Parañaque or Makati. Alfaro’s claim of a five-hour drama is like an alien and let him pass through.26 He was listed on the United Airlines Flight’s
page, rudely and unconnectedly inserted into Webb and Carmela’s life Passenger Manifest.27
stories or like a piece of jigsaw puzzle trimmed to fit into the shape on the On arrival at San Francisco, Webb went through the U.S. Immigration
board but does not belong because it clashes with the surrounding pieces. It where his entry into that country was recorded. Thus, the U.S. Immigration
has neither antecedent nor concomitant support in the verifiable facts of their Naturalization Service, checking with its Non-immigrant Information System,
personal histories. It is quite unreal. confirmed Webb’s entry into the U.S. on March 9, 1991. Webb presented at
What is more, Alfaro testified that she saw Carmela drive out of her the trial the INS Certification issued by the U.S. Immigration and
house with a male passenger, Mr. X, whom Alfaro thought the way it looked Naturalization Service,28 the computer-generated print-out of the US-INS
was also Carmela’s lover. This was the all-important reason Webb indicating Webb’s entry on March 9, 1991, 29 and the US-INS Certification
supposedly had for wanting to harm her. Again, none of Carmela’s relatives, dated August 31, 1995,authenticated by the Philippine Department of
friends, or people who knew her ever testified about the existence of Mr. X in Foreign Affairs, correcting an earlier August 10, 1995 Certification. 30
her life. Nobody has come forward to testify having ever seen him with _______________
Carmela. And despite the gruesome news about her death and how Mr. X 23 TSN, July 9, 1997, pp. 22-26.
had played a role in it, he never presented himself like anyone who had lost a 24 TSN, July 8, 1997, pp. 15-19; and TSN, June 9, 1997, pp. 22-26.
special friend normally would. Obviously, Mr. X did not exist, a mere ghost of 25 Exhibit “227”.
the imagination of Alfaro, the woman who made a living informing on 26 TSN, May 28, 1997, pp. 112-118, 121-122.
criminals. 27 Exhibit “223”.
Webb’s U.S. Alibi 28 Exhibits “207” to “219”.
Among the accused, Webb presented the strongest alibi. 29 Exhibit “207-B”.
a. The travel preparations 30 Exhibit “212-D”.
Webb claims that in 1991 his parents, Senator Freddie Webb and his 147
wife, Elizabeth, sent their son to the United States (U.S.) to learn the value of VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 147
independence, hard work, and money.22 Gloria Webb, his aunt, accompanied Lejano vs. People

Page 18 of 88
c. Details of U.S. sojourn Webb stayed with the Brottmans until mid July and rented a place for less
In San Francisco, Webb and his aunt Gloria were met by the latter’s than a month. On August 4, 1991 he left for Longwood, Florida, to stay with
daughter, Maria Teresa Keame, who brought them to Gloria’s house in Daly the spouses Jack and Sonja Rodriguez.50 There, he met Armando Rodriguez
City, California. During his stay with his aunt, Webb met Christopher Paul with whom he spent time, playing basketball on weekends, watching movies,
Legaspi Esguerra, Gloria’s grandson. In April 1991, Webb, Christopher, and and playing billiards.51 In November 1991, Webb met performing artist Gary
a certain Daphne Domingo watched the concert of Deelite Band in San Valenciano, a friend of Jack Rodriguez, who was invited for a dinner at the
Francisco.31 In the same month, Dorothy Wheelock and her family invited Rodriguez’s house.52 He left the Rodriguez’s home in August 1992, returned
Webb to Lake Tahoe to return the Webbs’ hospitality when she was in the to Anaheim and stayed with his aunt Imelda Pagaspas. He stayed there until
Philippines.32 he left for the Philippines on October 26, 1992.
In May 1991, on invitation of another aunt, Susan Brottman, Webb moved d. The second immigration checks
to Anaheim Hills, California.33 During his stay there, he occupied himself with As with his trip going to the U.S., Webb also went through both the U.S.
playing basketball once or twice a week with Steven Keeler 34 and working at and Philippine immigrations on his return trip. Thus, his departure from the
his cousin-in-law’s pest control company.35 Webb presented the company’s U.S. was confirmed by the same certifications that con-
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 42 TSN, June 26, 1997, pp. 13-28.
wrote three letters to his friend Jennifer Cabrera.39 43 Exhibit “338”.
On June 28, 1991, Webb’s parents visited him at Anaheim and stayed 44 Exhibit “348”.
with the Brottmans. On the same day, his father introduced Honesto Aragon 45 Exhibits “341” and “342”.
to his son when he came to visit. 40 On the following day, June 29, Webb, in 46 TSN, July 16, 1996, pp. 16-17, 23-32, 61-63, 78-84.
the company of his father and Aragon went to Riverside, California, to look 47 Exhibit “349”.
for a car. They bought an MR2 Toyota car.41 Later that day, a visitor at the 48 Exhibit “337-B”.
Brottman’s, Louis Whittacker, 49 TSN, May 9, 1996, pp. 26-32, 37, 44-57.
_______________ 50 Id.
31 TSN, June 3, 1997, pp. 14-33; photograph before the concert Exhibit 51 TSN, July 7, 1997, pp. 19-35.
“295,” Records (Vol. 2), p. 208. 52 TSN, July 2, 1997, pp. 33-37.
32 TSN, April 23, 1997, pp. 128-129, 134-148. 149
33 TSN, April 30, 1997, pp. 69-71. VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 149
34 TSN, June 2, 1997, pp. 51-64, 75-78. Lejano vs. People
35 TSN, June 16, 1997, pp. 12, 16-38, 43-59 and 69-93. firmed his entry.53 Furthermore, a Diplomatic Note of the U.S. Department of
36 Exhibits “305”. State with enclosed letter from Acting Director Debora A. Farmer of the
37 Exhibits “306” and “307”. Records Operations, Office of Records of the US-INS stated that the
38 Exhibits “344” and “346”. Certification dated August 31, 1995 is a true and accurate statement. And
39 Exhibits “244”, “245” and “246”. when he boarded his plane, the Passenger Manifest of Philippine Airlines
40 TSN, July 16, 1997, pp. 35, 41-42, 48-49, 58, 61-62. Flight No. 103,54 certified by Agnes Tabuena55 confirmed his return trip.
41 TSN, July 16, 1996, pp. 16-17, 23-32, 61-63, 78-84. When he arrived in Manila, Webb again went through the Philippine
148 Immigration. In fact, the arrival stamp and initial on his passport indicated his
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED return to Manila on October 27, 1992. This was authenticated by Carmelita
Lejano vs. People Alipio, the immigration officer who processed Webb’s reentry. 56 Upon his
saw Webb looking at the plates of his new car. 42 To prove the purchase, return, in October 1992, Paolo Santos, Joselito Erondain Escobar, and
Webb presented the Public Records of California Department of Motor Rafael Jose once again saw Webb playing basketball at the BF’s Phase III
Vehicle43 and a car plate “LEW WEBB.”44 In using the car in the U.S., Webb basketball court.
even received traffic citations.45 e. Alibi versus positive identification
On June 30, 1991 Webb, again accompanied by his father and The trial court and the Court of Appeals are one in rejecting as weak
Aragon,46 bought a bicycle at Orange Cycle Center.47 The Center issued Webb’s alibi. Their reason is uniform: Webb’s alibi cannot stand against
Webb a receipt dated June 30, 1991.48 On July 4, 1991, Independence Day, Alfaro’s positive identification of him as the rapist and killer of Carmela and,
the Webbs, the Brottmans, and the Vaca family had a lakeside picnic. 49

Page 19 of 88
apparently, the killer as well of her mother and younger sister. Because of And, although her testimony included details, Alfaro had prior access to
this, to the lower courts, Webb’s denial and alibi were fabricated. the details that the investigators knew of the case. She took advantage of her
But not all denials and alibis should be regarded as fabricated. Indeed, if familiarity with these details to include in her testimony the clearly
the accused is truly innocent, he can have no other defense but denial and incompatible act of Webb hurling a stone at the front door glass frames even
alibi. So how can such accused penetrate a mind that has been made cynical when they were trying to slip away qui-
by the rule drilled into his head that a defense of alibi is a hangman’s noose 151
in the face of a witness positively swearing, “I saw him do it.”? Most judges VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 151
believe that such assertion automatically dooms an alibi which is so easy to Lejano vs. People
fabricate. This quick stereotype thinking, however, is distressing. For how etly—just so she can accommodate this crime scene feature. She also had
else can the 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
53 Exhibit “212-D”. contents. And she had Ventura climbing the car’s hood, risking being seen in
54 Exhibit “261”. such an awkward position, when they did not need to darken the garage to
55 Exhibit “260”. force open the front door—just so to explain the darkened light and foot
56 TSN, June 23, 1997. prints on the car hood.
150 Further, her testimony was inherently incredible. Her story that
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, Rodriguez, and Filart agreed to take their
Lejano vs. People turns raping Carmela is incongruent with their indifference, exemplified by
truth that the accused is really innocent have any chance of prevailing over remaining outside the house, milling under a street light, visible to neighbors
such a stone-cast tenet? and passersby, and showing no interest in the developments inside the
There is only one way. A judge must keep an open mind. He must guard house, like if it was their turn to rape Carmela. Alfaro’s story that she agreed
against slipping into hasty conclusion, often arising from a desire to quickly to serve as Webb’s messenger to Carmela, using up her gas, and staying
finish the job of deciding a case. A positive declaration from a witness that he with him till the bizarre end when they were practically strangers, also taxes
saw the accused commit the crime should not automatically cancel out the incredulity.
accused’s claim that he did not do it. A lying witness can make as positive an To provide basis for Webb’s outrage, Alfaro said that she followed
identification as a truthful witness can. The lying witness can also say as Carmela to the main road to watch her let off a lover on Aguirre Avenue. And,
forthrightly and unequivocally, “He did it!” without blinking an eye. inexplicably, although Alfaro had only played the role of messenger, she
Rather, to be acceptable, the positive identification must meet at least two claimed leading Webb, Lejano, and Ventura into the house to gang-rape
criteria: Carmella, as if Alfaro was establishing a reason for later on testifying on
First, the positive identification of the offender must come from a credible personal knowledge. Her swing from an emotion of fear when a woman woke
witness. She is credible who can be trusted to tell the truth, usually based on up to their presence in the house and of absolute courage when she
past experiences with her. Her word has, to one who knows her, its weight in nonetheless returned to become the lone witness to a grim scene is also
gold. quite inexplicable.
And second, the witness’ story of what she personally saw must be Ultimately, Alfaro’s quality as a witness and her inconsistent, if not
believable, not inherently contrived. A witness who testifies about something inherently unbelievable, testimony cannot be the positive identification that
she never saw runs into inconsistencies and makes bewildering claims. jurisprudence acknowledges as sufficient to jettison a denial and an alibi.
Here, as already fully discussed above, Alfaro and her testimony fail to f. A documented alibi
meet the above criteria. To establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, clear, and
She did not show up at the NBI as a spontaneous witness bothered by satisfactory evidence57 that (a) he was present at another place at the
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. 57 People v. Hillado, 367 Phil. 29; 307 SCRA 535 (1999).
Police assets are often criminals themselves. She was the prosecution’s 152
worst possible choice for a witness. Indeed, her superior testified that she 152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
volunteered to play the role of a witness in the Vizconde killings when she Lejano vs. People
could not produce a man she promised to the NBI. 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

Page 20 of 88
The courts below held that, despite his evidence, Webb was actually in record of travels of the citizen to whom it is issued. The entries in that
Parañaque when the Vizconde killings took place; he was not in the U.S. passport are presumed true.60
from March 9, 1991 to October 27, 1992; and if he did leave on March 9, The U.S. Immigration certification and computer print-out, the official
1991, he actually returned before June 29, 1991, committed the crime, certifications of which have been authenticated by the Philippine Department
erased the fact of his return to the Philippines from the records of the U.S. of Foreign Affairs, merely validated the arrival and departure stamps of the
and Philippine Immigrations, smuggled himself out of the Philippines and into U.S. Immigration office on Webb’s passport. They have the same evidentiary
the U.S., and returned the normal way on October 27, 1992. But this ruling value. The officers who issued these certifications need not be presented in
practically makes the death of Webb and his passage into the next life the court to testify on them. Their trustworthiness arises from the sense of official
only acceptable alibi in the Philippines. Courts must abandon this unjust and duty and the penalty attached to a breached duty, in the routine and
inhuman paradigm. disinterested origin of such statement and in the publicity of the record. 61
If one is cynical about the Philippine system, he could probably claim that The Court of Appeals of course makes capital of the fact that an earlier
Webb, with his father’s connections, can arrange for the local immigration to certification from the U.S. Immigration office said that it had no record of
put a March 9, 1991 departure stamp on his passport and an October 27, Webb entering the U.S. But that erroneous first certification was amply
1992 arrival stamp on the same. But this is pure speculation since there had explained by the U.S. Government and Court of Appeals Justice Tagle stated
been no indication that such arrangement was made. Besides, how could it in his dissenting opinion, thus:
Webb fix a foreign airlines’ passenger manifest, officially filed in the While it is true that an earlier Certification was issued by the U.S.
Philippines and at the airport in the U.S. that had his name on them? How INS on August 16, 1995 finding “no evidence of lawful admission of
could Webb fix with the U.S. Immigration’s record system those two dates in Webb,” this was already clarified and deemed erroneous by no less
its record of his travels as well as the dates when he supposedly departed in than the US INS Officials. As explained by witness Leo Herrera-Lim,
secret from the U.S. to commit the crime in the Philippines and then return Consul and Second Secretary of the Philippine Embassy in Washing-
there? No one has come up with a logical and plausible answer to these _______________
questions. 60 Section 44, Rule 130, Rules of Court.
The Court of Appeals rejected the evidence of Webb’s passport since he 61 Antilon v. Barcelona, 37 Phil. 148 (1917).
did not leave the original to be attached to the record. But, while the best 154
evidence of a document is the original, this means that the same is exhibited 154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
in court for the adverse party to examine and for the judge to see. As Court Lejano vs. People
of Appeals Justice Tagle said in his dissent, 59 the practice when a party does ton D.C., said Certification did not pass through proper diplomatic
not want to leave an important channels and was obtained in violation of the rules on protocol and
_______________ standard procedure governing such request.
58 People v. Saban, G.R. No. 110559, November 24, 1999, 319 SCRA The initial request was merely initiated by BID Commissioner
36, 46. Verceles who directly communicated with the Philippine Consulate in
59 Rollo (G.R. 176839), pp. 216-217. San Francisco, USA, bypassing the Secretary of Foreign Affairs which
153 is the proper protocol procedure. Mr. Steven Bucher, the acting Chief of
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 153 the Records Services Board of US-INS Washington D.C. in his letter
Lejano vs. People addressed to Philip Antweiler, Philippine Desk Officer, State
document with the trial court is to have a photocopy of it marked as exhibit Department, declared the earlier Certification as incorrect and
and stipulated among the parties as a faithful reproduction of the original. erroneous as it was “not exhaustive and did not reflect all available
Stipulations in the course of trial are binding on the parties and on the court. information.” Also, Richard L. Huff, Co-Director of the Office of
The U.S. Immigration certification and the computer print-out of Webb’s Information and privacy, US Department of Justice, in response to the
arrival in and departure from that country were authenticated by no less than appeal raised by Consul General Teresita V. Marzan, explained that “the
the Office of the U.S. Attorney General and the State Department. Still the INS normally does not maintain records on individuals who are entering
Court of Appeals refused to accept these documents for the reason that the country as visitors rather than as immigrants: and that a notation
Webb failed to present in court the immigration official who prepared the concerning the entry of a visitor may be made at the Nonimmigrant
same. But this was unnecessary. Webb’s passport is a document issued by Information system. Since appellant Webb entered the U.S. on a mere
the Philippine government, which under international practice, is the official tourist visa, obviously, the initial search could not have produced the
desired result inasmuch as the data base that was looked into

Page 21 of 88
contained entries of the names of IMMIGRANTS and not that of NON- Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and Gerardo Biong of
IMMIGRANT visitors of the U.S..62 the crimes of which they were charged for fail-
The trial court and the Court of Appeals expressed marked cynicism over 156
the accuracy of travel documents like the passport as well as the domestic 156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
and foreign records of departures and arrivals from airports. They claim that Lejano vs. People
it would not have been impossible for Webb to secretly return to the ure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are
Philippines after he supposedly left it on March 9, 1991, commit the crime, go ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless they are confined for
back to the U.S., and openly return to the Philippines again on October 26, another lawful cause.
1992. Travel between the U.S. and the Philippines, said the lower courts took Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director, Bureau of
only about twelve to fourteen hours. Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director of
If the Court were to subscribe to this extremely skeptical view, it might as the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report the action he has taken to
well tear the rules of evidence out of the law books and regard suspicions, this Court within five days from receipt of this Decision.
surmises, or speculations as reasons for impeaching evidence. It is not that SO ORDERED.
official records, which carry the presumption of Peralta, Bersamin and Perez, JJ., concur.
_______________ Corona (C.J), I join the dissent of J. Villarama.
62 Rollo (G.R. 176839), pp. 218-219. Carpio, J., No Part, I testified in this case.
155 Carpio-Morales, J., Please see Concurring Opinion.
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 155 Velasco, Jr., J., On Official Business.
Lejano vs. People Nachura, J., No Part. Filed pleading as Sol Gen.
truth of what they state, are immune to attack. They are not. That Leonardo-De Castro, J., I join the dissent of J. Villarama.
presumption can be overcome by evidence. Here, however, the prosecution Brion, J., I certify that J. Brion cast a dissenting vote with
did not bother to present evidence to impeach the entries in Webb’s passport Villarama. See Supplemental Opinion.
and the certifications of the Philippine and U.S.’ immigration services Del Castillo, J., No Part.
regarding his travel to the U.S. and back. The prosecution’s rebuttal evidence Villarama, Jr., J., See Dissenting Opinion.
is the fear of the unknown that it planted in the lower court’s minds. Mendoza, J., I vote for the vacation of the verdict of conviction there
7. Effect of Webb’s alibi to others being a lingering doubt.
Webb’s documented alibi altogether impeaches Alfaro’s testimony, not Sereno, J., See Separate Concurring Opinion.
only with respect to him, but also with respect to Lejano, Estrada, Fernandez, CONCURRING OPINION
Gatchalian, Rodriguez, and Biong. For, if the Court accepts the proposition CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
that Webb was in the U.S. when the crime took place, Alfaro’s testimony will While it should be the common desire of bench and bar that crime is not
not hold together. Webb’s participation is the anchor of Alfaro’s story. Without left unpunished, it is no less important, if not more so, that the innocent be
it, the evidence against the others must necessarily fall. shielded from hasty prosecution and rash conviction. We have nothing but
Conclusion praise for sincerity and zeal in the enforcement of the law. Nevertheless,
In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court the undeserved penalties inflicted upon the blameless, and the indelible stain
entertains doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is 157
willing to explore all possibilities, but whether it entertains a reasonable, VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 157
lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it would be a serious mistake to send an Lejano vs. People
innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs on to one’s inner being, upon their name, which is never quite washed away by time, should caution
like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth. all concerned to a more careful and conscientious scrutiny of all the
Will the Court send the accused to spend the rest of their lives in prison facts before the finger is pointed and the stone is cast.1 (emphasis and
on the testimony of an NBI asset who proposed to her handlers that she take underscoring supplied)
the role of the witness to the Vizconde massacre that she could not produce? And so, as in all criminal cases, the very voluminous records of the
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision present cases call for a “more careful and conscientious scrutiny” in order to
dated December 15, 2005 and Resolution dated January 26, 2007 of the determine what the facts are before the accused’s conviction is affirmed.
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 00336 and ACQUITS accused- On June 30, 1991, Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters, then 19-year
appellants Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael A. Gatchalian, old Carmela and then seven-year old Jennifer, were found dead in their

Page 22 of 88
home at No. 80 Vinzons Street, BF Homes Subdivision, Parañaque. They all force and intimidation, with lewd design, with abuse of superior strength,
bore multiple stab wounds on different parts of their bodies. Some of their nighttime and with the use of motor vehicle, willfully, unlawfully and
personal belongings appeared to be missing. feloniously have carnal knowledge of the person of Carmela Vizconde
An intense and sustained investigation conducted by the police resulted against her will and consent.
in the arrest of a group of suspects, the Akyat Bahay  gang members, some That by reason or on the occasion of the aforesaid rape or immediately
of whom gave detailed confessions to having committed the crimes, hence, thereafter, the above-named accused with intent to kill, conspiring and
their indictment in court.2 The Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 63 confederating together, mutually helping one another, did then and there and
eventually found those suspects to have been victims of police frame-up, with evidence premeditation, abuse of superior strength, nighttime, with the
however, and were thus ordered discharged. use of motor vehicle, assault and stab with bladed instruments Carmela
Subsequently, in 1995, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which Vizconde, Estrellita Vizconde and Jennifer Vizconde, thereby inflicting upon
conducted a parallel investigation announced that it had solved them numerous stab wounds in different parts of their bodies which caused
_______________ their instantaneous death.
1 Salvacion v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-68633, July 11 1986, 142 The accused GERARDO BIONG and JOHN DOES having knowledge
SCRA 707, 713. after the commission of the above-mentioned crime, and without having
2 The cases were (1) Criminal Case No. 91-7135 filed by then Assistant participated therein as principals or accomplices, took part subsequent to its
Chief State Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe before the sala of Judge Julio R. commission by assisting, with abuse of authority as police officer, the above-
Logarta of the Makati City RTC, Branch 63, on November 11, 1991 (for named principal accused, to conceal or destroy the effects or instruments
robbery with homicide) against Villardo Barroso y Datuin, Roberto Barroso y thereof by failing to preserve the physical evidence and allowing their
Datuin¸ Rolando Mendoza y Gomez, Ernesto Cesar, Bienvenido Baydo, destruction in order to prevent the discovery of the crime.”
Angelito Santos y Bisen, Rey Doe and several other John Does still at large; _______________
(2) Criminal Case No. 91-7136 (for the rape with homicide of Carmela 3 Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-3.
Nicolas Vizconde filed by ACSP Aurelio C. Trampe with the same RTC, 159
Branch 63, on November 11, 1919) also against the same accused and VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 159
(3) Criminal Case No. 91-7137 (for robbery, with homicide wherein the Lejano vs. People
victim was ESTRELLITA NICOLAS VISCONDE) likewise filed against the The case was, after the Presiding Judge of Branch 258 of the Parañaque
same accused by ACSP Aurelio C. Trampe. RTC inhibited, re-raffled to Branch 274 of the Parañaque RTC. The trial
158 court, then presided over by Judge Amelita G. Tolentino, tried only seven of
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED the accused, Artemio Ventura and Joey Filart having remained at large. 4
Lejano vs. People At the trial, the prosecution presented Alfaro as its main witness. The
the crime by presenting its “star witness” in the person of Jessica other witnesses were Dr. Prospero Cabanayan, the medico-legal officer
Alfaro y Mincey (Alfaro), one of its “informers” or “assets,” who claimed to who autopsied the bodies of the victims; Lolita Carrera Birrer, an ex-lover of
have been an eyewitness to the crime. She named the accused Hubert Gerardo Biong; Mila Gaviola, former laundrywoman of the Webbs; Normal
Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio “Tony Boy” Lejano, Artemio “Dong” Ventura, White and Justo Cabanacan, security personnel of the Pitong
Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio “Pyke” Fernandez, Peter Estrada, Miguel Daan Subdivision, BF Homes, Parañaque, and Lauro G. Vizconde,
“Ging” Rodriguez, and Joey Filart as the culprits. She also tagged Parañaque Estrellita’s husband.
police officer Gerardo Biong as an accessory after the fact. On the basis of The defense presented testimonial evidence which tended to cast a bad
Alfaro’s account, an Information was filed on August 10, 1995 before the light on Alfaro’s reputation for truth, as well as on the implausibility of her
Parañaque RTC against Webb, et al.3 for rape with homicide, reading as account.
follows: At all events, some of the accused invoked alibi, claiming to have been
“That on or about the evening of June 29 up to the early morning of June somewhere else at the time of the commission of the crime. In Webb’s case,
30, 1991, in the municipality of Parañaque, province of Rizal, Philippines, he presented documentary and testimonial proof that he was in the United
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Hubert Jeffrey P. States of America from March 1991 to October 1992.
Webb conspiring and confederating with accused Antonio “Tony Boy” Lejano, The trial court, impressed by Alfaro’s detailed narration of the events
Artemio “Dong” Ventura, Michael Gatchalian y Adviento, Hiospicio “Pyke” surrounding the commission of the crime, deemed her a credible witness
Fernandez, Peter Estrada, Miguel “Ging” Rodriguez and Joey Filart, mutually after finding her testimony to have been corroborated by those of the other
helping one another, while armed with bladed instruments, with the use of prosecution witnesses, as well as by the physical evidence. To the trial court,

Page 23 of 88
her testimony was categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank, and    On motion for reconsideration by the accused, the appellate court’s
withstood grueling cross-examinations by the different defense counsel. Special Division of five members, voting three against two, sustained its
On the other hand, it belittled the denial and alibi of accused Webb, affirmance of the trial court’s decision.7 Hence, this appeal.
Lejano, Rodriguez, and Gatchalian in light of their positive identification by On April 20, 2010, as a result of its initial deliberation in this case, the
Alfaro. Court issued a Resolution granting the request of Webb to submit
_______________ for Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) analysis the semen specimen taken from
4 Rollo (G.R. No. 176389), pp. 393-399 and Rollo (G.R. No. 176864), pp. Carmela’s cadaver, which specimen was believed to be still under the
80-104. safekeeping of the NBI. The Court granted the request pursuant to Section 4
160 of the Rule on DNA Evidence8 to give the accused and the prosecution
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED access to scientific evidence which could affect the result of the case.
Lejano vs. People On April 27, 2010, however, the NBI informed the Court that it no longer
And so after a protracted trial, the trial court rendered on January 4, 2000 had custody of the specimen which it claimed had been turned over to the
a 172-page decision finding all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt trial court. Parenthetically, the trial court records do not
of rape with homicide. _______________
Thus the trial court disposed: 7 Resolution dated January 26, 2007, Rollo (G.R. No. 176839), pp. 197-
“WHEREFORE, this Court hereby finds all the principal accused GUILTY 214. The resolution was penned by Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, with the
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE WITH concurrence of Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Normandie B. Pizarro.
HOMICIDE AND HEREBY SENTENCES EACH ONE OF THEM TO Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Lucenito N. Tagle, dissented.
SUFFER THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA. This Court likewise 8 A.M. 06-11-5-SC effective October 15, 2007. Section 4 states:
finds the accused Gerardo Biong GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT Application for DNA Testing Order.—The appropriate court may, at any
AS AN ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT, AND HEREBY SENTENCES HIM time, either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a legal
TO SUFFER AN IMPRISONMENT OF ELEVEN (11) YEARS, FOUR (4) interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue
MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY TO TWELVE (12) YEARS. In addition, the after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the following:
Court hereby orders all the accused to jointly and severally pay the victim’s a. A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
surviving heir, Mr. Lauro Vizconde, the following sums by way of civil b. The biological sample:
indemnity: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now
1) The amount of P150,000.00 for wrongful death of the victims; requested; or
2) The amount of P762,450.00 representing actual damages sustained (ii) was previously subject to DNA testing, but the results may require
by Mr. Lauro Vizconde; confirmation for good reasons;
3) The amount of P2,000,000.00 as moral damages sustained by Mr. c. The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
Lauro Vizconde; d.  The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new
4) The amount of P97,404.55 as attorney’s fees.”5 information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and
On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered its challenged Decision of e.  The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider
December 15, 2005 affirming with modification the trial court’s decision by as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.
reducing the penalty imposed on Biong to six years minimum and twelve This rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court
years maximum and increasing the award of civil indemnity to Lauro order, at the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before
Vizconde to P200,000.00.6 The appellate court found that indeed there was a suit or proceeding is commenced.
sufficient evidence that Rodriguez, Gatchalian, Fernandez, and Estrada had 162
conspired to rape and kill Carmela as well as to kill Estrellita and Jennifer. 162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________ Lejano vs. People
5 Decision dated January 4, 2000. show that the specimen was among the object evidence that was offered in
6 CA Rollo, Vol. IV, pp. 3478-3479. evidence in the case by any of the parties. It was in light of this development
161 that accused Webb filed an urgent motion to acquit on the ground that the
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 161 government’s failure to preserve such vital evidence has resulted in the
Lejano vs. People denial of his right to due process.

Page 24 of 88
In the draft decision prepared by Justice Martin S. Villarama as a basis of Alfaro was found both by the trial and appellate courts to be a credible
this Court’s deliberation, the decision of the appellate court affirming with witness. She impressed the trial court which found her to have “testified in a
modification the trial court’s decision was affirmed. categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and [to] ha[ve]
In discussing why the Decision of the Court of Appeals is being affirmed remained consistent in her testimony.”13
with modification, the draft decision which was the basis of this Court’s By Alfaro’s own admission, she was a habitual drug addict who inhaled
deliberations, started by stating a “fundamental rule,” viz.: and sniffed shabu “every other day”14 since December 1990. It was about this
“It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in time that she met Artemio “Dong” Ventura who provided her with a regular
nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring supply of shabu at the so-called “house of shabu” in Parañaque.15 In March
errors, gross misapprehensions of facts and speculative, arbitrary and 1991, she stopped getting her supply of shabu from Ventura as she instead
unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. 9 When the trial got it from other sources including Orly Bacquir and Cris Santos and places
court’s findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are such as Quezon City, Makati and Tondo.16
generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.”10 _______________
The draft decision, which was later adopted by the dissenters, found “no 11 Siao Tick Chong v. Republic, No. L-22151, March 30, 1970, 32 SCRA
glaring errors, gross misapprehensions of facts and speculative, arbitrary and 253, 258.
unsupported conclusions” made by the lower courts. It readily credited the 12 37 N.J. Eq. 130, 132. Cited in Salonga, Philippine Law on Evidence,
testimony of prosecution “star” witness Jessica Alfaro (Alfaro) who, it 774 (1964) and VIII Francisco, The Revised Rules Of Court In The
observed, “underwent exhaustive and intense cross-examination by eight . . . Philippines, 458-459 (1997).
defense lawyers . . . [and] revealed such details and observations which only 13 January 4, 2000 RTC Decision, p. 74.
a person who was actually with the perpetrators could have known.” 14 Vide TSN, October 18, 1995, pp. 105-106.
The trial court banked primarily on Alfaro who claimed to be an 15 TSN, October 23, 1995, pp. 6-9.
eyewitness to the massacre and considered the testimonies of the other 16 Id., at pp. 25-27.
prosecution witnesses as merely corroborative of hers. 164
Jurisprudence has consistently summoned, however, that for testimonial 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
evidence to be worthy of belief, it must firstly proceed from the mouth of Lejano vs. People
a credible witness. A person may be credible where he is In the afternoon of June 29, 1991, the date of the commission of the
_______________ crime, before she and accused Peter Estrada, who she claimed was her
9  People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828. boyfriend, went to the Alabang Commercial Center, she had taken illegal
10 People v. De Guzman,  G.R. No. 173197, April 24, 2007, 522 SCRA drugs, and in the evening of even date, she not only smoked shabu but
207. sniffed cocaine as well at the “parking lot.” 17 It was only in about October
163 1994 that she stopped taking illegal drugs.
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 163 The paper of authors Burrus and Marks, “Testimonial Reliability of Drug
Lejano vs. People Addicts,”18 teaches:
without previous conviction of a crime; who is not a police character and has “. . . [W]here the prolonged use of drugs has impaired the witness’ ability to
no police record; who has not perjured in the past; whose affidavit or perceive, recall or relate, impeaching testimony is uniformly sustained by the
testimony is not incredible; who has a good standing in the community; and courts. Aside from organic deterioration, however, testimony may be
who is reputed to be trustworthy and reliable. 11 Secondly, the person’s impugned if the witness was under the influence of drugs at the time of
testimony must in itself be credible. perceiving the event about which he is testifying or at the time he is on the
Daggers v. Van Dyck12 illuminates: stand. This necessarily follows, for even the temporary presence of drugs
“Evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a affects the functioning of the body’s organs, and thus bears directly on the
credible witness, but it must be credible in itself—such as the common credibility of the witness’ testimony…”19 (underscoring supplied)
experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the Evidence derived from the testimony of a witness who was under the
circumstances. We have no test of the truth of human testimony, except influence of drugs during the incident to which he is testifying is indeed very
its conformity to our knowledge, observation, and experience. Whatever is unreliable.20 So it has been held that “habitual users of narcotics become
repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside of judicial notorious liars and that their testimony is likely to be affected thereby.” 21
cognizance.” (underscoring supplied) _______________
17 Id., at pp. 35-36; TSN, October 10, 1995, pp. 80-96, 156-163.

Page 25 of 88
18 35 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 259 (1960) close scrutiny of the testimony of such a witness, recognizing the fact
19 Ibid. that habitual users of narcotics become notorious liars and that their
20 Vide 98 C.J.S. 348. testimony is likely to be affected thereby. (Citations omitted; emphasis
21 Vide People v. Lewis, 25 Ill. 2d 396, 185 NE 2d 168  where the supplied)
Supreme Court of Illinois ruled: 22 State v. Fong Loon, 29 Idaho 248, 158 Pac. 233, 236.
The question of whether a witness is a narcotics addict is an important 166
consideration in passing upon the credibility of a witness for, as we have 166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
stated, the testimony of a narcotics addict is subject to suspicion due to the Lejano vs. People
fact that habitual users of narcotics become notorious liars. (citations Atty. M. Ongkiko:
omitted) Q: Yes. They could lie on the persons they go out with?
In People v. Perkins, 26 Ill 2d 2300, 186 NE 2d 330 (1962) , the Supreme Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:
Court of Illinois said: A: Yes, Sir.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding him guilty on Atty. M. Ongkiko:
the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of a drug addict who was the Q: They could lie on the persons they meet?
165 Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 165 A: Yes, Sir.
Lejano vs. People Atty. M. Ongkiko:
“We believe it will be admitted that habitual users of opium, or other like Q: They could lie on the persons from whom they allegedly get the drugs?
narcotics, become notorious liars. The habit of lying comes doubtless from Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:
the fact that the users of those narcotics pass the greater part of their lives in A: Yes, Sir.
an unreal world, and thus become unable to distinguish between images and Atty. M. Ongkiko:
facts, between illusions and realities.22 (underscoring supplied) Q: Is it not correct, Doctor, that the tendency of a drug dependent is to
Defense witness Dr. Rey San Pedro, then Deputy Executive Director of hide the identity of the drug suppliers. Is this correct?
the Dangerous Drugs Board, opined that drug addicts or dependents are Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:
generally liars who would lie for less than noble objectives, such as for A: This is our experience. I have not encountered a patient who would tell
money and/or to satisfy their craving for attention, viz.: you where they get their supply.
Atty. M. Ongkiko: Atty. M. Ongkiko:
Q: Based on your experience, Doctor, will this dependency of shabu affect Q: Who would tell you the correct name of the drug supplier?
the character of a person specifically, for example, the capacity to tell Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:
the truth, would that affect? A: Yes, Sir.
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro: Atty. M. Ongkiko:
A: Our general examination of patients showed that they become liars. Q: And who would tell you the correct address of the drug supplier,
Atty. M. Ongkiko: correct?
Q: They become liars. Yes, what would be the usual motivation for Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:
a shabu-dependent person to become liars. Why, why do they lie? A: Correct.
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro: Atty. M. Ongkiko:
A: My experience, Sir, is because they are aware that what they are doing Q: Their tendency is to give you misleading information, correct?
is wrong and therefore they want to hide it. Not only from the family, Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:
but also from their friends. A: Yes, Sir.
_______________ Atty. M. Ongkiko:
 only witness to the alleged crime, and further urges that the evidence as a Q: Now, would a drug dependent on shabu lie for money?167
whole does not prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We have VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 167
repeatedly held that the fact that a witness is a narcotics addict and Lejano vs. People
a police informer has an important bearing upon his Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:
credibility and, while his position is not that of an accomplice, the A: Yes.
situation is sufficiently similar to that of an accomplice to warrant a Atty. M. Ongkiko:

Page 26 of 88
Q:Yes. When I say lie for money so that she could get money? Q: In a hospital. Does the government provide for such facilities?
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro: Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:
A: She could get money. A: Yes, Sir.
Atty. M. Ongkiko: x x x x23 (underscoring supplied)
Q: He will, from her relatives, from her friends, or even from third Former National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Epimaco Velasco
persons? had a view similar to that of Dr. San Pedro’s—that any information which is
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro: being furnished by a drug addict is “not generally reliable” and his capacity to
A: Yes, Sir. They even sell the family belongings. lie may be “very great.”24 
Atty. M. Ongkiko: _______________
Q: They even sell their personal effects? 85 TSN, August 7, 1997, 35-45.
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro: 86 TSN, June 4, 1997, pp. 47-48.
A: Yes, Sir. Atty. Ongkiko:
Atty. M. Ongkiko: Q:  As an investigator, Governor, will you tell the Honorable Court how
Q: Would they sell their honor to get money, like a woman becoming a did you relate or rather assess the reliability of any information furnished by a
prostitute? drug addict?
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro: Witness Velasco:
A:  I have not encountered a case like that. A: Well, I will consider it, Your Honor, not generally reliable.
Atty. M. Ongkiko: Atty. Ongkiko:
Q: You have not encountered that much. But tell me, Doctor, would they Q: Why do you say that?
lie in order to get attention? Witness Velasco:
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro: A:  Well, because, you know, if one is under the influence of drugs or
A: Yes, they do. one is considered to be an addict, you could hardly believe his information. 
Atty. M. Ongkiko: 169
Q: Yes, because they want to be the center of attention to cover up for VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 169
their drug dependency, correct? Lejano vs. People
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro: In their earlier mentioned paper, Burrus and Marks write on the “peculiar
A: Yes, Sir. effects upon veracity” of the principal types of drugs, like cocaine and
Atty. M. Ongkiko: amphetamine which were used by Alfaro:
Q: Now, Doctor, if a person were drug dependent on shabu since 1990, “x x x x
1991, up to and including December, 1994. So, that is a long time, b. Cocaine—Cocaine is a powerful cortical stimulant which causes a
isn’t it?168 state of euphoric excitement and varying degrees of pleasurable
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED hallucinations. Under its influence, a person experiences sensations of great
Lejano vs. People muscular and mental strength and overestimates his capabilities. He is truly,
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro: at least while under the drug’s influence, in  an “unreal” or “dream
A: ’90 to ’94? world,” and the majority exception of admitting impeaching testimony where
Atty. M. Ongkiko: the witness was under the influence of the drug at the time of perception or
Q: Yes, drug dependent. What would it take, Doctor, in order that we can testifying seems clearly sustainable in medical evidence.
cure this patient of his or her dependency on shabu, what would it Over time, cocaine produces on the addict a degree of physical and
take? mental deterioration not found in connection with the use of opiates. The
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro: cocaine addict is not a normal person; many, in fact, become paranoids and
A: They have to be rehabilitated, Sir, treated and rehabilitated. suffer from feelings of persecution. Visual, auditory and tactual hallucinations
Atty. M. Ongkiko: are common, as are digestive tract disorders, and occasionally convulsions.
Q: Treated and rehabilitated, where? It would seem to follow that, so far as medical evidence is concerned,
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro: expert testimony should be admissible to impeach the cocaine addict. Both in
A: In a hospital. its long-run effect of organic deterioration and in its short run influence, the
Atty. M. Ongkiko: drug severs the user’s contact with reality, and renders him, to that

Page 27 of 88
extent, unreliable. Even the majority admits impeaching testimony in cases or proneness to lie.”25 (italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring
of organic deterioration. There are few instances of deterioration more supplied)
pronounced than that found in the habitual user of cocaine. How Alfaro got to be a “star” witness in this case was narrated by then
x x x x NBI agent Artemio Sacaguing:
_______________ Atty. Ongkiko:
Atty. Ongkiko: Q All right, Atty. Sacaguing, how did the NBI treat Ms. Alfaro considering
Q: Why, why so? the assistance that he was giving your group?
Witness Velasco: _______________
A: Because he is not in his state of mind. 25 BURRUS AND MARKS TESTIMONIAL RELIABILITY OF DRUG ADDICTS 35
Atty. Ongkiko: N.Y.U.L. Rev. 259, 262-263, 269-270, 272-273 (1960).
Q: Well, what about the capacity to lie, Governor? 171
Witness Velasco: VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 171
A: Well, the capacity to lie may be very great, Your Honor. Lejano vs. People
Atty. Ongkiko: Witness Sacaguing:
Q: Well, because, you know, for maintaining or for in order to get A We gave her very special treatment. So, we consider her already the
money, they will lie.” darling of the group because she was giving us good projects and she
(underscoring supplied) loved it.
170 Atty. Ongkiko:
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Q What do you mean by she loved it, she loved what?
Lejano vs. People Witness Sacaguing:
e. Amphetamine—Similar to the barbiturates and bromides, A She liked being treated that way.
amphetamine operates upon the central nervous system, and its effect on Atty. Ongkiko:
the user’s ability to perceive and accurately to relate is dependent on Q Now tell the Honorable Court, was there ever any time where the group
the amount of the drug taken. Rather than a depressant however, got tired of giving Ms. Alfaro the VIP treatment?
amphetamine is a potent stimulant, the initial proper dosage promoting x x x x
wakefulness and alertness, increased initiative, confidence, euphoria and Atty. Ongkiko:
increased motor activity. Thus, the non-addict’s sparing use of the drug,   All right, Atty. Sacaguing, how long did you give Ms. Alfaro this VIP
would not seem to impair reliability and impeaching testimony to this end treatment?
should be excluded. Witness Sacaguing:
Overdosage and repeated medication, however, can prove most harmful. A Well, she was always there and we treated her very nicely, but later on,
Thus, the addict may suffer vasomotor disturbances, dizziness, agitation, about . . . after the lapse of about one or two weeks, the boys, I mean,
confusion and delirium. The usual dosage taken by the addict is sufficient to my associates in my team, began teasing her because she could not
cause toxic psychosis characterized by hallucinations and paranoid give us any project anymore.
delusions similar in effect to cocaine. In this state, the amphetamine addict’s Atty. Ongkiko:
testimonial capabilities are definitely impaired. Q What do you mean by projects, leads?
The result is that with amphetamine, as well as with barbiturates and Witness Sacaguing:
bromides, impeachment should depend upon the amount of the drug taken A Projects, cases we could work on.
and the extent of its use. Absent excessive use to the extent of organic Atty. Ongkiko:
deterioration, the barbiturate, bromide or amphetamine addict, when not Q I see, and what do you mean by teasing?
intoxicated by the direct influence of the drug, is apparently perfectly reliable x x x x
and the majority judicial view, under these circumstances seems sustainable. Atty. Ongkiko:
Also, as with marihuana, its effects vary with the personality make-up of the Q Mr. Sacaguing, after your group teased her because, according to you,
user, with the result that this, too, should be considered in admitting or she could not give you anymore projects, what was the reaction of Ms.
excluding the impeaching testimony. This, of course, broadens the inquiry Alfaro, if any?
from the physiological-pharmacological effects of drugs upon reliability to the Please look at the judge, please do not look at me.
psychological framework of the user in its relation to his ability to tell the truth Witness Sacaguing:

Page 28 of 88
A She seemed to have been piqued and she said . . .172 Q Atty. Sacaguing, were you able to interview this alleged witness?
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Witness Sacaguing:
Lejano vs. People A No, sir.
Atty. Ongkiko: Atty. Ongkiko:
Q She seemed to have been what? Q Why not?
Witness Sacaguing: Witness Sacaguing:
A Piqued, yes, “napikon”. A Because Jessica Alfaro was never able to comply with her promise to
Atty. Ongkiko: bring the man to me. She told me later that she could not, and the
Q I see, piqued. man does not like to testify.
Witness Sacaguing: Atty. Ongkiko:
A Piqued. Q All right, and what happened after that?
Atty. Ongkiko: Witness Sacaguing:
Q Piqued. Ano yun, napikon? A She told me, “easy lang kayo, Sir”, if I may quote, “easy lang, Sir,
Court: huwag kayong . . .”
  p i c q u e d. (underscoring in the original) Court:
Atty. Ongkiko: Q How was that?
Q And when she was piqued or “napikon”, what did she say or what did Witness Sacaguing:
she do? A “Easy lang, Sir. Sir, relax lang, Sir, papapelan ko yan, papapelan ko na
x x x x lang yan.”
Atty. Ongkiko: Atty. Ongkiko:
x x x x Q And what did you understand by her statement as you quoted it?
Q Atty. Sacaguing, how did Jessica Alfaro become a witness in the Witness Sacaguing:
Vizconde murder case. Will you tell the Honorable Court? A I thought it . . .174
Witness Sacaguing: 174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
A She told me, she knew somebody who . . . Lejano vs. People
Court: Prosecutor Zuño:
Face the Court. Objection, Your Honor, that is asking for the opinion of this witness, Your
Witness Sacaguing: Honor.
A She told me, Your Honor, that she knew somebody who related to Court:
her the circumstances, I mean, the details of the massacre of the Reform your question.
Vizconde family. That’s what she told us, Your Honor. Atty. Ongkiko:
Atty. Ongkiko: Q All right, and what was your reaction when Ms. Alfaro stated that
Q And what did you say? “papapelan ko na lang yan”?
  Please look at the Court.173 Witness Sacaguing:
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 173 A I said, “hindi pwede yan, kasi, hindi ka naman eye witness.”
Lejano vs. People Atty. Ongkiko:
Witness Sacaguing: Q And what was the reply of Ms. Alfaro?
A I was quite interested and I tried to persuade her to introduce to me that Witness Sacaguing:
man and she promised that in due time, she will bring to me the man, A Hindi siya nakakibo, until she went away.
and together with her, we will try to convince him to act as a state Atty. Ongkiko:
witness and help us in the solution of the case. Q She what?
Atty. Ongkiko: Witness Sacaguing:
Q Did she ever bring to you or to your office this man that, according to A She went away, she went out of my office.
her, knew about the Vizconde murder case? Court:
x x x x You speak clearly, Mr. Witness, I could hardly get you.
Atty. Ongkiko: Witness Sacaguing:

Page 29 of 88
A She did not answer anymore, Your Honor. She just went out of the Witness Alfaro:
office. A: When I got out on drugs.176
x x x x26 (emphasis and underscoring supplied) 176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
NBI agent Sacaguing was the special “handler” of Alfaro, an NBI “asset” Lejano vs. People
who regularly provided leads on projects or cases being investigated by the Court:
NBI, on which account she received special treatment. From Sacaguing’s Q When was that?
above-quoted testimony, Alfaro came forward with her “knowledge” about the Witness Alfaro:
commission of the crimes only after being cajoled by the NBI agents about A: About October of 1994.
her lack of productivity and her failure to make good her word that she knew Court:
and would bring someone who could “shed light” on the crimes that occurred Q What prompted you to finally reveal what you have witnessed?
close to four years Witness Alfaro:
_______________ A: Well, when I started having these nightmares about my daughter
26 TSN, May 28, 1996, pp. 49-50, 77-79. instead of that Jennifer that I see in my dreams. It’s my daughter
175 whom I see crying, and that triggered me, and then I got out from
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 175 drugs, and then it came to the point when I saw them accidentally, so,
Lejano vs. People that’s the thing which triggered me, Your Honor.
earlier. It is thus hard to fathom how her motives for suddenly developing Court:
a first hand account of the commission of the crimes could be treated as Q: Any other reason?
anything but suspect. Yet, the lower courts, despite the peculiar Witness Alfaro:
circumstances related by Sacaguing, were not put on guard from swallowing A: Those are my main reasons.
Alfaro’s testimony. Court:
Significantly, Alfaro never disputed Sacaguing’s above-quoted testimoy. Q: Is that your principal reason?
The trial court credited as satisfactory and plausible Alfaro’s explanation Witness Alfaro:
for her silence from the time she allegedly witnessed the crimes in June 1991 A: I wanted to change my life already.27 (underscoring supplied)
up to “about October 1994” when the numbing effects of drug abuse only Given Alfaro’s confession of having for years, after the commission of the
began to wear off and she had an earnest desire to reform her life. crimes, been numbed by the effects of drug abuse, would the dissenters take
WITNESS JESSICA ALFARO ON CLARIFICATORY QUESTIONS BY as gospel truth her what they termed “vivid” and “infallible” recollection of the
THE COURT minutiae surrounding the commission of the crime in June 1991, and point to
Court: the accused as the malefactors, particularly Webb, despite evidence,
Q After that incident, did it not occur to your mind to immediately report documentary and testimonial, supporting his alibi?
the same to the police authorities? The explanation for this feat of wizardry is within arms-length—Alfaro
Witness Alfaro: appears to be a rehearsed witness. Prior to her decision to surface and claim
A No, Your Honor, I did not. to tell what she “knew” about the crimes, the crimes had already been played
Court: out in the media, both print and broadcast, in every gory detail. It was a
Q Why? raging topic that drew intense discussions in both talk shows and informal
Witness Alfaro: gatherings, and all
A: Because at first, I was so scared. I just want to my Dad, but I didn’t _______________
have a chance to tell him. 27 TSN, July 29, 1996, pp. 77-78.
Court: 177
Q: No, after the lapse of a reasonable time, after witnessing that incident, VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 177
did it not also occur to your mind to finally report it to the proper Lejano vs. People
authorities? sorts of speculations about it were rife. In fact, prior to the arrest of the
Witness Alfaro: accused, members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) arrested some
A: I did not first have that in mind, only recently when I was out on drugs. members of an “akyat-bahay” gang who were charged accordingly. These
Court: gang members were later released upon orders of the Makati Regional Trial
Q: When?

Page 30 of 88
Court after it was discovered that their confessions were fabricated by the unlawfully and feloniously and intent to gain and against the consent
PNP to conform to the physical evidence found at the crime scene. of the owners thereof, forcibly open cabinet and drawers inside the
It is not thus difficult to believe that Alfaro could have become familiar house, take and carry away therefrom, the following pieces of
with the evidentiary details of the crimes, given that she was practically a personal property:
resident at the offices of the NBI which was actively investigating the crimes, P140,000.00 in cash
not to mention her being an NBI “star” witness. Four (4) necklace
Sadly, dissenters choose to gloss over the strikingly uncanny Five (5) rings
similarities between the confessions of the “akyat-bahay” gang members and Two (2) bracelets
Alfaro’s testimony. The nature and extent of the similarities were amplified by Two (2) pairs of earings
Justice Dacudao in his Dissenting Opinion, which is quoted at length: belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Lauro Vizconde of the total value of Two
“It also bothers me that Ms. Alfaro’s narration of the events in the case Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos, Philippine currency to the
under review was in many points uncannily similar to that set forth in damage and prejudice of said owners in the said total sum, and that
the extrajudicial confessions or sinumpaang salaysay executed by on the occasion of the said Robbery and for the purpose of enabling
certain members of the so-called “Akyat Bahay Gang” of the Barroso group them to take, steal, and carry away the articles above-mentioned
(the brothers Villardo Datuin Barroso, Jr. and Roberto Datuin Barroso and herein accused, in pursuant of their conspiracy, did then and there
their several companions Rolando Mendoza y Gomez, Ernesto Cesar, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with evident premeditation and
Bienvenido Baydo, Angelito Santos y Bisen, Boy Kulit, Rey Doe and several taking advantage of their superior number and strength and with intent
other John Does). These persons were earlier charged with two cases of to kill, treacherously attack, assault, stab and use personal violence
robbery with homicide, and one case of rape with homicide that is now the upon JENNIFER NICOLAS VIZCONDE thereby inflicting upon her
very subject of the case under review. Indeed, I cannot understand why the multiple stab wounds in different parts of her body thus causing her
three criminal cases that were instituted before the Makati City RTC, Brnach instantaneous death.
63, (presided over by Judge Julio R. Logarta,) which recited facts and Contrary to law.
events that are so strikingly akin to those set forth in the 2)  Criminal case No. 91-7136 (for the rape with homicide of Carmela
information filed in the case under review, hardly commanded the attention Nicolas Vizconde filed by ACSP Aurelio C. Trampe with the same RTC,
of the trial court. The records of these criminal cases, which were introduced Branch 63, on November 11, 1919) also against the same accused. It
in evidence by the accused-appellants during the trial of the case under alleged:179
review, covered the following: VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 179
(1) Criminal Case No. 91-7135 filed by then Assistant Chief State Lejano vs. People
Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe before the sale of Judge Julio R. Crim. Case No. 91-7136
Logarta of the Makati City RTC, Branch 63, on November 11, 1991 That on or about the 30th day of June 1991 at BF Homes,
(for Parañaque, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within jurisdiction of this
178 Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with knives, by
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED means of violence, force and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
Lejano vs. People unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of CARMELA
robbery with homicide) against Villardo Barroso y Datuin, Roberto NICOLAS VIZCONDE (without her) consent, and that on the occasion
Barroso y Datuin¸ Rolando Mendoza y Gomez, Ernesto Cesar, of the commission of rape, and in pursuance of their conspiracy, did
Bienvenido Baydo, Angelito Santos y Bisen, Rey Doe and several then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with evident
other John Does still at large. premeditation and taking advantage of their superior number and
Crim. Case No. 91-7135 strength and with intent to kill, treacherously attack, assault, stab and
That on or about the 30th day of June 1991 at BF Homes use personal violence upon said CARMELA NICOLAS VIZCONDE,
Parañaque, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this thereby inflicting upon her multiple stab wounds in different parts of
Honorable Court, the above named accused conspiring and her body, thus causing her instantaneous death.
confederating together and helping one another did then and there Contrary to law.
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, by the use of force upon things, to (3)  Criminal Case No. 91-7137 (for robbery, with homicide wherein the
wit, by breaking the glass in the left side of the door to open it and victim was ESTRELLITA NICOLAS VISCONDE) likewise filed against the
from where they entered the house, and once inside, willfully, same accused by ACSP Aurelio C. Trampe. It alleged:

Page 31 of 88
Crim. Case No. 91-7137 reached the Vizconde residence at W. Vinzons Street, BF Homes, one of
That on or about the 30th day of June 1991 at BF Homes them (Bienvenido “Ben” Baydo) climbed the fence, and once inside the
Parañaque, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this house opened the gate for the group; that Bienvenido “Ben” Baydo put-out
Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring and the light in the garage; that using a stone “na binalot sa basahan” Ben Baydo
confederating together and helping one another did then and there, broke the glass in the door and opened it; that a woman who had apparently
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by the use of force upon things, to been roused from sleep (apparently referring to Mrs. Estrellita Nicolas
wit: by breaking the glass in the left side of the door to open it and Vizconde) came near the door and shouted “magnanakaw”; that Ben Baydo
from where they entered the house and once inside, willfully, gagged the woman and dragged her inside the master’s bedroom where Ben
unlawfully and feloniously and with intent to gain and against the Baydo, Boy Kulit, Rolando Mendoza and Roberto Barroso stabbed her
consent of the owners thereof, forcibly open cabinets and drawers several times (one knife used in stabbing was described as “isang double
inside the house, take and carry away therefrom the following pieces blade na mga anim na pulgada ang haba nang talim”); that when a young girl
of personal property: (apparently referring to Jennifer Nicolas Vizconde) inside started to cry and
P140,000.00 in cash shout, she too was stabbed to death by Rolando Mendoza, Ernesto Cesar,
Four (4) necklace Villardo Barroso, Jr., Ben Baydo and Boy Kulit; that in one of the rooms they
Five (5) rings found a young woman (apparently referring to Carmela Nicolas Vizconde)
Two (2) bracelets who was raped successively by Roberto Barroso, Rolando Mendoza, Ben
Two (2) pairs of earings Baydo, and Ernesto Cesar and later repeatedly stabbed to death; and that
belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Lauro Vizconde, the total value of which they ransacked the house for valuables and were able to find cash and
is Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) pesos, Philippine Currency, jewelries which they later on divided among themselves. Some of the pieces
to the damage and prejudice of said owners in the said total sum; and of jewelry were pawned by some of the accused at the Tambunting
that on the occasion of the said Robbery and for the purpose of Pawnshop and the La Cebuana Pawnshop at Dart, Paco. Carefully
enabling them to take, steal and carry way the articles above- evaluated, it is
mentioned, herein 181
180 VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 181
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Lejano vs. People
Lejano vs. People plain enough that the statements contained in the extrajudicial
accused, in pursuance of their conspiracy, did then and there willfully, confessions or sinumpaang salaysay also  overlapped or corroborated
unlawfully and with evident premeditation and taking advantage of each other in their material particulars.
their superior number and strength and with intent to kill, treacherously Stock must be taken of the fact that the detailed extrajudicial confessions
attack, assault, stab and use personal violence upon ESTRELLITA or sinumpaang salaysay of the several accused (especially Villardo Barroso
NICOLAS VIZCONDE thereby inflicting upon her multiple stab wounds y Datuin, Jr., Roberto Barroso y Datuin, his Rolando Mendoza y Gomez,
causing her instantaneous death. Ernesto Cesar y Lizardo, Angelito Santos y Bisen) in the three criminal
Contrary to law. cases, were acknowledged and ratified before Judge Roberto L. Makalintal,
Consider this: In the aforementioned cases, one of the accused therein Atty. Luis Matro, Atty. Francis Tolentino and Atty. Salvador B. Aguas, who
(Angelito Santos y Bisen) who by his account was bothered by his affirmed that the said extrajudicial confessions or sinumpaang salaysay were
conscience, surrendered and executed an affidavit or sinumpaang salaysay freely and voluntarily given by the affiants, and that no duress violence,
narrating his participation in the gruesome killing of members of the Vizconde intimidation or coercion of any kind was employed against the affiants when
family and the rape-killing of a young Vizconde girl. And based on the the latter gave their statements if they did not want to; and that indeed the
extrajudicial confessions of the accused in these cases (specifically Angelito affiants were made aware of their constitutional right to have a lawyer of their
Santos y Bisen, Ernesto L. Cesar, the Barroso brothers Villardo, Jr. and choice to assist them during the custodial investigation and to remain silent if
Roberto, and Rolando G. Mendoza) it appears that the group conspired to they wished to. Nevertheless, as seen in the consolidated decision rendered
rob the house of the Vizcondes in W. Vinzons Street inside the BF in the three criminal cases, these extrajudicial confessions or sinumpaang
Subdivision; that they used at least two (2) vehicles in going there (a mint salaysay were declared inadmissible by the Makati City RTC, for having
green Toyota Corona, and an owner’s tinted jeepney); that when they been allegedly obtained through duress, threats, or intimidation. The
entered the subdivision, one of them motioned to the security guards dismissal of these criminal cases nowithstanding, it does not detract from the
manning the gate that the other vehicles were with him; that when they fact: (1) that said criminal case had indeed been filed in court, (2) that the

Page 32 of 88
criminal indictments were erected on the strength of the extrajudicial c.  It is the same thing with the garage light. The police investigators
confessions or sinumpaang salaysay executed by the accused therein, (3) found that the bulb had been loosed to turn off the light. The confessions of
that these extrajudicial confessions or sinumpaang salaysay set forth the Barroso gang claimed that one of them climbed the parked car’s hood to
facts and events that are eerily similar to those which found their way reach up and darken that light. This made sense since they were going to rob
into the information was filed in the case under review ; (4) that the victims the place and they needed time to work in the dark trying to open the front
in the three criminal cases are also the victims in the case under review; and door. Some passersby might look in and see what they were doing.
(5) that since the accused therein had been duly arraigned, as indeed, Alfaro had to adjust her testimony to take into account that darkened
criminal proceedings had been commenced thereon before a competent garage light. So she claimed that Ventura climbed the car’s hood, using a
court, the accused therein were in real danger of being convicted of the chair, to turn the light off. But, unlike the Barroso “akyat-bahay” gang, Webb
felonies charged.”28 (emphasis and underscoring supplied) 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
28 Justice Roberto Abad raised the same points, viz.: and be seen in such an awkward position instead of going straight into the
a.  The Barroso gang members said that they got into Carmela’s house house.
by breaking the glass panel of the front door using a stone wrapped in cloth 29 G.R. Nos. 121039-45, January 25, 1999, 302 SCRA 21.
to deaden the noise. Alfaro could not use this line since the core of her story 183
was that Webb was Carmela’s boyfriend. Webb had no reason to smash her VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 183
front door to get to see her. Lejano vs. People
Consequently, to explain the smashed door, Alfaro had to settle for “. . . [W]e advert to that all-too familiar rule that discrepancies between
claiming that, on the way out of the house, Webb picked up some stone and, sworn statements and testimonies made at the witness stand do not
182 necessarily discredit the witnesses. Sworn statement/affidavits are generally
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED subordinated in importance to open court declarations because the former
Lejano vs. People are often executed when an affiant’s mental faculties are not in such a state
On the questioned inconsistencies between Alfaro’s April 28, 1995 and as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has
May 22, 1995 Affidavits, the dissenters brush them aside as not necessarily transpired. Testimonies given during trials are much more exact and
affecting her credibility, citing People v. Sanchez29 which held: elaborate. Thus, testimonial evidence carries more weight than sworn
_______________ statements/
out of the blue, hurled it at the glass-paneled front door of the Vizconde affidavits.” (underscoring supplied)
residence. His action really made no sense. From Alfaro’s narration, Webb It bears emphasis that the questioned inconsistencies in Alfaro’s
appeared rational in his decisions. It was past midnight, the house was dark, Affidavits, and indeed they are too glaring to escape attention, arise not from
and they wanted to get away quickly to avoid detection. Hurling a stone at an affidavit and testimony at the witness stand but from two affidavits.
that glass door and causing a tremendous noise was bizarre, like inviting the And the dissenters forget that the first Affidavit, dated April 28, 1995, was
neighbors to come. given about two months shy of four years from the occurrence of the crime in
b. The crime scene showed that the house had been ransacked. The late June 1991 and, therefore, her mental faculties could not have been in
rejected confessions of the Barroso “akyat-bahay” gang members said that “such a state as [not] to afford [her] a fair opportunity of narrating in full the
they tried to rob the house. To explain this physical evidence, Alfaro claimed incident” subject of her tale. The second Affidavit, on the other hand, was
that at one point Ventura was pulling a kitchen drawer, and at another point, executed 24 days after the first Affidavit or on May 22, 1995. Do the
going through a handbag on the dining table. He said he was looking for the dissenters find that Alfaro’s mental faculties were more refreshed at a date
front-door key and the car key. more remote from the occurrence of the crime she claims to have witnessed?
Again, this portion of Alfaro’s story appears tortured to accommodate the Again, as did the lower courts, the dissenters disregard the glaring
physical evidence of the ransacked house. She never mentioned Ventura inconsistencies between Alfaro’s two affidavits vis-à-vis her testimony in
having taken some valuables with him when they left Carmela’s house. And open court which undeniably detract from credibility—of witness and of
why would Ventura rummage a bag on the table for the front-door key, testimony. Consider these inconsistencies reflected in the tabulation below:
spilling the contents, when they had already gotten into the house. It is a   April 25, 1995 May 22, 1995 Testimony in
story made to fit in with the crime scene although robbery was supposedly Affidavit Affidavit Court
not the reason Webb and his companions entered that house. Alfaro’s She has not met She knew She met Carmela

Page 33 of 88
  April 25, 1995 May 22, 1995 Testimony in mauuna. “Okay, okay.”
Affidavit Affidavit Court What Alfaro did not After leaving the Before going to
meeting Carmela before Carmela in a party Alfaro see what accused Webb, the bedroom,
with the night of the personally sometime saw at the transpired Lejano and Alfaro
Carmela crime and met her in a in January scene of inside the Ventura inside saw Ventura
party sometime 1991 and in a the crime Vizconde the Vizconde rummaging
in February disco sometime residence residence, through the
1991 in February 1991 because she did Alfaro again ladies’ bag on
  not go in. entered the top of the dining
184 house through table. She pro-
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED the
Lejano vs. People  
185
The There were Alfaro and Peter The entire group
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 185
number of only two trips ma Estrada made three trips 
Lejano vs. People
trips the de. After the first made three trips  to the Vizconde
group trip, Alfaro went to the Vizconde residence. On     kitchen ceeded to the
made to back to the residence. During the second trip, door; Ventura bedroom after
the parking lot. The their second trip, Webb and his was coming out hearing the sound of
Vizconde group was about the other companions as she was static and peeped
residence to leave when accused stayed parked and about to through the door.
she arrived. behind at the stayed along enter and once She could not see
Ventura signaled Alabang Aguirre Avenue. inside, curiosity anything so
her to board the Commercial Only Alfaro went impelled Alfaro she stepped
Nissan Patrol to Center Parking to the Vizconde to peep through inside where she
take more drugs Lot. Peter residence. the first door on saw Webb pumping
and asked her to Estrada and the left. Noticing Carmela.
leave her car, but Alfaro went back the high volume of
she refused. to the Vizconde the TV set inside
Thereafter, she residence after the room, she saw
was instructed about 30 two bloodied
to join the minutes. This bodies on top of
convoy of time, Carmela the bed and on
vehicles. They asked Jessica to the floor, she saw
went around BF come back after Webb pumping on
Homes for about midnight. top of Carmela
15 minutes who was gagged
before they finally and in tears.
proceeded to Alfaro’s Alfaro did Alfaro peeped Alfaro first
Vinzons Street. location not see what through the peeped through the
What Alfaro did not Before they left After Webb said in the transpired bedroom door bedroom door
Webb hear any the parking lot, “Pipilahan…,” Vizconde inside the and saw two and did not see
said instructions fro Alfaro overheard Lejano retorted, bedroom Vizconde bloodied bodies anything. Since she
m Webb or any Webb say, “Oo pero ako ang in relation residence and Webb did not see anything,
member of the “Pipilahan natin susunod.” The to what because she pumping Carmela. she walked inside
group. si Carmela, others she saw did not enter the bedroom where
pero  ako ang responded, it. she saw the rape of

Page 34 of 88
Carmela. VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 187
The dissenters approvingly note the trial court’s findings that Alfaro had Lejano vs. People
sufficiently explained these discrepancies between her two affidavits as x x x x
arising from a desire “to protect her former boyfriend Estrada and her Atty. Aguirre:
relative Gatchalian, the absence of a lawyer during the first taking of her Q While assisting Jessica Alfaro, did you notice any action on the part of
statements by the NBI, her distrust of the first investigators  who took her anybody which pressured Jessica Alfaro to finish her statement?
statements and prepared her April 28, 1995 affidavit, and her  uncertainty if Witness Mercader:
she could obtain adequate support and security for her own life were she to A No, Your Honor, none that I have noticed. If I did, I would have objected
disclose to.31
186 x x x x
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Prosecutor Zuno:
Lejano vs. People Q And that, I believe, to your own perception, at that time she was giving
everything she knows about the Vizconde killings.” (underscoring supplied) the facts, the answer, in accordance with her recollection?
There was, however, no rational basis for Alfaro to mistrust her “handler” x x x x
Sacaguing who was present at the execution of the first Affidavit, or the NBI Witness Mercader:
for that matter, she, as stated earlier, having been accorded special A Your Honor, at that time what I noticed only was the spontaneity of the
treatment precisely because she was one of the more valuable “assets” of answers of Jessica. Of course, I could not tell whether from where
the NBI. Sacaguing himself testified that Alfaro was virtually dependent on Jessica was basing it. From the recollection or from a memorize
them . . . “for protection, for sympathy and even for her spiritual script, I do not know, Your Honor, about that. But definitely,
needs.”30 Accused Gatchalian’s father, Atty. Francisco Gatchalian, denied whenever she was asked a question, she answers them readily as if
that his family was in any way related to Alfaro. And the lawyer who is she knows the answer personally. 32 (emphasis and underscoring
mentioned in the first  Affidavit to have assisted her, Atty. Arturo Mercader, supplied)
Jr., took the witness stand and categorically stated that he was present The trial court’s order preventing the defense from cross-examining Alfaro
during the taking of such first  Affidavit of Alfaro, he claiming that, inter alia: on the inconsistencies between her two Affidavits was thus correctly SET
Atty. Ongkiko: ASIDE by the Court of Appeals, to which this Court, by Resolution of January
Q And after the typing of the statement was finished by Agent Tamayo, 22, 1996, referred for disposition G.R. Nos. 122466 and 122504, the
what happened? accused’s petitions assailing, among other orders, the trial court’s order
Witness Mercader: denying their right to cross examine Alfaro, for purposes of impeachment, on
A Well, I received the statement and showed it to Jessica and asked her her conflicting Affidavits. Thus, the appellate court, in its Decision 33 in CA-
to read it also. G.R. SP Nos. 39839 and 39840 of June 21, 1996, held:
Atty. Ongkiko: _______________
Q Did Jessica Alfaro read her statement? 31 Vide TSN, July 31, 1996, pp. 20-21, 44.
Witness Mercader: 32 TSN, August 1, 1996, pp. 10, 15.
A Yes, Your Honor. 33 CA Rollo  (CA-G.R. SP No. 51173), pp. 209-225, penned by Associate
Atty. Ongkiko: Justice Ricardo P. Galvez, with the concurrence of Associate Justices
Q How long did it take her to read the statement? Antonio M. Martinez and Hilarion L. Aquino.
Witness Mercvader: 188
A Just for few minutes, Your Honor. 188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Atty. Ongkiko: Lejano vs. People
Q And after she read the statement, what happened next? “x x x x
Witness Mercader: [T]he issue of the right of petitioners to cross-examine Jessica Alfaro on
A Well, she signed the statement and afterwards, I also affixed my the alleged inconsistencies between her first and second affidavits is
signature on it, Your Honor. too crucial to be simply brushed aside with a perfunctory application of the
_______________ general rule adverted to in the preceding paragraphs. It may bring about a
30 TSN, October 6, 1997, p. 100. failure of justice. Consequently, we consider the actuations of respondent
187

Page 35 of 88
judge in this regard to be reviewable by certiorari under rule 65 of the Rules the effect that DNA, “being a relatively new science, it has not as yet been
of Court. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) accorded official recognition by our courts.” Besides, the trial court “believed”
Under Section 11, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, an adverse party’s that no one in the Philippines had as yet the knowledge and expertise to
witness may be impeached (1) by contradictory evidence; (2) by evidence testify on matters involving DNA testing. What is worse, however, is that it
that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad; (3) by “believed” that DNA testing “will not subserve the ends of justice.” 40 If the
evidence that he has made at other times statement inconsistent with motion had been granted and DNA analysis were carried out, nagging doubts
his present testimony; and (4) by producing the record of his conviction of on Webb’s culpability for the crimes or lack of it could have been dissipated.
an offense. Insofar as impeachment by evidence of prior inconsistent _______________
statements however, under Section 13 of the same Rule 132, a proper 35 People v. Rodrigo,  G.R. No. 176159, September 11, 2008, 564 SCRA
foundation must first be laid, in that, the attention of the witness should first 584, 586.
be called to such statements, and he should be asked whether or not he 36 Records, Vol. 17, pp. 186-196. Webb argued that:
made them, and afforded an opportunity for explanation, or affirmance, or x x x x
denial of the authenticity of the writing.” (emphasis and underscoring in the 7.  Since the semen specimen is still in the custody and possession of
original) the NBI, accused Webb moves for the submission of the semen evidence to
A testimony given four years after the occurrence of crime which gives a DNA analysis by a US-government or US government accredited forensic
minute details that even contradict tales earlier given is too incredible as to laboratory, preferably the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D.C.
draw dubiety. The lucid observations of Court of Appeals Justice Renato C. If granted, accused Webb reserves his right to be presented at all stages of
Dacudao in his Dissent34 for the acquittal of the accused, and the graphic the DNA typing process and to have access to the results thereof.
analysis of Justice Roberto Abad in his ponencia on why Alfaro’s testimony x x x x
can not be relied upon are thus well taken. 37 Id., at pp. 502-529.
It bears stressing that the defense’s earnest assertion that the 38 Records, Vol. 18, pp. 256-259.
prosecution failed to rebut the pieces of evidence, highlighted by the 39 G.R. No. 112229, March 18, 1997, 270 SCRA 1, 3.
defense, that seriously dent its (the prosecution’s) case has  not been 190
controverted. 190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Respecting Alfaro’s “eyewitness identification” of Webb as the rapist: As Lejano vs. People
reflected in the tabulations above, she had conflicting claims FINALLY, even assuming arguendo that the burden of evidence had
on whether and where she witnessed the commission of the crime. AT ALL shifted to the defense, the testimonial and documentary evidence of the
EVENTS, such identification is not as accurate and authoritative as the defense indubitably establishes that, with respect to accused Webb, he was
scientific forms of identification evidence such as Deoxyri- out of the country when the crime occurred.
_______________ It is undisputed that accused Webb’s travel and immigration documents,
34 Rollo,  pp. 254-285, G.R. No. 176389. which have not been found to be spurious, unquestionably show that he left
189 the Philippines for the United States on March 9, 1991 and returned to the
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 189 Philippines only on October 26, 1992. In rejecting Webb’s alibi, the
Lejano vs. People dissenters point out:
bonucleic Acid  (DNA) testing,35 which testing could not now, in the present “These dates [March 9, 1991 and October 26, 1992] are so distant from
case, be carried out in view of the information of the NBI that it no longer has the time of the commission of the crime, June 29, 1991 and June 30, 1991,
custody of the semen specimen from rape victim Carmela’s and it would not have been impossible during the interregnum for Webb to
cadaver, claiming that it had turned it over to the trial court. The NBI did not, travel back to the country and again fly to the US several times considering
however, present any documentary proof of such claim. Parenthetically, it that the travel time on board an airline from the Philippines to San Francisco,
does not appear from the records that the specimen was offered in evidence and from San Francisco to the Philippines takes only about twelve (12) hours
by any of the parties. to fourteen (14) hours. Given the financial resources and political influence of
To Webb’s credit, he had asked for the conduct of DNA evidence on his family, it was not unlikely that Webb could have traveled back to the
October 6, 1997, during the trial on the merits, when he filed a Motion to Philippines before June 29-30, 1991 and then departed for the US again, and
Direct NBI to Submit Semen Specimen to DNA Analysis 36 which motion the returning to the Philippines in October 1992. There clearly exists, therefore,
prosecution opposed.37 The motion was subsequently denied by the trial such possibility of Webb’s presence at the scene of the crime at the time of
court by its November 25, 1997 Order, 38 citing Lim v. Court of Appeals39 to

Page 36 of 88
its commission, and its excuse cannot be deemed airtight. (underscoring and 42 People v. Abellanosa, G.R. No. 121195, November 27, 1996, 264
italics supplied) SCRA 722, 746-747.
It is now the dissenters’ reasoning which turns highly speculative and 43 People v. Peruelo, No. L-50631, June 29, 1981, 105 SCRA 226-238.
conjectural, one borne out of unfounded suspicion. It suspects that the Webb 44 People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 184958, September 17, 2009, 600
family may have used its “financial resources and political influence” to SCRA 280.
control all the U.S. and Philippine immigration people, thus allowing Webb to 45 G.R. Nos. 138874-75, February 3, 2004, 421 SCRA 530.
secretly “travel back to the country and again fly to the U.S. several times” 192
between March 9, 1991 and October 26, 1992. It bears noting that the 192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
prosecution proffered no evidence to establish that during the interregnum Lejano vs. People
Webb had surreptitiously slipped out of the U.S.A. to the Philippines, and that faro’s, were credible and trustworthy, this Court rejected Larrañaga’s alibi.
he subsequently re-entered the U.S.A. by bypassing all immigration controls WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable
and protocols in both countries. This is the stuff of which spy novels are doubt the guilt of the accused, Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio “Tony Boy”
made, but not in the real world where the lives of innocent individuals are at Lejano, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio “Pyke” Fernandez, Peter Estrada,
stake.191 and Miguel “Ging” Rodriguez, they are ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 191 SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
Lejano vs. People BRION, J.:
Facts decide cases. Conjectures and suspicions are not facts, hence, In addition to my vote and independently of the merits of the present
they have no evidentiary value. They cannot be the bases of conviction as case, I write this opinion to point out the growing disregard and non-
they cannot substitute for the constitutional requirement of proof of guilt observance of the sub judice rule, to the detriment of the rights of the
beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicions, no matter how strong they are, must accused, the integrity of the courts, and, ultimately, the administration of
never sway judgment.41 justice. I seize this opportunity fully aware that the present case—dubbed in
At this juncture, given the evidence on record, it is crucial to heed the the news media as the Vizconde Massacre—is one of the most sensational
Court’s caveat that when an accused puts up the defense of alibi, “the courts criminal cases in Philippine history in terms of the mode of commission of the
should not at once have a mental prejudice against him. For, taken in the crime and the personalities involved. From the time the charges were filed,
light of all the evidence on record, it may be sufficient to acquit him.”42 the case has captured the public’s interest that an unusual amount of air time
While alibi is, indeed, a weak defense because the accused can easily and print space have been devoted to it. Of late, with the public’s renewed
fabricate his story to escape criminal liability, 43 in the present case, Webb’s interest after the case was submitted for decision, key personalities have
alibi could not have been fabricated with ease. His travel and immigration again been unabashedly publicizing their opinions and commenting even on
documents showing his departure from the Philippines and arrival in the the merits of the case before various forms of media. A Senior Justice of this
U.S.A., not to mention the testimonial and documentary evidence on his Court, who was a witness in the case (while he was in private law practice)
activities while in the U.S.A. between March 9, 1991 and October 26, 1992, and who consequently inhibited himself from participation, was even publicly
deserve full credit. If half the world away could not even be considered to be maligned in the print and broadcast media through unsupported speculations
“so far removed from the crime scene” 44 as to evince the physical about his intervention in the case. That was how bad and how low comments
impossibility of actual presence, then the defense of alibi can only be about the case had been.
appreciated when an accused lands in a different planet. In essence, the sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures
The dissenters cite People v. Larrañaga45 to highlight the weakness of pertaining to pending judicial proceedings. The restriction applies not only to
alibi as a defense. That case did not involve foreign and travel immigration participants in the pending case, i.e., to members of the bar and bench, and
documents or even the use of a passport, the accused therein having to litigants and witnesses, but also to the public in general, which necessarily
claimed that he was in Quezon City at the time the crime was committed in includes the media. Although the Rules of
Cebu City. Because he was positively identified by several prosecution 193
witnesses whose testimonies, unlike Al- VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 193
_______________ Lejano vs. People
40 Court does not contain a specific provision imposing the sub judice rule, it
41 People v. Tajada, G.R. No. 147200, December 17, 2002, 394 SCRA supports the observance of the restriction by punishing its violation
159, 166; Monteverde v. People, G.R. No. 139610, August 12, 2002, 387 as indirect contempt under Section 3(d) of Rule 71:
SCRA 196, 215.

Page 37 of 88
“Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. Before proceeding with this line of thought, however, let me clarify that
—x x x a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for the sub judice  rule is not imposed on all forms of speech. In so far as
indirect contempt: criminal proceedings are concerned, two classes of publicized speech made
x x x x during the pendency of the proceedings can be considered as
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, contemptuous: first, comments on the merits of the case, and second,
obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice[.]” intemperate and unreasonable comments on the conduct of the courts with
Persons facing charges for indirect contempt for violation of the sub respect to the case. Publicized speech should be understood to be limited to
judice rule often invoke as defense their right to free speech and claim that those aired or printed in the various forms of media such as television, radio,
the citation for contempt constitutes a form of impermissible subsequent newspapers, magazines, and internet, and excludes discussions, in public or
punishment. in private, between and among ordinary citizens. The Constitution simply
We have long recognized in this jurisdiction that the freedom of speech gives the citizens the right to speech, not the right to
under Section 4, Article III of the Constitution is not absolute. A very literal unrestricted publicized speech.
construction of the provision, as espoused by US Supreme Court Justice Comments on the merits of the case may refer to the credibility of
Hugo Black,1 may lead to the disregard of other equally compelling witnesses, the character of the accused, the soundness of the alibis offered,
constitutional rights and principles. In Vicente v. the relevance of the evidence presented, and generally any
_______________ _______________
1 See Justice Black’s concurring opinion in Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 2 A.M. No. RTJ-02-1698, June 23, 2005, 461 SCRA 12, 24-25,
147 (1959), part of which reads: citing Choa v. Chiongson, A.M. No. MTJ-95-1063, August 9, 1996, 260
Certainly the First Amendment’s language leaves no room for inference SCRA 477, 484-485.
that abridgments of speech and press can be made just because they are 3 Law Reform Commission—New South Wales, Discussion Paper 43
slight. That Amendment provides, in simple words, that “Congress shall (2000)—Contempt by Publication,
make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” I read http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/dp43chp02, last visited
“no law . . . abridging” to mean no law abridging. The First Amendment, December 9, 2010.
which is the supreme law of the land, has thus fixed its own value on 195
freedom of speech and press by putting these freedoms wholly “beyond the VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 195
reach” of federal power to abridge. No other provision of the Constitution Lejano vs. People
purports to dilute the scope of these unequivocal commands of the First other comment bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused.111 The
Amendment. Consequently, I do not believe that any federal agencies, danger posed by this class of speech is the undue influence it may directly
including Congress and this Court, have power or authority to exert on the court in the resolution of the criminal case, or indirectly through
subordinate speech and press to what they think are “more important the public opinion it may generate against the accused and the adverse
interests.” The contrary notion is, in my judgment, court-made, not impact this public opinion may have during the trial. The significance of
Constitution-made. (361 U.S. 147, 157-159). the sub judice rule is highlighted in criminal cases, as the possibility of undue
194 influence prejudices the accused’s right to a fair trial. “The principal purpose
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED of the sub judice rule is to preserve the impartiality of the judicial system by
Lejano vs. People protecting it from undue influence.”5 Public opinion has no place in a criminal
Majaducon,2 this Court declared that “[the freedom of speech] needs on trial. We ruled that—
occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of “it is a traditional conviction of civilized society everywhere that courts and
equally important public interests such as the maintenance of the integrity of juries, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from every
courts and orderly functioning of the administration of justice.” Courts, both extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence
within and outside this jurisdiction, have long grappled with the dilemma of produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be
balancing the public’s right to free speech and the government’s duty to uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.”6
administer fair and impartial justice. While the sub judice rule may be _______________
considered as a curtailment of the right to free speech, it is “necessary to 4 Ibid.; the Discussion Paper 43 (2000) of the Law Reform Commission of
ensure the proper administration of justice and the right of an accused to a New South Wales has identified some “high-risk publications” against which
fair trial.”3 Both these latter concerns are equally paramount and cannot the sub judice rule applies. These include:
lightly be disregarded.

Page 38 of 88
a. A photograph of the accused where identity is likely to be an As may be observed from the cited material, the sub judice rule is used
issue; by foreign courts to insulate members of the jury from being influenced by
b. Suggestions that the accused has previous criminal prejudicial publicity. But the fact that the jury system
convictions, has been previously charged for committing an offense _______________
and/or previously acquitted, or has been involved in other criminal 7 Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of
activity; the Plunder Cases Against the Former President Joseph E. Estrada, A.M.
c. Suggestions that the accused has confessed to committing the No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001, 360 SCRA 248, 259-260.
crime in question; 8  People v. Godoy, G.R. Nos. 115908-09, March 29, 1995, 243 SCRA
d. Suggestions that the accused has confessed to committing the 64, 81, citing U.S. v. Sullen, 36 F. 2d 220.
crime in question; 9  Supra note 3.
e. Suggestions that the accused is guilty or innocent of the crime 10  See Wayne Overbeck, Major Principles in Media Law, p. 298.
for which he or she is charged, or that the jury should convict or acquit 11 Supra  note 6, at p. 546.
the accused; and 12 Supra note 3.
f. Comments which engender sympathy or antipathy for the 197
accused and/or which disparage the prosecution, or which make VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 197
favorable or unfavorable references to the character or credibility of Lejano vs. People
the accused or a witness. is not adopted in this jurisdiction is not an argument against our
5 Ibid. observance of the sub judice rule; justices and judges are no different from
6 Nestle v. Sanchez, Nos. L-75209 and 78791, September 30, 1987, 154 members of the jury, they are not immune from the pervasive effects of
SCRA 542, 546. media. “It might be farcical to build around them an impregnable armor
196 against the influence of the most powerful media of public opinion.” 13 As I
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED said in another case, in a slightly different context, even those who are
Lejano vs. People determined, in their conscious minds, to avoid bias may be affected. 14
The right to a fair trial is an adjunct of the accused’s right to due process Also, it is not necessary that the publicity actually influenced the court’s
which “guarantees [him] a presumption of innocence until the contrary is disposition of the case; “the actual impact of prejudicial publicity is not
proved in a trial x x x where the conclusions reached are induced not by any relevant to liability for sub judice contempt.”15 In several cases, the Court has
outside force or influence but only by evidence and argument given in open noted the
court, where fitting dignity and calm ambiance is demanded.” 7 “enormous effect of media in stirring public sentience x x x Even while it may
In foreign jurisdictions, the courts do not hesitate to exercise their power be difficult to quantify the influence, or pressure that media can bring to bear
to punish for contempt where necessary to dispose of judicial business on [witnesses and judges] directly and through the shaping of public opinion,
unhampered by publications that tend to impair the impartiality of verdicts. 8 it is a fact, nonetheless, that, indeed, it does so in so many ways and in
“If the media publish prejudicial material, they can appear to urge, or may varying degrees. The conscious or unconscious effect that such a coverage
in fact be urging, a particular finding: the media can “wage a campaign” may have on the testimony of witnesses and the decision of judges cannot
against one of the parties to proceedings. If the jury decides in accordance be
with an outcome promoted by the media, it will appear as if the jurors were _______________
swayed by the media. By the same token, if the jury’s decision does not 13 Supra  note 7, at p. 260.
accord with media opinion, it may appear as if they were deliberately reacting 14 Separate Opinion of the author in Louis “Barok” C. Biraogo v. The
against it. Either way, it may appear that the jury’s decision was not impartial Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. Nos. 192935 & 193036,
and based on the evidence presented in court, even if it was.” 9 December 7, 2010, 637 SCRA 78, part of which reads:
The accused must be assured of a fair trial notwithstanding the prejudicial Where the government simply wants to tell its story, already labeled as
publicity;10 he has a constitutional right to have his cause tried fairly by an true, well ahead of any court proceedings, and judicial notice is taken of the
impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by publication or public clamor. 11 “The sub kind of publicity and the ferment in public opinion that news of government
judice doctrine protects against the appearance of decisions having been scandals generate, it does not require a leap of faith to conclude that an
influenced by published material.”12 accused brought to court against overwhelming public opinion starts his case
with less than equal chance of acquittal. The presumption of innocence
notwithstanding, the playing field cannot but be uneven in a criminal trial

Page 39 of 88
when the accused enters trial with a government-sponsored badge of guilty VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 199
on his forehead. The presumption of innocence in law cannot serve an Lejano vs. People
accused in a biased atmosphere pointing to guilt in fact because the The criticism must, however, be fair, made in good faith, and “not spill over
government and public opinion have spoken against the accused. [Citations the walls of decency and propriety.”21And to enhance the open court principle
omitted] and allow the people to make fair and reasoned criticism of the courts,
15 Supra  note 3. the sub judice  rule excludes from its coverage fair and accurate reports
198 (without comment) of what have actually taken place in open court.
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED In sum, the court, in a pending litigation, must be shielded from
Lejano vs. People embarrassment or influence in its all-important duty of deciding the
evaluated but, it can likewise be said, it is not at all unlikely for a vote of guilt case.22 Any publication pending a suit, reflecting upon the court, the parties,
or innocence to yield to it.”16 the officers of the court, the counsel, etc., with reference to the suit, or
Comment on the conduct of the courts with respect to the case becomes tending to influence the decision of the controversy, is contempt of court and
subject to a contempt proceeding when it is intemperate, is contumacious, is punishable. The resulting (but temporary) curtailment of speech because
and unduly impairs upon the dignity of the court. A comment that impairs of of the sub judice  rule is necessary and justified by the more compelling
the dignity of the court “excites in the mind of the people a general interests to uphold the rights of the accused and promote the fair and orderly
dissatisfaction with all judicial determinations, and indisposes their minds to administration of justice.
obey them[.]”17 If the speech tends to undermine the confidence of the people If we do not apply at all the sub judice rule to the present case, the
in the honesty and integrity of the court and its members, and lowers or reason is obvious to those who have followed the case in the media—both
degrades the administration of justice, then the speech constitutes parties are in pari delicto as both have apparently gone to the media to
contempt.18 “Unwarranted attacks on the dignity of the courts cannot be campaign for the merits of their respective causes. Thus, the egregious
disguised as free speech, for the exercise of said right cannot be used to action of one has been cancelled by a similar action by the other. It is in this
impair the independence and efficiency of courts or public respect therefore sense that this Supplemental Opinion is independent of the merits of the
and confidence therein.”19 Without the sub judice rule and the contempt case. Their common action, however, cannot have their prejudicial effects on
power, the courts will be powerless to protect their integrity and both; whatever the results may be, doubts will linger about the real merits of
independence that are essential in the orderly and effective dispensation and the case due to the inordinate media campaign that transpired.
administration of justice. Lest we be misunderstood, our application of the sub judice rule to this
This, of course, is not meant to stifle all forms of criticism against the case cannot serve as a precedent for similar future violations. Precisely, this
court. As the third branch of the government, the courts remain accountable Supplemental Opinion is a signal to all that this Court has not forgotten, and
to the people. The people’s freedom to criticize the government includes the is in fact keenly aware of, the limits of what can be publicly ventilated on the
right to criticize the courts, their proceedings and decisions. This is the merits of a case while sub judice, and on the comments on the conduct of the
principle of open justice, which is fundamental to our democratic society and courts with respect to the case. This Court will not standby idly and helplessly
ensures that (a) there is a safeguard against judicial arbitrariness or as its integrity
idiosyncrasy, and that (b) the public’s confidence in the administration of _______________
justice is maintained.20 21 Tiongco v. Savillo, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1719, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA
_______________ 48, 64, citing In re Almacen, infra note 22.
16 Supra  note 7, at pp. 259-260. 22 In re Almacen, No. L-27654, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 562.
17 Supra  note 8, at 82, citing J. Perfecto’s dissenting opinion in In re 200
Francisco Brillantes, 42 O.G. 59. 200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
18 Id., at p. 94. Lejano vs. People
19 In the Matter of the Allegations Contained in the Columns of Mr. as an institution and its processes are shamelessly brought to disrepute.
Amado P. Macasaet Published in Malaya Dated September 18, 19, 20, and DISSENTING OPINION
21, 2007, A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC, August 8, 2008, 561 SCRA 395, 448, VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
citing Roxas v. Zuzuarregui, G.R. Nos. 152072 & 152104, July 12, 2007, 527 With all due respect to my colleagues, I dissent from the majority decision
SCRA 446. acquitting all the accused-appellants.
20 Id., at p. 434. In the middle part of 1991, the gruesome deaths of 19-year old Carmela
199 Vizconde, her mother Estrellita and 7-year old sister Jennifer in the hands of

Page 40 of 88
unknown assailants inside their home in a private subdivision shocked our Webb conspiring and confederating with accused Antonio “Tony Boy” Lejano,
countrymen and alarmed the authorities of the rise in heinous crimes, Artemio “Dong” Ventura, Michael Gatchalian y Adviento, Hospicio “Pyke”
particularly those committed by individuals under the influence of drugs. Fernandez, Peter Estrada, Miguel “Ging” Rodriguez and Joey Filart, mutually
Investigations conducted by the police and other bodies including the helping one another, while armed with bladed instruments, with the use of
Senate, and even the arrest of two (2) sets of suspects (“akyat-bahay”  gang force and intimidation, with lewd design, with abuse of superior strength,
and former contractor/workers of the Vizcondes), failed to unravel the truth nighttime and with the use of motor vehicle, wilfully, unlawfully and
behind the brutal killing—until an alleged eyewitness surfaced four (4) years feloniously have carnal knowledge of the person of Carmela Vizconde
later. The ensuing courtroom saga involving sons of prominent families had against her will and consent.
become one (1) of the most controversial cases in recent history as the entire _______________
nation awaited its long-delayed closure. 2 Rollo (G.R. No. 176389), p. 13.
The Case 3 Effective October 15, 2004.
Subject of review is the Decision 1 dated December 15, 2005 of the Court 4 Rollo (G.R. No. 176389), pp. 393-399 and Rollo  (G.R. No. 176864), pp.
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 00336 affirming with modifications 80-104.
the Decision dated January 4, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of 5 Rollo (G.R. No. 176864), pp. 263-499, 525-550.
Parañaque City, Branch 274 finding the accused-appellants Hubert Jeffrey P. 202
Webb, Antonio “Tony Boy” Lejano, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio “Pyke” 202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Fernandez, Peter Estrada and Miguel “Ging” Rodriguez guilty beyond Lejano vs. People
reasonable doubt as principals, and accused-appellant Gerardo Biong as That by reason or on the occasion of the aforesaid rape or immediately
accessory, of the crime of Rape with Homicide. thereafter, the above-named accused with intent to kill, conspiring and
_______________ confederating together, mutually helping one another, did then and there,
1 Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico and concurred in by and with evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, nighttime, with
Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Lucenito N. Tagle the use of motor vehicle, assault and stab with bladed instruments Carmela
(dissented in the resolution of appellants’ motion for reconsideration). Vizconde, Estrellita Vizconde and Jennifer Vizconde, thereby inflicting upon
201 them numerous stab wounds in different parts of their bodies which caused
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 201 their instantaneous death.
Lejano vs. People That accused GERARDO BIONG and JOHN DOES having knowledge
   The petition for review on certiorari filed earlier by accused Lejano after the commission of the above-mentioned crime, and without having
(G.R. No. 176389) is hereby treated as an appeal, considering that said participated therein as principals or accomplices, took part subsequent to its
accused had in fact filed a notice of appeal with the CA. 2 In view of the commission by assisting, with abuse of authority as a police officer, the
judgment of the CA imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua,  such appeal above-named principal accused, to conceal or destroy the effects or
by notice of appeal is in accord with A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC (Amendments to instruments thereof by failing to preserve the physical evidence and allowing
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern Death Penalty their destruction in order to prevent the discovery of the crime.
Cases)3 which provides under Rule 124 (c): CONTRARY TO LAW.”6
(c) In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion  The RTC and CA concurred in their factual findings based mainly on the
perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall render and enter testimony of the prosecution’s principal witness, Jessica M. Alfaro who is a
judgment imposing such penalty. The judgment may be appealed to the confessed former drug user, the declarations of four (4) other witnesses and
Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals. documentary exhibits.
 Accordingly, G.R. No. 176389 was consolidated with the present appeal  Alfaro testified that on June 29, 1991 at around 8:30 in the evening, she
by all accused (G.R. No. 176864) except Artemio Ventura and Joey Filart drove her Mitsubishi Lancer and, with her then boyfriend Peter Estrada, went
who are still at large. 4Only Webb and Gatchalian filed their respective to the Ayala Alabang Commercial Center parking lot to get her order of one
supplemental briefs in compliance with our April 10, 2007 Resolution. 5 (1) gram of shabu from Artemio “Dong” Ventura. There she met and was
The Facts introduced to Ventura’s friends: Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio “Tony Boy”
 The Information filed on August 10, 1995 reads: Lejano, Miguel “Ging” Rodriguez, Hospicio “Pyke” Fernandez, Michael
“That on or about the evening of June 29 up to the early morning of June Gatchalian and Joey Filart (she had previously seen them in a shabu house
30, 1991, in the municipality of Parañaque, province of Rizal, Philippines, located in Parañaque which they frequented as early as January 1991, 7 while
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Hubert Jeffrey P. she had known Ventura since December 1990 8). After paying for

Page 41 of 88
her shabu and while she was smoking it, Webb approached her and 12 Pictures of the Vizconde house at Records, Vol. 1, pp. 82-87.
requested a favor for her to relay a message to a certain girl who hap- 204
_______________ 204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
6 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-3. Lejano vs. People
7 TSN, October 19, 1995, pp. 3-6 (Records, Vol. 5, pp. 37-40); TSN, reaching the main road, Aguirre Avenue, she saw Carmela drop off the man
October 23, 1995, pp. 10-24 (Records, Vol. 5, pp. 258-272). who was with her in the car (whom she thought to be her boyfriend 13). Alfaro
8 TSN, October 23, 1995, pp. 6-10 (Records, Vol. 5, pp. 254-258). looked for the group and relayed Carmela’s instructions to Webb. Thereafter,
203 they all went back to the Ayala Alabang Commercial Center. 14
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 203 At the parking lot, Alfaro relayed to the group what transpired during her
Lejano vs. People last conversation with Carmela. She also told Webb about Carmela’s male
pened to be Carmela, to which she agreed. After the group finished companion; this changed his mood for the rest of the evening (“bad
their shabu  session, they proceeded to Carmela’s place at No. 80 Vinzons trip” already15). Webb then gave out complimentary cocaine and all of them
Street, Pitong Daan Subdivision, BF Homes, Parañaque City. She and used shabu and/or cocaine.16 After about 40 to 45 minutes, Webb decided it
Estrada in her car followed the two (2) vehicles: Webb, Lejano, Ventura, was time to leave, declaring: “Pipilahan natin siya  [Carmela]  at ako ang
Fernandez and Gatchalian on board a Nissan Patrol car; while Filart and mauuna.” Lejano said: “Ako ang susunod” and the others responded “Okay,
Rodriguez rode a Mazda pick-up.9 okay.” They all left the parking lot and their convoy of three (3) vehicles
Upon reaching the area, Alfaro parked her car along Vinzons St. and entered Pitong Daan Subdivision for the third time. They arrived at the
approached the gate of the house pointed to by Webb. She pressed the Vizconde residence between 11:45 to 11:55 p.m.17
buzzer and when a woman came out, she asked for Carmela. When she was Alfaro parked her car in between the Vizconde house and its adjacent
able to talk to Carmela (an acquaintance she had met only twice in January house. While waiting for the rest of the group to alight from their cars,
199110), Alfaro relayed Webb’s message that he was around. However, Fernandez approached her suggesting that they blow up the transformer
Carmela said she cannot make it as she had just arrived home and told near the pedestrian gate of the Vizconde residence in order to cause a
Alfaro to come back after twenty (20) minutes. She relayed the answer of brownout (“Pasabugin kaya natin ang transformer na ito”). She shrugged off
Carmela to Webb who then instructed the group to return to Ayala Alabang the idea and told Fernandez “Malakas lang ang tama mo.” When Webb,
Commercial Center.11 Lejano and Ventura were already standing infront of the Vizconde residence,
At the same parking lot, the group had another shabu  session before Webb repeated to the boys that they will line up for Carmela but he will be
proceeding again to Carmela’s residence in a convoy. Alfaro went to Vinzons the first, and the others said, “O sige, dito lang kami, magbabantay lang
St. alone while the Nissan Patrol and Mazda parked somewhere along kami.”18
Aguirre Avenue. Upon seeing Carmela who was at their garden, Alfaro was _______________
approached by Carmela saying she was going out for a while. Carmela told 13 TSN, February 26, 1996, pp. 77-82.
Alfaro that they come back before 12:00 midnight and she would just leave 14 TSN, October 10, 1995, pp. 104-121 and 155 (Records, Vol. 4, pp.
the pedestrian gate, as well as the iron grill gate leading to the kitchen door, 278-295 and 329).
open and unlocked.12 Carmela further instructed Alfaro to blink her car’s 15 TSN, March 4, 1996, p. 28.
headlights twice before reaching the pedestrian gate to signal her arrival. 16 TSN, October 10, 1995, pp. 156-164 (Records, Vol. 4, pp. 330-338).
Alfaro returned to her car but waited for Carmela’s car to get out of the gate. 17 Id., at p. 165 (339); TSN, October 16, 1995, pp. 33-35 (Records, Vol.
Carmela drove ahead and Alfaro likewise left Vinzons St. Upon 4, pp. 586-588); TSN, October 24, 1995, pp. 98-100 (Records, Vols. 5, 6 & 7,
_______________ pp. 528-530); TSN, February 29, 1996, pp. 42-64.
9  TSN, October 10, 1995, pp. 79-81 and 93-99 (Records, Vol. 4, pp. 253- 18 TSN, October 10, 1995, pp. 36-53 (Records, Vol. 4, pp. 589-607).
255, 267-273). 205
10 TSN, October 18, 1995, pp. 18-19, 27-40, 54 and 62-63 (Records, Vol. VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 205
4, pp. 943-944, 953-966, 980 and 988-989); TSN, October 30, 1995, pp. 27- Lejano vs. People
29 (Records, Vols. 5 & 6, pp. 900-902); TSN, November 8, 1995, pp. 91,  Alfaro entered first the pedestrian gate which was left open, followed by
114, 117-118 (Records, Vol. 6, pp. 395, 418 and 421-422); TSN, October 16, Webb, Lejano and Ventura. At the garage, Ventura pulled out a chair to get
1995, pp. 142-143 (Records, Vol. 4, pp. 694-695); Exhibit “A”, Records, Vol. on top of the hood of the Vizcondes’ Nissan Sentra car and loosened the
8, p. 508. electric bulb (“para daw walang ilaw”). They proceeded to the iron grill gate
11 TSN, October 10, 1995, pp. 99-103 (Records, Vol. 4, pp. 273-278). which was likewise left open, and passed through the dirty kitchen. It was

Page 42 of 88
Carmela who opened the aluminum screen door of the kitchen for them to drove away until they reached Aguirre Avenue. Near an old hotel in the
enter. Carmela and Webb for a moment looked at each other in the eye, and Tropical Palace area, Alfaro saw the Nissan Patrol slow down and something
then proceeded towards the dining area. As she lost sight of Carmela and thrown out into a cogonal area. They went to a large house with high walls
Webb, Alfaro decided to go out of the house. Lejano asked where she was and concrete fence, steel gate and long driveway located at BF Executive
going and she told him she will smoke outside. On her way to the screen Village. They parked their cars inside the compound and gathered in the
door, she saw Ventura pulling a drawer in the kitchen. At the garden area, lawn area where the “blaming session” took place. It was only at this point
she smoked a cigarette. After about twenty (20) minutes, she was surprised that Alfaro and the others came to know fully what happened at the Vizconde
upon hearing a female voice uttered “Sino yan?” and she immediately walked house. The mother was the first one (1) killed, then Jennifer and the last,
out towards her car. She found the others still outside around her car and Carmela.21
Estrada who was inside the car said: “Okay ba?” After staying in her car for Ventura was blaming Webb telling him: “Bakit naman pati yung bata?”
about ten (10) minutes, she returned to the house passing through the same According to Webb, the girl was awakened and upon seeing him molesting
iron grill gate and dirty kitchen. While it was dark inside the house, there was Carmela, she jumped on him, bit his shoulders and pulled his hair. Webb got
light coming from outside. In the kitchen, she saw Ventura searching a lady’s mad and grabbed the girl, pushed her to the wall and stabbed her several
bag on top of the dining table. When she asked Ventura what was it he was times. Lejano excused himself and used the telephone inside the house,
looking for, he said: “Ikaw na nga dito, maghanap ka ng susi.” She asked him while Webb called up someone on his cellular phone. At around 2:00 in the
what particular key and he replied: “Basta maghanap ka ng susi ng main morning, Gerardo Biong arrived
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 of the house but none of them fitted the 20 TSN, October 10, 1995, pp. 76-97 (Records, Vol. 4, pp. 628-A to 649);
lock; she also did not find any car key.19 May 22, 1995 Affidavit, Records, Vol. l, p. 96.
Unable to open the main door, Alfaro walked back towards the kitchen 21 Id., at pp. 97-104 (Id. at pp. 649-656); TSN, February 19, 1996, pp. 6-
but upon reaching the spot leading to the dining area, she heard a very loud 39; May 22, 1995 Affidavit, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 97-98.
static sound (like that coming from a television which had signed off). Out of 207
curiosity, she went to the door of the master’s bedroom where the sound was VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 207
coming from and peeped inside. She pushed the slightly ajar door with her Lejano vs. People
fingers and the sound grew even louder. After pushing the door wider, she and talked to Webb who ordered him to clean up the Vizconde house, and
walked into the said “Pera lang ang katapat nyan.” Biong answered “Okay lang.” Webb
_______________ addressed the group and gave his final instructions: “We don’t know each
19 Id., at pp. 40-72, 75-76 (Id., at pp. 593-625, 628 to 628-A); TSN, other. We haven’t seen each other...baka maulit yan.” She and Estrada then
January 25, 1996, pp. 14-15; TSN, February 26, 1996, pp. 104-106. departed and went to her father’s house.22
206 Dr. Prospero A. Cabanayan, medico-legal officer of the National Bureau
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED of Investigation (NBI), who conducted the autopsy on the cadavers of the
Lejano vs. People victims, testified on his findings as stated in the autopsy reports he submitted
room. There she saw a man on top of Carmela who was lying on the floor, to the court. The bodies were photographed showing their condition before
two (2) bloodied bodies on top of the bed and Lejano who was at the foot of the start of the post-mortem examination.23 Considering that they were
the bed about to wear his jacket. She turned her eyes on Carmela who was almost in complete rigor mortis, the victims must have been dead for twelve
gagged, moaning and in tears while Webb was pumping her, his bare (12) hours. Carmela’s hands were on her back hogtied with an electric cord
buttocks exposed. Webb gave her a look and she immediately left the room. and her mouth gagged with a pillow case. She had contusions on her right
At the dining area, she met Ventura who told her: “Prepare an escape. Aalis forearm and thighs, ligature marks on her wrists and nine (9) stab wounds on
na tayo.” Shocked by what she saw, Alfaro rushed out of the house and her chest (five [5]  wounds are “connecting” or reaching to the back of the
found the rest of the group outside, in her car and on the sidewalk. 20 body). Further, specimen taken from her genitalia tested positive for the
Alfaro boarded her car and started the engine but did not know where to presence of human spermatozoa, which is indicative of complete penetration
proceed. She saw Webb, Lejano and Ventura leaving the house already. plus ejaculation of the male sex organ into the female sex organ. The
Webb suddenly picked up a stone and threw it to the main door, breaking its contusions on her thighs were probably due to the application of blunt force
glass frame. When the three (3) were near the pedestrian gate, Webb told such as a fist blow.24
Ventura that he left behind his jacket. But Ventura said they cannot make it Dr. Cabanayan further testified that Estrellita was also hogtied from
anymore as the iron grills were already locked. They all rode in their cars and behind and her wrists bore ligature marks from an electric cord with a plug.

Page 43 of 88
She sustained twelve (12) stab wounds, eight (8) of which are _______________
“communicating” or perforating (through and through stab wounds) which are 26 Exhibits “M” to “U”, Records, Vol. 8, pp. 319-322; TSN, January 31,
fatal since vital organs are involved. 25 As to Jennifer, her stab wounds, 1996, pp. 8-10, 13-20.
nineteen (19) in all, had the characteristics of 27 TSN, January 31, 1996, pp. 7, 17-18 and 74.
_______________ 28 TSN, March 25, 1996, pp. 8-14, 17-34.
22 Id., at pp. 111-112, 121-142 (Id. at pp. 663-664, 673-694); TSN, 209
February 27, 1996, pp. 38, 50-51; TSN, February 8, 1996, pp. 50, 55, 60-81; VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 209
May 22, 1995 Affidavit, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 97-98. Lejano vs. People
23 Exhibits “G” to “G-2”, “Q” to “R”, “V”, “W” and “X”, Records, Vol. 8, pp.     Having been apprised of the arrival of the police, White, Jr. returned to the
308-310, 323-324, 328-330. Vizconde house to observe what was going on. He saw the policemen
24 Exhibits “H” to “K”, Records, Vol. 8, pp. 311-315; TSN, January 30, already investigating the crime scene and one (1) of them he later came to
1996, pp. 64, 67-91; TSN, January 31, 1996, pp. 7-8. know as Gerardo Biong. There was also a woman who was with Biong when
25 Exhibit “Y” to “BB”, Records, Vol. 8, pp. 456-459; TSN, January 31, he was conducting the investigation inside the Vizconde premises at the
1996, pp. 59-75. garage area. The maids were being asked if they were able to hear the
208 breaking of the main door’s glass frame, and he saw Biong in the act of
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED further breaking the remaining glass. He recognized other homeowners who
Lejano vs. People were also there, including Michael Gatchalian who passed by infront of the
one (1) which is extremely blunt, the other extremely sharp. These wounds house. Afterwards, he returned to their guard post where their Officer-in-
are located in different parts of her body, most of which are on the left Charge (OIC), Justo Cabanacan, probed him and Mendez on anything they
anterior chest. But unlike Carmela and Estrellita, Jennifer had two (2) stab had observed the previous night. He and Mendez told Cabanacan that they
wounds on her back and incise wounds on her left and right forearms, the did not notice anything unusual except “Mike” (Michael Gatchalian) and his
latter usually referred to as defense wounds. Seven (7) of the nine (9) stab friends entering and exiting the subdivision gate (“labas-masok”).29
wounds on her chest were perforating, hence fatal wounds. 26 Judging from White, Jr. recounted that Mike’s group entered the subdivision on the night of
the characteristics of the stab wounds sustained by the victims, Dr. June 29, 1991. Upon approaching the gate, Mike’s car slowed down on the
Cabanayan concluded that they could have been inflicted using sharp-edged, hump. He was about to flag down and verify (“sisitahin”) but Mike (who was
pointed and single-bladed instruments such as a kitchen knife. 27 at the right front seat) immediately opened his window to show his face and
Normal E. White, Jr., one (1) of four (4) security guards assigned at Pitong pointed to two (2) vehicles behind him as his companions. Because of their
Daan Subdivision which is part of the United BF Homes, testified that he and policy allowing outsiders to enter the subdivision as long as they are
Edgar Mendez were the guards on duty on the night of June 29, 1991, accompanied by a homeowner, he and Mendez just let the three (3) vehicles
starting at 7:00 o’clock in the evening until 7:00 o’clock in the morning of in (Mike was in the first car). That was actually the second time he saw Mike
June 30, 1991. On June 30, 1991, at around 6:00 a.m., a homeowner called and his “barkada” that night because he had earlier seen them at Vinzons St.
his attention on the incident the previous night at the Vizconde house. He near the Gatchalian residence. However, he could no longer remember the
immediately proceeded to said house where there were already many precise time he saw the group on these two (2) instances. 30
people. The housemaids of the Vizcondes led him to the entrance at the White, Jr. further testified that on the night of June 30, 1991, policemen took
kitchen and pointed to the master’s bedroom. Upon entering the room, he him from the Pitong Daan Subdivision Homeowners’ Association and brought
saw the bloodied bodies of the victims: two (2) were on top of the bed, and him to the Parañaque Municipal Building. Biong was forcing him to admit that
one (1) lying down on the floor. He is familiar with Mrs. Vizconde, Carmela he was one (1) of those who
and Jennifer because they were kind to the guards and usually greeted them. _______________
Mrs. Vizconde was gagged and her hands tied, while Jennifer was also lying 29 Id., at pp. 21-22, 34-55; TSN, May 2, 1996, pp. 63-64.
on top of the bed. Carmela was lying on her back with one (1) of her legs 30 TSN, March 25, 1996, pp. 57-69.
raised, her dress pulled up and her genitals exposed. He also noticed that 210
the TV was still on with loud sound. He went out to call the police but he met 210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
their Security Chief whom he informed about the killings at the Vizconde Lejano vs. People
house. He then proceeded directly to the entrance/guard post of the killed the Vizconde women. Biong boxed him insisting he was among the
subdivision and was told by Mendez that there were already policemen who perpetrators and had no mercy for the victims. He and Mendez were later
had arrived.28 fetched by the Chief of Security of Pitong Daan Subdivision Homeowners’

Page 44 of 88
Association, Nestor Potenciano Jr., and OIC Justo Cabanacan. 31 Biong had Webb” written on it. After seeing the ID card, he returned the same to Webb
also taken their logbook where they list down the names of visitors, plate and allowed him to enter the subdivision. However, he did not anymore
number of vehicles, name and street of the homeowner they were staying at, record this incident in their logbook because anyway Webb is the son of the
etc. However, when presented with the alleged logbook, White, Jr. said it Parañaque Congressman, a well-known personality.34
was not the same logbook, he could not recognize its cover and could not In the morning of June 30, 1991, Cabanacan said he also went to the
categorically confirm the entries supposedly made in his own handwriting. 32 Vizconde house upon being told by Mendez and White, Jr. of the killings. By
Justo Cabanacan, another security guard assigned at the Pitong Daan afternoon of the same day, he came to meet Biong who was conducting the
Subdivision and the one (1) supervising his co-guards White, Jr., Mendez investigation. Based on the information given by Mendez and White, Jr., he
and Tungo, testified that when he reported for duty on June 30, 1991 at prepared a written report on the incident which he submitted to Nestor
about 7:00 o’clock in the morning, he was met by Mendez who told him about Potenciano, Jr. After the incident, Biong frequented their place to investigate
the killing of a homeowner and her family. When he asked Mendez if he and and asserting he had no female companion while conducting his
White, Jr. noticed anything unusual during their tour of duty the previous investigation at the Vizconde house on June 30, 1991. Aside from taking
night, Mendez said everything was alright except for Mike and his friends their logbook, Biong also took his two (2) guards (Mendez and White, Jr.) to
who had gone in and out of the subdivision (“labas-masok”) until the wee the police headquarters on June 30, 1991 at around 7:00 p.m. The said
hours in the morning of June 30, 1991. White, Jr. also reported to him that on guards also related to him
the night of June 29, 1991, while doing his roving duty around the _______________
subdivision, he noticed vehicles parked along Vinzons St. near the house of 33 TSN, March 14, 1996, pp. 12, 15-25, 41-45, 48, 51-54, 63-64; TSN,
Mr. Almogino where there seemed to be a drinking party, and that Mike was March 18, 1996, pp. 88-97.
“labas-masok” through the subdivision gate. He confirmed it was indeed their 34 TSN, March 14, 1996, pp. 79-89, 103-104.
policy that if one (1) is a son/daughter of a homeowner, or accompanied by a 212
homeowner or any relative of homeowner, he/she will no longer be stopped 212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
or queried by the guards. In particular, he knows Mike and had seen him visit Lejano vs. People
the house of Lilet Sy, another homeowner. He often goes to Lilet Sy’s house what Biong did to them. They said Biong punched them and forced them to
because of the various complaints of homeowners against her like the admit having participated in the Vizconde killings.35
presence of too many people at her house until midnight and the vehicles of Mila Solomon Gaviola, a laundrywoman who worked at the Webb residence
her visi- located at Aguirre Avenue, BF Homes, Parañaque from January to July
_______________ 199136 testified that on June 30, 1991 at around 4:00 in the morning, she
31 Id., at pp. 70-79. went to the room of Hubert to get his and his brothers’ (Jason and Michael’s)
32 Id., at pp. 79-109. dirty clothes, using the small “secret door” at the second floor near the
211 servants’ quarters. She noticed that Michael and Jason were still asleep
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 211 while Hubert was sitting on the bed wearing only his pants. When she
Lejano vs. People finished collecting dirty clothes including those of Senator Webb, she brought
tors running over her neighbors’ plants. This Lilet Sy is also a suspected drug them down to the laundry area. She ate breakfast and rested for a while.
pusher within the subdivision.33 Afterwards, she started washing first Senator Webb’s clothes and then those
Cabanacan further testified that around the last week of May or first week of of the sons. She washed Hubert’s white shirt with round neck and found it
June 1991, he came to know Hubert Webb because he had stopped his car had fresh blood stains at the stomach area and also splattered blood
at the subdivision gate as it had no local sticker of Pitong Daan Subdivision. (“tilamsik lang”) on the chest. She had difficulty removing the blood stains
It was around 7:00 o’clock in the evening when Webb arrived. He greeted and had to use Chlorox. After she finished washing the clothes, she hanged
Webb and asked about his destination. Webb replied he was going to see them to dry on the second floor. Returning to the servants’ quarters, she
Lilet Sy. When he asked Webb to leave an identification card, Webb pointed peeped into Hubert’s room through the “secret door.” She saw Hubert pacing
to his car sticker saying he is also a BF Homes resident. He explained to the floor (“di mapakali”); this was about 9:00 a.m. already. She saw Hubert
Webb that the sticker on his car was for United BF Homes and not the local again around 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon as he left the house passing
sticker of Pitong Daan Subdivision. Webb then said: “Taga-diyan lang ako sa through the “secret door”; he was clad in t-shirt and shorts. Hubert was back
Phase III...saka anak ako ni Congressman Webb.” He insisted on seeing at the house by 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon. She never saw him again until
Webb’s ID card and grudgingly Webb obliged and pulled out his wallet. Webb she left in July 1991.37
gave him a laminated ID card with Webb’s picture and with the name “Hubert

Page 45 of 88
Gaviola further testified that on June 30, 1991 at around 7:00 o’clock in the _______________
morning, she saw Senator Webb at the sala reading a newspaper. 38 39 TSN, April 16, 1996, pp. 18-38, 79.
Lolita Carrera Vda. de Birrer, a widow and resident of United Parañaque 214
Subdivision 5, testified that on June 29, 1991 at around 6:00 p.m., Biong who 214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
was then her boyfriend, asked her to come to the Lejano vs. People
_______________ room and on the top of the dining table they saw a shoulder bag and
35 Id., at pp. 104-106; TSN, March 18, 1996, pp. 20-22. scattered next to it were various items such as Carmela’s ATM card, her
36 Employment Contract of Gaviola, Exhibit “C”, Records, Vol. 8, p. 304. driver’s license and calling cards. Biong proceeded to the main door and
37 TSN, December 5, 1995, pp. 21-65. removed its chain lock. When they came out towards the garage area, Biong
38 TSN, December 6, 1995, p. 19; TSN, December 13, 1995, pp. 88-89. saw a stone by the window. He then asked Capt. Bartolome to go inside the
213 room of the two (2) maids to see for himself if indeed the noise of the
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 213 breaking glass could not be heard. When Capt. Bartolome was already inside
Lejano vs. People the middle room, Biong shattered the remaining glass of the main door with
Parañaque police station to play “mahjong” at Aling Glo’s canteen located at the butt of his gun. When Biong asked if he could hear it, Capt. Bartolome
the back of their office. They started playing at 6:30 in the evening. Between answered in the affirmative. Biong next inspected the garage where he saw
1:00 and 2:00 in the morning of June 30, 1991, the radio operator at the the footmarks on the car’s hood; Biong also found fingerprints on the electric
police station went down to the canteen telling Biong he has a call. She took bulb. She was just beside Biong at the time. They followed Biong towards the
Biong’s place at the game while Biong went to the headquarters. After a back of the house but upon seeing another shoe print on the ground just
while, she followed Biong to ask if he was joining the next bet. Biong was on outside the master’s bedroom, he directed them not to proceed any further.
the telephone talking with someone and visibly irked. She heard Biong’s They left the Vizconde house at around 10:00 a.m. and proceeded to the
words: “Ano?... Saan?... Mahirap yan ah! O sige, dadating ako... Ano?... Parañaque Municipal Building.40
Saan?... Dilaw na taxi?” Biong then told her he was leaving and shortly Birrer further testified that on July 1, 1991 at 10:00 o’clock in the morning,
thereafter a taxicab arrived with a man seated at the back seat. Biong bade Biong arrived at her house bringing along with him the two (2) maids of the
her good-bye saying he was going to BF Homes. She continued playing Vizcondes. He asked her to cook something for the maids to eat. Biong also
“mahjong” until morning. At around 7:00 a.m., Biong came back and went instructed her to interview the maids on what they know about the killings.
straight to the washing area of the canteen. She followed him and saw him She did as told but the maids said they do not know anything as they were
cleaning blood stains on his fingernails. After wiping his face and hands with asleep. After they had lunch, Biong told her to let the maids rest. While she
a handkerchief, he threw it away and when she asked why, Biong said it and the maids were resting at the sala, Biong requested to use her
smelled stinky. Biong was in bad mood (“aburido”) and complained, “Putang bathroom. Before taking a bath, Biong took out the contents of his pockets
inang mga batang ‘yon, pinahirapan ako nang husto”. Afterwards, Biong took which he put on the dining table. She saw Carmela’s ATM card and driver’s
out a knife with aluminum cover from his drawer and put it in his steel license, bracelet, earrings and the round pendant watch Biong had taken
cabinet. She invited him for lunch but another policeman, Galvan, came and from a jewelry box while they were inside the Vizconde house. When Biong
told Biong to proceed to BF Homes and investigate the three (3) dead left her house, he brought all said items with him. 41
persons there. Biong answered, “Oo, susunod na ako”  and then proceeded On July 2, 1991 at around 6:00 p.m., Birrer was at the Parañaque
to Capt. Bartolome’s office. With Capt. Bartolome’s permission, she joined Municipal Building inside Biong’s office. She saw Biong open his steel
them in going to the Vizconde residence.39 cabinet and took out a brown leather jacket which she thought was
Upon arriving at the Vizconde house, Biong asked that the victims’ relatives _______________
and the homeowners’ association President be summoned. A certain Mr. 40 Id., at pp. 38-56.
Lopez and Ms. Moreno arrived and also a security guard named White, Jr. 41 Id., at pp. 55-66; TSN, April 23, 1996, pp. 12-13.
who pointed to the location of the victims’ bodies. They entered the master’s 215
bedroom and she saw the mother and a small girl on top of the bed, and a VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 215
young woman sprawled on the floor. After inspecting the bodies, Biong went Lejano vs. People
to the toilet and turned on the faucet; the running water washed out the blood imported. When she asked him where it came from, Biong initially just
on the flooring of the toilet. Biong searched the drawers using his ballpen. said it was given as a gift but when she further queried, he answered:
She saw him took a round pendant watch and pocketed it. They went out of “Natatandaan mo ba ‘yong nirespondehan ko noong gabi sa BF Homes?
the Doon galing ‘yon.” She asked Biong whether those were the youths he had

Page 46 of 88
mentioned earlier and he said yes. As to the jewelries taken by Biong from had turned down a suitor whom she called “Bagyo,” who is a son of politician
the Vizconde house, she was with Biong when the latter pawned them at a in Parañaque and comes from an affluent family. He also expressed his
pawnshop near Chow-Chow; Biong got P20,000.00 for the pawned items. 42 mental anguish, wounded feelings, emotional suffering due to the untimely
Birrer further testified that two (2) weeks after they went to the Vizconde demise of his family. It actually cost him his life, his heart bled all the time
residence to investigate, Biong on two (2) occasions brought her along to a and only time can tell when he can fully cope with the situation. He is
certain house. It was only Biong who went inside the said house as she presently totally displaced and jobless; he misses his family and he now lives
waited in a taxicab. In both instances, Biong came out of the house with an an abnormal life with no inspiration and no more challenge to work for. When
envelope containing an undisclosed amount of money. She remembered this asked how much compensation he will ask for moral damages, he answered
because when she was already staying in Pangasinan on December 7, 1995, saying he leaves the matter to the sound discretion of the court as in truth, no
she saw flashed on ABS-CBN’s TV Patrol News 7:00 p.m. newscast on amount can truly compensate him for the loss of his loved ones. He sought
television, a video footage of the house of Senator Webb. She was certain it justice for the death of his family and hoped that the culprits, whoever they
was that house where Biong went and came out carrying cash in an were, will be punished so that the souls of his departed loved ones may rest
envelope.43 in peace.46
Lauro G. Vizconde, husband of Estrellita and father of Carmela and _______________
Jennifer, testified on the personal circumstances of the victims. At the time of 45 Id., at pp. 48-49, 53-72, 82-102; Exhibits “SSSS” and “TTTT”,
their deaths, Estrellita was engaged in business (at one   time or another she Records, Vol. 12, pp. 790-795.
was a garment manufacturer, taxi operator, canteen owner and local 46 Id., at pp. 80-82, 103-105.
employment recruiter), Carmela was a graduating B.S. Psychology student at 217
the University of Santo Tomas, while Jennifer was a Grade I pupil at VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 217
Bloomfield Academy at BF Resort, Las Piñas, Metro Manila. He left the Lejano vs. People
Philippines in November 1989 to work in the United States of America. He Defense Evidence
had not since returned to the country—until this unfortunate tragedy befell his The accused chiefly assailed the credibility of prosecution star witness
family—but communicated with his wife through telephone once or twice a Alfaro, in particular her execution of two (2) allegedly inconsistent affidavits
month.44 (one on April 28, 1995 and another on May 22, 1995) and raised alibi and
Lauro G. Vizconde further testified that his daughter, when she was still denial as defenses to the charge of rape with homicide attended by
alive, was so close to him that she confides her daily activi- conspiracy. During the trial, no less than 95 witnesses 47 were presented, and
_______________ voluminous documentary exhibits were submitted.
42 TSN, April 16, 1996, pp. 66-86. The testimonies of the principal witnesses for the defense are
43 Id., at pp. 96-104. summarized as follows:
44 TSN, February 11, 1997, pp. 14-19, 24-28, 31. Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb testified that at the time of the killings between
216 June 29 and 30, 1991, he was still in Anaheim Hills, California, U.S.A.,
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED having departed from the Philippines on March 9, 1991 on board a United
Lejano vs. People Airlines flight bound for San Francisco. He was accompanied by Gloria
ties, dreams, ambitions and plans in life. She intended to pursue further Webb, whose husband Richard Webb is the eldest brother of his father
masteral and doctoral degrees in business psychology in the U.S.A. In fact, Senator Freddie Webb. It was the first time he traveled to the US and he
that was the reason he transferred from one (1) state to another looking for a returned to the Philippines only on October 25, 1992. On the eve of his
school where Carmela could enroll. However, he had to come home in July departure, he, Rael, Tina and his then girlfriend Milagros Castillo went out
1991 and bury his wife and daughters whose violent deaths he was informed and had dinner at Bunchchums. Later that night, they went to Faces Disco at
of only upon arriving in the country and when he saw their bodies with stab Makati Avenue where his friends Paulo Santos and Jay Ortega followed.
wounds at the funeral parlor just before burial. He spent burial expenses in They went home at 3:00 o’clock in the morning already. After driving around
the amount of P289,000.00, plus P103,000.00 incidental expenses, in the city and bringing Milagros home, he arrived at his house at around
P300,000.00 paid for memorial lots and around P100,000.00 for the 5:00 a.m. His parents were already preparing to leave and so they headed to
construction of the mausoleum—with a grand total of P793,950.00. He the airport.48 Webb’s friend Rafael Jose, Paulo Santos, Senator Webb’s
likewise incurred litigation expenses in the amount of P97,404.50. 45 security staff Miguel Muñoz, Webbs’ secretary Cristina Magpusao and house
 In one (1) of their telephone conversations when he was still in the girl Victoria Ventoso corroborated Webb’s testimony that he departed from
U.S.A., Lauro Vizconde recounted that Carmela mentioned to him that she the Philippines on March 9, 1991.49

Page 47 of 88
Webb further testified that he stayed at the house of her Auntie Gloria 219
and Uncle Dinky at San Francisco until late April to May 1991. VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 219
_______________ Lejano vs. People
47 See page 4 of CA Decision, Rollo  (G.R. No. 176389),  p. 121. also met Rodriguez. While he admitted having gone out on a group with
48 TSN, August 14, 1997, pp. 11-19. Fernandez to the houses of their basketball buddies, he denied having gone
49 TSN, July 8, 1997, pp. 15-23, 61-62; TSN, June 9, 1997, pp. 9-10, 20- out with Rodriguez at any time. 52 He also denied knowing Biong who is
26; TSN, July 3, 1997, pp. 9-19; TSN, June 19, 1997, pp. 9-12, 29-36, 53-54; neither a driver nor security aide of his father.53
TSN, July 1, 1997, pp. 25-27. Gloria Webb testified that on March 9, 1991, she traveled with Webb on
218 a United Airlines flight to San Francisco. Webb stayed at her residence at
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 639 Gellert Boulevard, Daly City, California until May 1991 when he left to be
Lejano vs. People with his mother’s sister and relatives in Anaheim. Webb and her grandson
Upon the invitation of her aunt Susan Brottman, sister of his mother, he rode attended a “concierto” in the evenings and he also joined and helped her
a train and went to Anaheim where he stayed until mid-July 1991. Thereafter, son-in-law with his business. Webb went with them to church, to the malls
he rented a nearby place but did not complete the one (1) month pre-paid and in shopping. In April 1991, Webb went on a trip to Lake Tahoe with Mr.
lease period as he proceeded to Longwood, Florida. He stayed at the Wheelock and family.54
residence of his Uncle Jack and Sonia Rodriguez for almost a year (August Dorothy Wheelock testified that she became a US citizen in 1974 and
1991-August 1992). He went back to Anaheim and stayed at the house of his has been residing at 877 Las Lomas Drive, Milpitas, California. Webb’s
godmother and sister of his mother, Imelda Pagaspas, until October 1992. mother is her childhood friend and schoolmate. When she heard that Webb
He met his relatives and other personalities while in the US; visited Lake was in the US looking for a job, she invited him, and her husband Louis
Tahoe with the Wheelock family; toured Disneyland where Luis Wheelock Wheelock picked him up at Daly City in April 1991. To reciprocate the
filmed them and attended a concert with Christopher Esguerra who also took Webbs’ hospitality while they visited the Philippines in 1990, she and her
him out to the malls.50 family took Webb to a trip to Lake Tahoe in Nevada during which they even
Webb further testified that in the later part of June 1991, his parents took a video tape. Senator Freddie and Mrs. Webb also visited and stayed
joined him in the US. He applied for and was issued a driver’s license on with them for four (4) days in July 1991. They took them to a trip to Yosemite
June 14, 1991. He also worked at the pest control company of his cousin-in- Park, also with video footages taken by her husband.55
law Alex del Toro. Aside from his passport and airline ticket for return flight to Steven Keeler testified that he had been an American citizen since 1982
the Philippines, Webb presented before the court the logbook of jobs/tasks and resident of 4002 River Street, Newport Beach, California. He met Webb
kept by del Toro, in which he pointed to the entries therein which were at a dinner in the house of Webb’s aunt Susan Brottman in Anaheim Hills
actually performed by him; and also his purported pay check ($150 “pay to around May or June 1991. Brottman’s son, Rey Manlapit, was his good
Cash”), ID and other employment papers. He also identified some friend. They played basketball with Webb, went to bars, shopped and
handwritten letters he mailed while he was in the US and sent to his friend watched TV. He also knew that Webb bought a car and worked for Alex del
Jennifer Cabrera in the Philippines; photographs and video tape clips taken Toro for Environment
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 52 Id., at pp. 81-86.
mountain bicycle he bought on June 30, 1991 from the Orange Cycle store in 53 Id., at pp. 90-91.
Anaheim.51 54 TSN, April 30, 1997, pp. 73-74.
Webb denied having met Carmela Vizconde and neither does he know 55 TSN, April 23, 1997, pp. 128-129, 134-148.
Jessica Alfaro. He had been jailed since August 9, 1995. When asked about 220
his co-accused, Webb said the only ones he had met before June 29, 1991 220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
were Fernandez and Rodriguez. He used to play basketball with Fernandez Lejano vs. People
at BF Homes Phase III, during which he 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
50 Id., at pp. 28-73. Webb.56
51 TSN, September 1, 1997, pp. 5-79; Exhibits “223” to “295”, Records, Honesto Aragon testified that he went to the US in 1967 and became a
Vol. 21, pp. 11-25, 26, 31, 203, 207; Exhibits “79”, “319”, “331”, “234”, “295”, US citizen in 1989. On June 28, 1991, he met then Congressman Freddie
“346”, “305”, “306”, “307” and “244” to “246”. Webb at the house of the latter’s sister-in-law, Susan, at Anaheim.

Page 48 of 88
Congressman Webb introduced to him his son Hubert Webb. He, to see Congressman Webb at a house in Anaheim. That was the first time he
Congressman Webb and Hubert went to some stores to go shopping for a met Congressman Webb, Mrs. Webb, the sister-in-law and a Mr. Aragon. On
bicycle for Hubert. But they only bought bike accessories. He invited them to June 29, 1991, he and Rodriguez invited Congressman Webb to see Mr.
snack before he brought them to his own house where he introduced to them Vaca perform at La Calesa Restaurant in the City of Testin. When they
his son Andrew. The following day, June 29, 1991, they went to Riverside, fetched Congressman Webb at his sister-in-law’s house, he met again Mrs.
California to shop for a car for Hubert; though they found a Toyota MR2, they Webb, and also Hubert. He saw Hubert for the second time at Orlando,
did not buy it because it has questionable ownership. Early morning the next Florida when he went to the house of Jack Rodriguez there; this was about
day, he picked up Congressman Webb and they played tennis from 7:00 to July or August 1991.60
10:00 a.m. He and Congressman Webb were close friends, as both of them Sonia H. Rodriguez testified that she was appointed UNESCO
were members of a basketball team in Letran. The first time he saw Hubert Commissioner by then President Fidel V. Ramos. She has known accused
was when he was still a small kid and the other time on June 28, 1991 at the Webb since he was a child. On June 28, 1991, she and her husband
Brottman’s residence in Anaheim.57 boarded a plane for Los Angeles, California. They were fetched at the LA
Senator Freddie Webb testified that his son Hubert left for the US on airport by old-time friend Salvador Vaca and proceeded to the latter’s house
March 9, 1991, the first time he had gone out of the country. Hubert stayed in Orange County, California. They had dinner that evening with spouses
with his sister-in-law Gloria. They wanted to show Hubert the value of Freddie and Elizabeth Webb at the
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 58 TSN, July 16, 1997, pp. 37-42, 46-51, 58-62.
before departing for the US. He and his wife also went to the US on June 28, 59 Id., at pp. 65-70.
1991. They stayed at the house of his sister-in-law, Susan Brottman at 60 TSN, June 26, 1997, pp. 13-28.
Anaheim. From San Francisco, they went to Orlando, Florida, then back to 222
Los Angeles and returned to the Philippines on July 21, 1991. Among the 222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
places he visited while in the US were the Yosemite Park, Nordstrom, Lejano vs. People
Disneyland, Disneyworld. Upon arriving at Anaheim, he saw his son Hubert house of Susan Brottman. The next day, in the afternoon of June 29,
and also informed Honesto Aragon regarding their plan to procure a bicycle 1991, her husband and Salvador Vaca picked up Senator Webb from the
for Hubert. Hubert was with them again on June 29, 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.
56 TSN, June 2, 1997, pp. 51-64, 75-78. However, she and Mrs. Vaca decided to stay home. On June 30, 1991 at
57 TSN, July 16, 1996, pp. 16-17, 23-32, 61-63, 78-84. around 8:00 p.m., she and her husband went to the house of Susan
221 Brottman, together with Salvador and Mrs. Vaca and Louis Whitaker. She
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 221 recalled that Hubert was there at the time. She saw Hubert again on July 4,
Lejano vs. People 1991 when they went on a lakeside picnic with the Webb family, Brottmans
1991 at dinner in the residence of his sister-in-law. On July 1, 1991, they and Vacas. After watching the fireworks, they went to Sizzler Restaurant.
went shopping for some clothes. Together with Aragon, he and Hubert The next day, she and her husband stayed overnight at San Francisco where
looked for a Toyota MR2 car and paid for it with a check (the car was priced they also met Senator and Mrs. Webb. On August August 4, 1991, Hubert
at $6,000-$7,000).58 arrived in her home in Florida with her son Tony, daughter-in-law Ana, and
Senator Webb further testified that he knows Mila Gaviola who used to be stayed with them for almost one (1) year. The last time she saw Hubert was
their “labandera.” She left their house but returned to work for them again when he left Orlando, Florida on January 27, 1992. 61
about a couple of months after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. As to Alfaro’s Webb presented other witnesses to buttress his defense of alibi: Victor
statements implicating his son Hubert in the Vizconde killings, he said the Yap (who took video shots of Congressman Webb during a boat ride in
statements were not accurate because it was physically impossible for Disneyland);62 Armando Rodriguez (who testified seeing Hubert in Orlando
Hubert to have participated in the crime as he was abroad at the time. 59 either August or September 1991);63 performing artist Gary Valenciano (who
Louis Whitaker testified that he left the Philippines and resided in the US testified meeting Hubert at a dinner at the Rodriguez residence in Orlando on
since September 1964. He met Jack Rodriguez when the latter fetched him November 24, 1991, Jack Rodriguez being the father of his high school
and his wife Sonia at the Los Angeles International Airport on June 28, 1991 classmate Antonio Rodriguez;64 and Christopher Paul Legaspi Esguerra
upon their arrival from the Philippines. They proceeded to the house of a (grandson of Gloria Webb who went with Hubert Webb to watch the concert
mutual friend, Salvador Vaca, at Moresbay Street in Lake Forest. They went

Page 49 of 88
of the Deelite Band in San Francisco in the later part of April 1991 and saw 73 Exhibit “344”.
Hubert Webb for the last time in May 1991).65 74 Exhibit “346”.
Then a practicing lawyer, Atty. Antonio T. Carpio (now an Associate 75 Exhibit “309”, “309-A” and submarkings.
Justice of this Court) testified that on June 29, 1991 between 10:00 and 76 Exhibit “347” and submarkings.
11:00 o’clock in the morning, he had a telephone conversation with former 224
Congressman Webb who said he was calling from 224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________ Lejano vs. People
61 TSN, May 9, 1996, pp. 26-32, 37, 44-57. 8) Public Records of California Department of Motor Vehicle on sale to
62 TSN, July 29, 1997, pp. 54-58. Webb of Toyota MR2 car;77Traffic citations issued to Webb;78 Import
63 TSN, July 7, 1997, pp. 19-35. documents of said car into the Philippines; 79
64 TSN, July 2, 1997, pp 33-37.  
65 TSN, June 3, 1997, pp. 14-33. 9) Certification issued by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service
223 and correspondence between US and Philippine
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 223 Government;80 computer-generated print-out of the US-INS indicating
Lejano vs. People date of Webb’s entry in USA as March 9, 1991 and his date of
Anaheim, U.S.A., where he and his wife went to look for a job for their departure as October 26, 1992; 81 US-INS Certification dated August
son Hubert. They also talked about bills to be drafted as his law office had 31, 1995 authenticated by the Philippine Department of Foreign
been engaged by Congressman Webb for bill drafting services as well as Affairs, correcting the earlier August 10, 1995 Certification; 82
preparation of his speeches and statements. When asked if he had personal 10) Certification issued by Agnes Tabuena; 83Passenger Manifest of PAL
knowledge that Congressman Webb was really in the US at that time, he Flight No. 103;84 PAL ticket issued to Webb,85 Arrival in Manila
replied that since Webb had told him he was leaving for the US, he just Certification issued by the Philippine Immigration, 86 Diplomatic Note of
presumed it was so when Webb said he was then at Anaheim. Neither did he the US Department of State with enclosed letter from Acting Director
have personal knowledge that Hubert Webb was in the US at the time of his Debora A. Farmer of the Records Operations, Office of Records of the
conversation with Congressman Webb.66 US-INS stating that the Certification dated August 31, 1995 is a true
Webb submitted the following documentary evidence in connection with and accurate statement;87 and Certificate of Authentication of
his sojourn in the US: Philippine Consul Herrera-Lim.88
1) Video Tape recording of Disneyland trip on July 3, 1991; 67 _______________
2) Official Receipt issued by Orange Cycle Center dated June 30, 77 Exhibit “338”
1991,68 photographs of the bicycle purchased by Webb from said 78 Exhibits “341” and “342”, Records, Vol. 21, pp. 6-9, 40, 63-65, 112,
store;69 140, 141-145 (Vol. 3).
3) Car plate with the name “Lew Webb”;70 79 Exhibits “369” and “364”, Records, Vol. 21, pp. 24, 104-142 (Vol. 4).
4) Passport with Philippine Immigration arrival stamp;71 80 Exhibits “207” to”219”.
5) Photographs of Webb with Rodriguez family; 72 81 Exhibit “207-B”.
6) California Driver’s License of Webb,73Original License Card of Webb 82 Exhibit “212-D”, Records, Vol. 21, p. 265 (Vol. 1).
issued on June 14, 1991;74 83 Exhibit “260”.
7) Statement of Account issued to Environment First Termite Control 84 Exhibit “261”.
showing Check No. 0180;75 Bank of America Certification on Check 85 Exhibit “262”.
Nos. 0122 and 0180;76 86 Exhibit “192”, Records, Vol. 21, pp. 253-279 (Vol. 1), 1-7, 157, 158,
_______________ 169 (Vol. 2), 194 (Vol. 1).
66 TSN, August 12, 1997, pp. 9-12, 28-30. 87 Exhibit “215” “215-B” “215-C”, Records, Vol. 21, pp. 254-256, 272-274
67 Exhibit “331”. (Vol. 1).
68 Exhibit “337-B”. 88 Exhibit “216”; TSN, April 15-17, 1997.
69 Exhibit “349”, Records, Vol. 21, p. 116 (Vol. 3), 29-32 (Vol. 4). 225
70 Exhibit “348”. VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 225
71 Exhibit “319-A”. Lejano vs. People
72 Exhibits “323”, “325”, “326”.

Page 50 of 88
Accused Antonio Lejano and Michael Gatchalian likewise raised the Aragon for him to turn state witness and which offer was refused by
defense of alibi claiming that they spent the night of June 29, 1991 until early Gatchalian and his father;94 and Atty. Manuel Sunga who accompanied
morning of June 30, 1991 watching video tapes at the house of Carlos Syap Gatchalian to the Department of Justice (DOJ) when he submitted his
at Ayala Alabang Village. counter-affidavit (where there were already media people), testified that they
Lejano further testified that with the exception of Miguel “Ging” Rodriguez were invited to the conference room where State Prosecutor Zuño in the
and Michael “Mike” Gatchalian who are his former schoolmates, he does not presence of then Secretary Guingona made the offer for Gatchalian to turn
know any of his co-accused. They left the house of Syap brothers early state witness but it was rejected.95
morning of June 30, 1991; it was Cas Syap who brought him and Mike home. Atty. Francisco C. Gatchalian confirmed that the NBI and later the DOJ
On July 5, 1991, he and Cas Syap went to the police station where Mike, made offers for his son to turn state witness in this case but they refused for
who was picked up as a suspect by the police on July 4, was detained. When the reason that his son was innocent of the crime charged. Michael had told
they met Biong there, they told him they are willing to vouch for Mike’s him that on the night of June 29, 1991 until early morning of June 30, 1991,
innocence and even volunteered to give statements. Biong told them to Michael was with his friends at Ayala Alabang Village in Muntinlupa at the
return the following day. However, when he returned in the morning of July 6, residence of the Syaps. Gatchalian narrated that when he woke up to jog in
1991, Biong wanted his fingerprints taken right away but he told Biong he the morning of June 30, 1991 around 7:00 to 7:30, he passed by the
needed to consult someone first. He eventually submitted himself for Vizconde house and saw people milling in front. At about 8:30 a.m., he saw
fingerprinting after his name came out in the media. Lejano pointed out that the crowd getting bigger and so he instructed Michael who had wakened up,
Alfaro failed to identify him even as she passed by him three (3) times, and to find out and check what happened to their neighbor. Michael rushed out
was able to do so only when she was coached by the prosecution camp. 89 towards the Vizconde residence and when he came back about 10:00 o’clock
On the part of Michael Gatchalian, he presented nine (9) witnesses: Atty. that same morning, he reported that the house was robbed and people were
Porfirio “Perry” Pimentel, RPN 9 broadcast executive who testified that he killed inside the house. Both of them stayed
personally took video footages of Mon Tulfo’s interviews with some persons _______________
in America (including Honesto Aragon and the bicycle shop owner) who 92 TSN, January 21, 1998, pp. 14, 39-56.
attested that Hubert Webb was there at the time of the Vizconde killings, but 93 TSN, February 16, 1998 and February 19, 1998.
which segment was edited out in the program he produced (Action 9); 90 Mark 94 TSN, January 22, 1998, pp. 18-21, 40-44.
Anthony So, a former NBI intelligence agent who was tasked to confirm 95 TSN, January 26, 1998, pp. 91-92, 104-121. 
photos of Hubert Webb (his classmate at DLSU St. Benilde) to familiarize 227
Alfaro with his facial features;91 Matthew John Almogino, a childhood friend VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 227
and neighbor of Gatchalian, who testified that he was among those who went Lejano vs. People
inside the Vizconde house in the morning of June 30, 1991 in their house that day. He denied Alfaro’s claim that she was their distant
_______________ relative.96
89 TSN, October 9, 1997, pp. 39-64. Accused Miguel Rodriguez maintained he was at home when the killings
90 TSN, February 4, 1998, pp. 6-7, 17-30. took place. He presented as witness his first cousin Mark Josef Andres Rualo
91 TSN, February 9, 1998, pp. 18-19, 21-62. who testified that at around 1:00 in the morning of June 30, 1991, he called
226 up Rodriguez asking why he has not yet proceeded to the birthday party of
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Rualo at their house. Rodriguez replied that he could not make it because he
Lejano vs. People was not fetched by his brother Art (who was the one with a car). So he
and Biong even asked him to take pictures; thereupon at around 9:30 handed the telephone to Art (who had arrived at the party around 9:30 to
a.m., he saw Gatchalian in front of the Vizconde residence telling him that he 10:00 p.m.) for them to talk. From Rodriguez’s residence at Pilar Village, it
just woke up and exchanged pleasantries with him; and that as far as he will take about fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes by car. It was a big party
knows, Webb, Fernandez, Lejano and Gatchalian are not attended by some eighty (80) guests and which ended by 3:30 to 4:00 a.m.
“magbabarkada”;92 Atty. Leny Mauricio and Ana Marie Pamintuan of The But it was only the first time he had invited Rodriguez to his birthday party.
Philippine Star wherein a news article was published stating that Michael He knows Lejano, Rodriguez’s close friend and classmate, because
Gatchalian had rejected government’s offer for him to turn state witness in Rodriguez used to bring him along when Rodriguez comes to his house. 97
the Vizconde case;93 Atty. Camilo Murillo who accompanied Gatchalian on The other witnesses presented by Rodriguez, Col. Charles Calima, Jr.
July 19, 1991 when he gave his statement to the NBI, testified that Atty. Pete and Michael Rodriguez, testified on the alleged incident of “mistaken identity”
Rivera relayed to Gatchalian the request of then NBI Director Honesto wherein Alfaro supposedly pointed to one (1) “Michael Rodriguez,” a drug

Page 51 of 88
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 98 TSN, August 6, 1996, pp. 13-41; TSN, May 22, 1997, pp. 72, 81-131,
that when Alfaro confronted this “Michael Rodriguez,” she became very 142-157; Exhibits “274” and “275”.
emotional and immediately slapped and kicked him telling him, “How can I 99  TSN, November 12, 1997, pp. 7-8, 17-19, 38-43, 55-72.
forget your face. We just saw each other in a disco one month ago and you 229
told me then that you will kill me.” Contrary to the physical description given VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 229
by the NBI, the accused Miguel Rodriguez he saw inside the court room had Lejano vs. People
no tattoo on his arm and definitely not the same “Michael Rodriguez” whom Biong admitted that Birrer went along with him, Galvan and Capt.
Alfaro slapped and kicked at the NBI premises. Michael Rodriguez testified Bartolome to the Vizconde residence in the morning of June 30, 1991. Upon
that he was blindfolded and brought to the comfort room by NBI agents and arriving at the Vizconde house, he looked for the victims’ relatives and the
forced to admit that he was Miguel Rod- homeowners’ association president; Atty. Lopez and Mrs. Mia came. In going
_______________ inside the house, they passed through the kitchen door which was open
96 TSN, February 3, 1998, pp. 10-11, 29-42. already. On top of the kitchen table, there was a lady’s bag with things
97 TSN, January 14, 1998, pp. 6-7, 9-26, 38-41, 43-47. scattered; he later inspected them but did not think of examining the bag or
228 taking note of the calling cards and other items for possible relevance to the
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED investigation. Upon entering the master’s bedroom, he saw the bloodied
Lejano vs. People bodies. Mrs. Vizconde’s hands were hogtied from behind and her mouth
riguez; he identified Alfaro and Atty. Figueras from a collage of gagged while Jennifer’s body was also bloodied. Carmela who was lying on a
photographs shown to him in court.98 floor carpet was likewise gagged, her hands hogtied from behind and her
Accused Gerardo Biong testified that the last time he handled this case legs spread out, her clothes raised up and a pillow case was placed on top of
was when General Filart announced the case as solved with the presentation her private part. He had the bodies photographed and prepared a spot
of suspects sometime in October 1991. However, he was subpoenaed by the report.100
NBI for the taking of his statement because Lauro Vizconde complained that Biong also admitted that before the pictures were taken, he removed with
he had stolen jewelries at the Vizconde house. He had sought the his bare hands the object, which was like a stocking cloth, that was wrapped
examination of latent fingerprints lifted from the crime scene but the suspects around Carmela’s mouth and neck. As to the main door glass, it was the
turned out negative when tested. He denied the accusation regarding the upper part which he broke. There was a red jewelry box they saw where a
destruction of evidence as well as missing items during his investigation at pearl necklace inside could be seen; he remembered he had it photographed
the Vizconde residence. The bloodied bed, mats, pillows and bed sheets but he had not seen those pictures. They left the Vizconde house and
were burned by people at the funeral parlor as ordered by Mr. Gatmaitan. brought the cadavers to the funeral parlor. He did not take steps to preserve
Among the suspects he had then were Michael Gatchalian, Tony Boy Lejano the bloodied carpet, bed sheets and blankets because they have been
and Cas Syap. As to the testimony of Birrer that they played “mahjong” on previously told by NBI that no evidence can be found on such items. As for
the night of June 29, 1991, he said it was not true because the place was the footprint and shoe print found on the hood of the car and at the back of
closed on Saturdays and Sundays. After a surveillance on Birrer, he the house, he also could not recall if he had those photographed. It was only
discovered she had in her possession Carmela’s driver’s license and was the following day that he brought an employee of the Parañaque police to lift
driving a car already. He denied Birrer’s account that he went to a place after fingerprints from the crime scene; he was the one (1) giving instructions at
receiving a telephone call at 2:30 in the morning of June 30, 1991. As to the time. However, no latent fingerprints had been taken; despite attempts,
Alfaro, he met her for the first time at the NBI on June 23, 1995. His brown no clear fingerprint had been lifted and he did not any more ask why. 101
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 100 TSN, November 17, 1997, pp. 43-73.
accusations of Birrer, saying that she was angry at him because they 101 Id., at pp. 78-125.
separated and he had hit her after he heard about her infidelity. Neither has 230
he seen Alfaro before the filing of this case. He was administratively charged 230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
before the Philippine National Police (PNP) for Grave Misconduct due to non- Lejano vs. People
preservation of evidence. He was offered by the NBI to turn state witness but Biong further admitted that he was so angry with the Vizconde
he declined as he found it difficult to involve his co-accused whom he does housemaids as he did not believe they did not hear anything despite the loud
not really know.99 sound of the breaking of the main door glass. He also admitted mauling

Page 52 of 88
Normal E. White, Jr. because he thought he was withholding information remained consistent in her narration of the events despite a lengthy and
during the investigation. Edgar Mendez did not tell him about the entry of a grueling cross-examination conducted on her by eight (8) defense lawyers.
three (3)-vehicle convoy into the subdivision on the night of June 29, 1991. Neither was her credibility and veracity of her declarations in court affected
As for Michael Gatchalian, he knows him because on July 3, 1991 at 4:30 by the differences and inconsistencies between her April 28, 1995 and May
a.m., they caught him at Vinzons St. at the entrance of Pitong Daan 22, 1995 affidavits, which she had satisfactorily explained during the trial
Subdivision for possession of marijuana. However, he does not know any considering the circumstances that she initially desired to protect her former
more what happened to that case he filed against Gatchalian as he was boyfriend Estrada and her relative Gatchalian, the absence of a lawyer
already dismissed from the service.102 He also admitted having mauled during the first taking of her statements by the NBI, her distrust of the first
Gatchalian while interrogating him for his participation in the Vizconde investigators who took her statements and prepared her April 28, 1995
killings.103 affidavit, and her uncertainty if she could obtain adequate support and
Ruling of the Trial Court security for her own life were she to disclose everything she knows about the
On January 4, 2000, the trial court rendered its Decision 104 finding all the Vizconde killings.
accused guilty as charged, the dispositive portion of which reads:  On the other hand, the trial court ruled that principal accused Webb,
“WHEREFORE, this Court hereby finds all the principal accused GUILTY Lejano, Rodriguez and Gatchalian failed to establish their defense
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE WITH of alibi,  the accused having been positively identified by Alfaro as the group
HOMICIDE AND HEREBY SENTENCES EACH ONE OF THEM TO who conspired and assisted one (1) another in plotting and carrying out on
SUFFER THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA. This Court likewise the same night the rape of Carmela, on the occasion of which Carmela’s
finds the accused Gerardo Biong GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT mother and sister were also stabbed to death. The trial court held that Alfaro
AS AN ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT, AND HEREBY SENTENCES HIM gave a clear, positive and convincing testimony which was sufficiently
TO SUFFER AN IMPRISONMENT OF ELEVEN (11) YEARS, FOUR (4) corroborated on its material points by the testimonies of other witnesses and
MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY TO TWELVE (12) YEARS.  In addition, the confirmed by the physical evidence on record.
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 105 Records, Vol. 25, pp. 170-171.
indemnity: 232
1. The amount of P150,000.00 for wrongful death of the victims; 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
2. The amount of P762,450.00 representing actual damages sustained Lejano vs. People
by Mr. Lauro Vizconde; The Court of Appeals Ruling
_______________ By Decision of December 15, 2005, the CA affirmed with modification the
102 TSN, November 12, 1997, pp. 37-39, 51-52, 91-94. trial court’s decision:
103 TSN, November 18, 1997, pp. 37-44. “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Regional Trial
104 Records, Vol. 25, pp. 1-171. Penned by Judge Amelita G. Tolentino Court, Branch 274 of Parañaque City in Criminal Case No. 95-404, finding
(now an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals). accused-appellants Hubert “Jeffrey” Webb y Pagaspas, Antonio “Tony Boy”
231 Lejano, Michael Gatchalian y Adviento, Hospicio “Pyke” Fernandez, Peter
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 231 Estrada, Miguel “Ging” Rodriguez GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
Lejano vs. People as principals, and Gerardo Biong as accessory, of the crime of RAPE with
3. The amount of P2,000,000.00 as moral damages sustained by Mr. HOMICIDE, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, as indicated:
Lauro Vizconde; 1). We AFFIRM the sentence of accused-appellants Webb, Lejano,
4. The amount of P97,404.55 as attorney’s fees; Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, and Rodriguez to suffer the penalty
Let an alias warrant of arrest be issued against the accused Artemio of reclusion perpetua and its corresponding accessory penalties under
“Dong” Ventura and Joey Filart for their eventual apprehension so that they Article 41 of the Revised Penal Code;
can immediately be brought to trial. 2).  We MODIFY the penalty of Gerardo Biong who is an accessory to
SO ORDERED.”105 the crime. Accused-appellant Biong is sentenced to an indeterminate
 The trial court found Alfaro as a credible and truthful witness, considering prison term of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to
the vast details she disclosed relative to the incident she had witnessed twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as maximum, and absolute
inside the Vizconde house. The trial court noted that Alfaro testified in a perpetual disqualification under Article 58 of the Revised Penal Code;
categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and has and

Page 53 of 88
3).  We MODIFY the civil indemnity. Accused-appellants Webb. Lejano, 42285 and CA-G.R. SP No. 42673 entitled “Rodriguez v.
Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada and Rodriguez are ORDERED to pay Tolentino”  and “Webb, et al. v. Tolentino, et al.,” which had long become
jointly and severally the surviving heir of the victims, Mr. Lauro final.
Vizconde. the amounts of P200,000.00 as civil indemnity, _______________
P762,450.00 as actual damages, P2,000,000.00 as moral damages 107 Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Lucenito N. Tagle dissented. See
and P97,404.55 as attorney’s fees, with the corresponding subsidiary Dissenting Opinion, CA Rollo Vol. IV.
liability against accused-appellant Biong pursuant to Article 110, 234
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. 234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
     SO ORDERED.”106 Lejano vs. People
 The CA upheld the trial court in giving full weight and credence to the Appellants’ Arguments
eyewitness testimony of Alfaro which was duly corroborated by other Appellants Webb and Lejano set forth the following arguments in their
prosecution witnesses who had not been shown to have ill-motive and Supplemental Appeal Brief as grounds for the reversal of the CA Decision
malicious intent in revealing what they know about the Vizconde killings. It and their acquittal in this case:
disagreed with the appellants’ view that they I
_______________ THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING APPELLANT WEBB’S ABSENCE FROM
106 CA Rollo, Vol. IV, pp. 3478-3479. PHILIPPINE TERRITORY BETWEEN 9 MARCH 1991 AND 27 OCTOBER
233 1992 ENGENDERS A REASONABLE DOUBT AND PRECLUDES AN
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 233 ABIDING CONVICTION, TO A MORAL CERTAINTY, OF HIS GUILT OF
Lejano vs. People THE CRIME CHARGED. THUS, AS CORRECTLY APPRECIATED BY
were victims of an unjust judgment upon their mere allegations that they JUSTICES TAGLE AND DACUDAO IN THEIR SEPARATE DISSENTING
were tried by publicity, and that the trial judge was biased whose OPINIONS—
discriminatory and hostile attitude was demonstrated by her rejection of 132 A. THE PASSPORT OF APPELLANT WEBB, AS THE OFFICIAL
out of 142 exhibits of the defense during the bail hearings and her refusal to TRAVEL DOCUMENT ISSUED BY THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT
issue subpoenas to prospective defense witnesses such as former Secretary TO HIM, IS STAMPMARKED AND INITIALED WITH THE
Teofisto Guingona and Antonio Calvento. DEPARTURE DATE OF 9 MARCH 1991 AND ARRIVAL DATE OF 27
 The CA also fully concurred with the trial court’s conclusion that all the OCTOBER 1992, SHOWING THAT HE WAS NOT IN THE
principal accused failed to establish their defense of alibi after carefully PHILIPPINES BUT ABROAD AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION
evaluating the voluminous documentary and testimonial evidence presented OF THE CRIME ON 29 JUNE 1991.
by the defense. On the issue of conspiracy, the CA found that the B. THE CERTIFICATIONS AND COMPUTER PRINTOUT ISSUED BY
prosecution was able to clearly and convincingly establish its presence in the THE UNITED STATES INS NON-IMMIGRANT INFORMATION
commission of the crime, notwithstanding that appellants Rodriguez, SYSTEM, WHICH INDICATE EXACTLY THE SAME DEPARTURE
Gatchalian, Estrada and Fernandez did not actually rape Carmela, nor AND ARRIVAL DATES OF 9 MARCH 1991 AND 27 OCTOBER 1992,
participated in killing her, her mother and sister. CONFIRM THAT IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR
On motion for reconsideration filed by the appellants, the CA’s Special APPELLANT WEBB TO HAVE COMMITTED THE CRIME.
Division of Five, voting 3-2, affirmed the December 15, 2005 Decision. 107 In C. THE RULING THAT APPELLANT WEBB WAS “SMUGGLED” INTO
the Resolution dated January 26, 2007, the majority reiterated that it has fully AND OUT OF THE PHILIPPINES WITHIN 9 MARCH 1991 AND 27
explained in its Decision why the US-INS Certifications submitted by OCTOBER 1992, WITH THE US INS CERTIFICATIONS BEING THE
appellant Webb deserve little weight. It stressed that it is a case of positive PROBABLE PRODUCT OF “MONEY, POWER, INFLUENCE, OR
identification versus alibi founded on documentary evidence. On the basis of CONNECTIONS” IS BASED ON PURE SPECULATION AND BIASED
the rule that alibi  is accepted only upon the clearest proof that the accused CONJECTURE AND NOT ON A CONCLUSION THAT ANY COURT
was not and could not have been at the crime scene when it was committed, OF LAW SHOULD MAKE.
the CA in resolving the appeal considered the weight of documentary D. NO LESS THAN THE HONORABLE JUSTICE ANTONIO T. CARPIO
evidence in light of testimonial evidence—an eyewitness account that the TESTIFIED IN OPEN COURT THAT IN THE MORNING OF 29 JUNE
accused was the principal malefactor. As to the issue of apparent 1991, OR BEFORE THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME, HE HAD
inconsistencies between the two (2) affidavits executed by Alfaro, the CA AN OVERSEAS CONVERSATION WITH SEN. FREDDIE N. WEBB
said this is a settled matter, citing the Joint Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. ON

Page 54 of 88
235 III
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 235 THE PROCEEDING BELOW WAS ATTENDED BY IRREGULARITIES
Lejano vs. People SHOWING PARTIALITY ON THE PART OF THE TRIAL JUDGE IN
THE LATTER’S PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES WITH HIS WIFE VIOLATION OF HEREIN ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO DUE
AND APPELLANT WEBB. PROCESS.
II IV
THE DISSENTING JUSTICES CORRECTLY REJECTED JESSICA THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING HEREIN
ALFARO FOR NOT BEING A CREDIBLE WITNESS AND FOR GIVING ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
INCONSISTENT AND UNRELIABLE TESTIMONY. xxxx
III I
THE COURT OF APPEALS MANIFESTLY ERRED IN DISCARDING EACH BY ALL STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE, THE TESTIMONY OF
AND EVERY PIECE OF THE ACCUSED’S EVIDENCE AND PRACTICALLY JESSICA ALFARO CANNOT BE JUDICIALLY RECOGNIZED.
REDUCING THE APPEAL BELOW INTO AN EXERCISE OF FINDING II
GROUNDS TO DOUBT, SUSPECT AND ACCORDINGLY REJECT THE THE CRIMINAL CONNECTION OF MICHAEL GATCHALIAN TO THE
PROOF OFFERED BY THEM IN THEIR DEFENSE INSTEAD OF GIVING GRUESOME VIZCONDE MURDERS HAS NOT EVEN BEEN REMOTELY
DUE WEIGHT AND CONSIDERATION TO EACH IN ORDER TO SHOWN TO SERVE AS A BASIS FOR CONVICTION.
THOROUGHLY SATISFY ITSELF OF THE “MORAL CERTAINTY” III
REQUIREMENT IN CRIMINAL CASES. IN THE REQUIRED JUDICIAL EVALUATION PROCESS, THE
IV ENVIRONMENTAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE RECORD OF THIS CASE
IN LIGHT OF THE BASIC TENETS UNDERLYING OUR CRIMINAL POINT UNERRINGLY TO THE INNOCENCE OF MICHAEL GATCHALIAN.
JUSTICE SYSTEM, WHICH ESCHEW A FINDING OF GUILT UNLESS IV
ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AND ORDAIN THE THE RULES ON EVIDENCE ON BURDEN OF PROOF AND OF THE
RESOLUTION OF ALL DOUBTS IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED, THE STANDING PRESUMPTIONS IN LAW HAVE BEEN GROSSLY
COURT OF APPEALS MANIFESTLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE VIOLATED.237
CONVICTION OF APPELLANT WEBB WHEN THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI HE VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 237
ESTABLISHED BY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT TO Lejano vs. People
ENGENDER REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO HIS GUILT OF THE OFFENSE V
CHARGED. THE SCALES OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TILTED IN HIS, AND MICHAEL GATCHALIAN RESPECTFULLY INVOKES HIS
NOT THE PROSECUTION’S, FAVOR.108 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS ON THE GROUNDS OF
Appellant Gatchalian reiterates the arguments he had raised in his appeal BIAS AND PREJUDICE, AND FOR ALL THAT IT IS WORTH, HIS
brief and motion for reconsideration filed before the CA, as follows: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL AND A SPEEDY
I DISPOSITION OF HIS CASE.109
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE Additionally, Gatchalian assails the denial by the trial court of his motion
INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF SUPPOSED EYEWITNESS JESSICA AL- (and also appellant Webb’s) for DNA testing despite a certification from the
_______________ NBI that the specimen semen remained intact, which Justice Tagle in his
108 Rollo  (G.R. No. 176864), pp. 266-267. dissenting opinion also found as unjust. He further argues that the right to a
236 speedy trial is violated even if the delay was not caused by the prosecution
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED but by events that are not within the control of the prosecution or the courts.
Lejano vs. People Thus, the length of time which took Alfaro to come forward and testify in this
FARO AND CORROBORATING WITNESSES NORMAL WHITE AND case is most conspicuous. Her delay of four (4) years in reporting the crime
JUSTO CABANACAN. has to be taken against her, particularly with the story behind it. She
II volunteered to come forward only after the arrests of previous accused did
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE not lead anywhere. Moreover, it is clear that she adopted the version
PROSECUTION HAS PROVED THE CONSPIRACY BEYOND previously advanced by an “akyat-bahay” gang, as noted by Justice Dacudao
REASONABLE DOUBT AND IN CONVICTING HEREIN ACCUSED- in his dissenting opinion. Gatchalian thus contends that the delay occurred
APPELLANT BASED ON SUCH CONSPIRACY. even before a preliminary investigation was conducted and cites cases

Page 55 of 88
upholding the right of accused persons to a speedy trial where there was 112 People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA
delay in the preliminary investigation.110 828.
Totality of Evidence Established the 113 People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 173197, April 24, 2007, 522 SCRA
Guilt of Appelants Beyond Reasonable Doubt 207.
Appellants assail the lower courts in giving full faith and credence to the 239
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Jessica Alfaro despite VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 239
inconsistencies and contradictions in her two (2) affidavits, and the alleged Lejano vs. People
“piece by piece discarding” of their voluminous documentary exhibits and [2] that Ventura climbed on the hood of the Nissan Sentra car and loosened
testimonies of no less than ninety-five (95) the light bulb to turn it off was confirmed by the testimony of Birrer and
_______________ appellant Biong that they found a shoe print on the hood of the car parked
109 Id., at pp. 356-358. inside the garage of the Vizconde house; even defense witnesses Dennis
110 Id., at pp. 402-404. Almogino (neighbor of the Vizcondes) and SPO2 Reynaldo Carbonnel
238 declared that the garage was totally without light; [3] that a lady’s bag was on
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED top of the dining table in the kitchen was likewise confirmed by Birrer and
Lejano vs. People Biong; [4] that a loud static sound coming from the TV set inside the master’s
witnesses. They contend that the totality of evidence engenders a bedroom which led Alfaro to the said room, matched with the observations of
reasonable doubt entitling them to acquittal from the grave charge of rape the Vizconde housemaids, Birrer and Biong that when they went inside the
with homicide. Vizconde house in the morning of June 30, 1991, the TV set inside the
 After a thorough and conscientious review of the records, I firmly believe master’s bedroom was still turned on with a loud sound;   [5] the positioning
that the CA correctly upheld the conviction of appellants. of the dead bodies of Carmela, Estrellita and Jennifer and their physical
Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses appearance or condition (hogtied, gagged and bloodied) was correctly
The determination of the competence and credibility of a witness rests described by Alfaro, consistent with the declarations of White, Jr., Birrer and
primarily with the trial court, because it has the unique position of observing Biong who were among those who first saw the bodies in the morning of
the witness’ deportment on the stand while testifying. 111 It is a fundamental June 30, 1991; [6] that Carmela was raped by Webb and how the three (3)
rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which women were killed as Alfaro learned from the conversation of the appellants
involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross at the BF Executive Village house, was consistent with the findings of Dr.
misapprehensions of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported Cabanayan who conducted the autopsy and post-mortem examination of the
conclusions can be gathered from such findings. 112 When the trial court’s cadavers in the morning of June 30, 1991 showing that the victims died of
findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are multiple stab wounds, the specimen taken from Carmela’s vaginal canal
generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.113 tested positive for spermatozoa and the approximate time of death based on
Reexamining the testimony of Alfaro, who underwent exhaustive and the onset of rigor mortis, which would place it between midnight and 2:00
intense cross-examination by eight (8) defense lawyers, it is to be noted that o’clock in the morning of June 30, 1991;  [7] that Webb, just before going out
she revealed such details and observations which only a person who was of the gate of the Vizconde house, threw a stone which broke the glass frame
actually with the perpetrators could have known. More importantly, her of the main door, jibed with the testimony of Birrer who likewise saw a stone
testimony was corroborated on its material points by the declarations of other near the broken glass panel at the living room of the Vizconde house, and
prosecution witnesses, to wit: [1] that their convoy of three (3) vehicles Biong himself testified that he even demonstrated to Capt. Bartolome and the
repeatedly entered the Pitong Daan Subdivision on the night of June 29, housemaids the loud sound by again hitting the glass of the main door; 114and
1991 was confirmed by the security guard on duty, Normal White, Jr., who [8] that after Webb made a call on his cellular phone,
also testified that he had seen Gatchalian and his group standing at the _______________
vicinity of the Almogino residence located near the end of Vinzons St., which 114 See photographs, Exhibits “GGGG-1” and “GGGG-4”, Records, Vol.
is consistent with Alfaro’s testimony that on their first trip to the subdivision 12, pp. 742-746.
she parked her car infront of the Vizconde house while appellants parked 240
their respective cars near the dead end of Vinzons St.; 240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________ Lejano vs. People
111 People v. Comanda,  G.R. No. 175880, July 6, 2007, 526 SCRA 689. Biong arrived at around 2:00 o’clock in the morning of June 30, 1991 at the
BF Executive Village house where she and appellants retreated, was

Page 56 of 88
consistent with the testimony of Birrer that Biong left the “mahjong” session Vizconde killings cannot be taken against Alfaro. In fact, she had to muster
to answer a telephone call between 1:00 to 2:00 o’clock in the morning of enough courage to finally come out in the open considering that during her
June 30, 1991 and thereafter Birrer asked where he was going, to which last encounter with appellants at a discotheque in 1995, she was threatened
Biong replied “BF” and shortly thereafter a taxicab with a man at the by appellant Rodriguez that if she will not keep her mouth shut, she will be
backseat fetched Biong.  killed. He even offered her a plane ticket for her to go abroad. Coming from
Indeed, Alfaro could not have divulged the foregoing details of the crime if wealthy and influential families, and capable of barbaric acts she had already
she did not really join the group of Webb in going to the Vizconde residence seen, appellants instilled such fear in Alfaro that her reluctance to report to
and witness what happened during the time Webb, Lejano and Ventura were the authorities was perfectly understandable.
inside the house and when the group retreated to BF Executive Village. I find that the circumstances of habitual drug use and delay in reporting a
Contrary to appellants’ contention, Alfaro’s detailed testimony appears clear crime did not affect the competence and credibility of prosecution witness
and convincing, thus giving the Court the impression that she was sincere Alfaro. It bears stressing that the fact of delay alone does not work against
and credible. She even opened her personal life to public scrutiny by the witnesses. Delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not
admitting that she was addicted to shabu for sometime and that was how she necessarily impair the credibility of the witness if such delay is satisfactorily
came to meet Webb’s group and got entangled in the plot to gang-rape explained.116
Carmela. Her being a former drug user in no way taints her credibility as a Besides, appellants failed to adduce any evidence to establish any
witness. The fact that a witness is a person of unchaste character or even a improper motive that may have impelled Alfaro to falsely testify against them,
drug dependent does not per se affect her credibility.115 other than their allegation that she regularly associated with NBI agents as
Alfaro’s ability to recollect events that occurred four (4) years ago with her one (1) of their informants. The absence of evidence of improper motive on
mental condition that night of June 29, 1991 when she admittedly the part of the said witness for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the
took shabu three (3) times and even sniffed cocaine, was likewise conclusion that no such
questioned by the appellants. When the question was posed to Alfaro on _______________
cross-examination, she positively stated that while indeed she had 116 People v. Simon, G.R. No. 130531, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 330,
taken shabu at that time, her perception of persons and events around her 352, citing People v. Rostata,  G.R. No. 91482, February 9, 1993, 218 SCRA
was not diminished. Her faculties unimpaired by the drugs she had taken that 657.
night, Alfaro was able to vividly recall what transpired the whole time she was 242
with appellants. Alfaro testified that even if she was then a 242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
regular shabu user, she had not reached that point of being Lejano vs. People
paranoid (“praning”). It was the first time Alfaro sniffed cocaine and she improper motive exists and that her testimony is worthy of full faith and
described its initial effect as being credit.117 Neither had appellants established any ill-motive on the part of the
_______________ other prosecution witnesses.
115 People v. Comiling, G.R. No. 140405, March 4, 1004, 424 SCRA Inconsistencies and Discrepancies in Alfaro’s April 28, 1995 and May
698, 719, citing Francisco, Evidence, Vol. VII, 1990 ed., p. 743. 22, 1995 Affidavits
241 Appellants, from the start of preliminary investigation, have repeatedly
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 241 harped on the discrepancies and inconsistencies in Alfaro’s first and second
Lejano vs. People affidavits. However, this Court has repeatedly ruled that whenever there is
“stoned,” but lasting only five (5) to seven (7) minutes. However, she did not inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court,
fall asleep since shabu  and “coke” are not downers. the testimony commands greater weight. 118 With greater relevance should
Alfaro further explained her indifference and apathy in not dissuading this rule apply in situations when a subsequent affidavit of the prosecution
Webb and her group from carrying out their evil plan against Carmela as due witness is intended to amplify and correct inconsistencies with the first
to the numbing effect of drugs, which also enabled her to dislodge from her affidavit, the discrepancies having been adequately explained. We held
mind the harrowing images of the killings for quite sometime. Eventually, the in People v. Sanchez119
chance to redeem herself came when she was invited to a Christian ...we advert to that all-too familiar rule that discrepancies between sworn
fellowship, and with her child’s future in mind, her desire to transform her life statements and testimonies made at the witness stand do not necessarily
grew stronger. As she cast off her addiction to drugs, its desensitizing effect discredit the witnesses. Sworn statements/affidavits are generally
began to wear off and her conscience bothered her no end. Under such subordinated in importance to open court declarations because the former
circumstances, the delay of four (4) years in admitting her involvement in the are often executed when an affiant’s mental faculties are not in such a state

Page 57 of 88
as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which has 121 TSN, October 17, 1995, pp.12-15, 23, 40-41, 139, 152, 161; TSN,
transpired. Testimonies given during trials are much more exact and October 18, 1995, p. 180; TSN, July 2, 1996, pp. 74, 82-86; TSN, July 11,
elaborate. Thus, testimonial evidence carries more weight than sworn 1996, pp. 43-52.
statements/affidavits.120 122 People v. Pineda,  G.R. No. 141644, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 478,
Alfaro explained the circumstances surrounding her execution of the first 495, citing People v. Quima, No. L-74669, 14 April 1988, 159 SCRA 613
Affidavit dated April 28, 1995 which was done without the presence of a citing People v. Alto, 135 Phil. 136; 26 SCRA 342 (1968).
lawyer and at the house of agent Mario Garcia where she was brought by 244
Atty. Sacaguing and Moises Tamayo, another 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________ Lejano vs. People
117 People v. Zinampan,  G.R. No. 126781, September 13, 2000, 340 elements constituting the crime were duly proven by the prosecution to be
SCRA 189, 200. present.123
118 Fukuzume v. People, G.R. No. 143647, November 11, 2005, 474 There appears to be no question about the fact that a horrible and most
SCRA 570. unfortunate crime has been committed. It is, in this case, indeed a given fact,
119 G.R. No. 121039-45, January 25, 1999, 302 SCRA 21. but next to it is the pivotal issue of whether or not the prosecution has been
120 Id., at p. 50. able to discharge its equal burden in substantiating the identities of accused-
243 appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. As well said often, conviction
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 243 must rest on the strength of the prosecution’s case and not on the weakness
Lejano vs. People of the defense.
agent of task force Anti-Kidnapping, Hijack and Robbery (AKHAR). The Positive Identification of Accused-Appellants
unusual questioning of these men gave her the impression that she was Eyewitness identification constitutes vital evidence and, in most cases,
merely being used to boost their career promotion and her distrust was even decisive of the success or failure of the prosecution. 124 Both the RTC and CA
heightened when they absolutely failed to provide her security. She was found the eyewitness testimony of Alfaro credible and competent proof that
aghast upon discovering the completed affidavit which falsely stated that it appellants Webb, Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez, Rodriguez and Estrada
was made in the presence of her lawyer of choice (Atty. Mercader who was were at the scene of the crime and that Webb raped Carmela as the bloodied
not actually present). Agent Tamayo also incorporated inaccurate or bodies of her mother and sister lay on top of the bed inside the master’s
erroneous information indicating that she was a college graduate even if she bedroom, and right beside it stood Lejano while Ventura was preparing for
tried to correct him. Tamayo simply told her to just let it remain in the their escape. At another house in BF Executive Village where the group
statement as it would not be noticed anyway. 121 Moreover, on account of her retreated after leaving the Vizconde house, Alfaro witnessed the blaming
urgent concern for her own security and fear of implicating herself in the session, particularly between Ventura and Webb, and thereupon learned
case, Alfaro admitted down playing her own participation in her narration from their conversation that Carmela’s mother and sister were stabbed to
(including the circumstance that she had previously met Carmela before the death before she herself was killed. Alfaro likewise positively identified
incident) and those of her ex-boyfriend Estrada and her relative, Gatchalian. appellant Biong, whom somebody from the group described as the driver and
Prosecution Evidence Sufficient to Convict Appel- bodyguard of the Webb family, as the person ordered by Webb to “clean the
lants Vizconde house.”
This Court has consistently held that the rule on the trial court’s The testimony of Alfaro on its material points was corroborated by Birrer,
appreciation of evidence must bow to the superior rule that the prosecution Dr. Cabanayan, White, Jr., Cabanacan and Gaviola. Appellants’ presence at
must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The law the scene of the crime before, during and after its commission was duly
presumes an accused innocent, and this presumption must prevail unless established. Their respective participation, acts and
overturned by competent and credible proof. 122 Thus, we are tasked to _______________
consider two crucial points in sustaining a judgment of conviction: first, the 123 People v. Rodrigo, G.R. No. 176159, September 11, 2008, 564
identification of the accused as perpetrator of the crime, taking into account SCRA 584, 597.
the credibility of the prosecution witness who made the identification as well 124 People v. Meneses,  G.R. No. 11742, March 26, 1998, 288 SCRA 95,
as the prosecution’s compliance with legal and constitutional standards; 97, citing People v. Teehankee, Jr.,  319 Phil. 128, 179; 249 SCRA 54, 94
and second,  all the (1995).
_______________ 245
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 245

Page 58 of 88
Lejano vs. People must be so airtight that it would admit of no exception. Where there is
declarations were likewise detailed by Alfaro who was shown to be a the least possibility of accused’s presence at the crime scene, the alibi
credible witness. It is axiomatic that a witness who testifies in a categorical, will not hold water.”130 [emphasis supplied.]
straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent on  The claim of appellant Webb that he could not have committed the crime
cross-examination is a credible witness.125 because he left for the United States on March 9, 1991 and returned to the
A criminal case rises or falls on the strength of the prosecution’s case, not Philippines only on October 26, 1992 was correctly rejected by the RTC and
on the weakness of the defense. Once the prosecution overcomes the CA. These dates are so distant from the time of the commission of the crime,
presumption of innocence by proving the elements of the crime and the June 29, 1991 and June 30, 1991, and it would not have been impossible
identity of the accused as perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt, the burden during the interregnum for Webb to travel back to the country and again fly to
of evidence then shifts to the defense which shall then test the strength of the the US several times considering that the travel time on board an airline from
prosecution’s case either by showing that no crime was in fact committed or the Philippines to San Francisco, and from San Francisco to the Philippines
that the accused could not have committed or did not commit the imputed takes only about twelve (12) to fourteen (14) hours. Given the financial
crime, or at the very least, by casting doubt on the guilt of the accused. 126 resources and political influence of his family, it was not unlikely that Webb
Appellants’ Alibi and Denial could have traveled back to the Philippines before June 29-30, 1991 and
We have held in a number of cases that alibi is an inherently weak and then departed for the US again, and returning to the Philippines in October
unreliable defense, for it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove. 127 To 1992. There clearly exists, therefore, such possibility of Webb’s presence at
establish alibi, the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, and his excuse cannot
place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was be deemed airtight.
physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Physical _______________
impossibility “refers to the distance between the place where the accused 1999,  301 SCRA 516, 534; and People v. De Labajan, G.R. Nos. 129968-
was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well 69, October 27, 1999,  317 SCRA 566, 575.
as the facility of access between the two places.” 128 Due to its doubtful 129 Id., at p. 451, citing People v. Hillado,  G.R. No. 122838, May 24,
nature, alibi must be supported by clear and convincing proof.129 1999,  307 SCRA 535, 553 and People v. Balmoria,  G.R. Nos. 120620-21,
_______________ March 20, 1998, 287 SCRA 687, 708.
125 People v. Magallanes,  G.R. No. 136299, August 29, 2003, 410 130 People v. Florentino Bracamonte,  G.R. No. 95939, June 17, 1996, as
SCRA 183, 197. cited in People v. Añonuevo, G.R. No. 112989, September 18, 1996, 262
126 People v. Rodrigo, supra at p. 596. SCRA 22, 36.
127 People v. Mosquerra,  G.R. No. 129209, August 9, 2001, 362 SCRA 247
441, 450, citing People v. Batidor, G.R. No. 126027, February 18, 1999, 303 VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 247
SCRA 335, 350; People v. Realin, G.R. No. 126051, January 21, 1999, 301 Lejano vs. People
SCRA 495, 512; People v. Tulop,  G.R. No. 124829, November 21, 1998, 289  This Court in People v. Larrañaga131 had similarly rejected the defense
SCRA 316, 333. of alibi of an accused, involving a shorter travel distance (Quezon City to
128 Id., at p. 450, citing People v. Saban,  G.R. No. 110559, November Cebu) and even shorter period of time showing the least possibility of an
24, 1999, 319 SCRA 36, 46; People v. Reduca,  G.R. Nos. 126094-95, accused’s presence at the time of the commission of the crime (a matter of
January 21, hours) than in the case at bar (March 9, 1991 to June 29, 1991 which is three
246 months). In denying the motion for reconsideration of accused Larrañaga, we
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED held that accused Larrañaga failed to establish his defense of alibi, which is
Lejano vs. People futile in the face of positive identification:
“Alibi, the plea of having been elsewhere than at the scene of the crime at “This case presents to us a balance scale whereby perched on one end is
the time of the commission of the felony, is a plausible excuse for the appellants’ alibi supported by witnesses who were either their relatives,
accused. Let there be no mistake about it. Contrary to the common notion, friends or classmates, while on the other end is the positive identification of
alibi is in fact a good defense. But, to be valid for purposes of exoneration the herein appellants by the prosecution witnesses who were not, in any way,
from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would related to the victims. With the above jurisprudence as guide, we are certain
have been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime that the balance must tilt in favor of the latter.
to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason Besides, a thorough examination of the evidence for the prosecution
being that no person can be in two places at the same time. The excuse shows that the appellants failed to meet the requirements of alibi, i.e., the

Page 59 of 88
requirements of time and place. They failed to establish by clear and returned to the Philippines, perpetrate the criminal act, and travel back
convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for them to be at the to the United States.
Ayala Center, Cebu City when the Chiong sisters were abducted. What is It must be noted that the accused Webb is a scion of a rich, influential,
clear from the evidence is that Rowen, Josman, Ariel, Alberto, James and politically powerful family with the financial capacity to travel back and
Anthony and James Andrew were all within the vicinity of Cebu City on July forth from the Philippines to the United States. He could very well afford the
16, 1997. price of a plane ticket to free him from all sorts of trouble. Since there are
Not even Larrañaga who claimed to be in Quezon City satisfied the numerous airlines plying the route from Manila to the United States, it cannot
required proof of physical impossibility. During the hearing, it was shown be said that there was lack of available means to transport. Moreover, the
that it takes only one (1) hour to travel by plane from Manila to Cebu lapse of more than three (3) months from the time the accused Webb left the
and that there are four (4) airline companies plying the route. One of the Philippines for the United States on March 9, 1991 to June 29 and 30, 1991
defense witnesses admitted that there are several flights from Manila to when the crime was committed is more than enough time for the accused
Cebu each morning, afternoon and evening. Indeed, Larrañaga’s Webb to have made several trips from the United States to the Philippines
presence in Cebu City on July 16, 1997 was proved to be not only a and back. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that it only requires the
possibility but a reality. Four (4) witnesses identified Larrañaga as one short period of approximately eighteen (18) hours to reach the
of the two men talking to Marijoy and Jacqueline on the night of July _______________
16, 1997. Shiela Singson testified that on July 16, 1997, at around 7:20 in the 132 En Banc  Resolution, July 21, 2005, 463 SCRA 654, 662-664.
evening, she saw Larrañaga approach Marijoy and Jacqueline at the West 249
Entry of Ayala Center. The incident reminded her of Jacqueline’s prior story VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 249
that he was Marijoy’s admirer. Shiela confirmed that she knows Larrañaga Lejano vs. People
since she had seen him on five (5) occasions. Analie Kona- Philippines from the United States, with the advent of modern travel.
_______________ It must likewise be noted that the father of the accused Webb, besides
131 G.R. Nos. 138874-75, February 3, 2004, 421 SCRA 530. being rich and influential, was at that time in 1991, the Congressman of
248 Parañaque and later became a Senator of the Republic of the Philippines.
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Thus, the Webb money and connections were at the disposal of the accused
Lejano vs. People Webb, and it is worthy of belief that the accused Webb could have departed
hap also testified that on the same evening of July 16, 1997, at about 8:00 and entered the country without any traces whatsoever of his having done
o’clock, she saw Marijoy and Jacqueline talking to two (2) men at the West so. In fact, defense witness Andrea Domingo, former Commissioner of the
Entry of Ayala Center. She recognized the two (2) men as Larrañaga and Bureau of Immigration and Deportation testified on the practice of “human
Josman, having seen them several times at Glicos, a game zone, located smuggling” at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
across her office at the third level of Ayala Center. Williard Redobles, the On this point, the Supreme Court has declared in a case that even the
security guard then assigned at Ayala Center, corroborated the foregoing lapse of the short period of one (1) week was sufficient for an accused to go
testimonies of Shiela and Analie. In addition, Rosendo Rio, a businessman to one place, to go to another place to commit a crime, and then return to his
from Cogon, Carcar, declared that he saw Larrañaga at Tan-awan at about point of origin. The principal factor considered by the Supreme Court in
3:30 in the morning of July 17, 1997. The latter was leaning against the hood denying the defense of alibi in People vs. Jamero (24 SCRA 206) was
of a white van. And over and above all, Rusia categorically identified the availability to the accused of the means by which to commit a crime
Larrañaga as one of the participes criminis.132 [emphasis supplied] elsewhere and then return to his refuge. x x x”133 [emphasis supplied]
In the light of relevant precedents, I find no reversible error committed by There is likewise no merit in appellant Webb’s contention that the CA
the RTC in refusing to give credence to appellant Webb’s argument that he misappreciated his voluminous documentary evidence and numerous
could not have committed the crime of rape with homicide because he was witnesses who testified on his stay in the US. The CA, after a meticulous and
still in the US on June 29 and 30, 1991. The RTC thus correctly ruled: painstaking reevaluation of Webb’s documentary and testimonial evidence,
“Granting for the sake of argument that the claim of departure for the sustained the RTC’s conclusion that these pieces of evidence were either
United States of the accused Webb on March 9, 1991 and his arrival in the inadmissible, incompetent or irrelevant. I quote with approval the CA’s
Philippines on October 26, 1992 had been duly established by the defense, it findings which are well-supported by the evidence on record:
cannot prove that he remained in the United States during the intervening “(a) U.S. INS Certifications
period. During the long span of time between March, 1991 to October, x x x x
1992, it was not physically impossible for the accused Webb to have

Page 60 of 88
The Court seriously doubts that evidentiary weight could be ascribed to It is with this view that the Court recognizes little if not nil probative value
the August 31, 1995 and October 13, 1995 Certifications of the U.S. INS and in the second certification of the U.S. INS.
computer print-out of the Nonimmigrant Information System (NIIS) which x x x x
allegedly established Webb’s entry to and exit from the United States. This is (b) Passenger Manifest of United Airlines Flight251
due to the fallibility demonstrated by the US INS with regard to the certifica- VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 251
_______________ Lejano vs. People
133 Records, Vol. 25, pp. 122-124. The purported passenger manifest for the United Airlines flight that
250 allegedly conveyed accused-appellant Webb for the United States, was not
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED identified by the United Airlines personnel who actually prepared and
Lejano vs. People completed the same. Instead, the defense presented Dulcisimo Daluz, the
tions which the said office issued regarding the basic information under its supervisor of customer services of United Airlines in Manila, who had no
direct control and custody. hand in the actual preparation or safekeeping of the said passenger
It is to be remembered that as part of his evidence, Webb presented the manifest. It must be stressed that to satisfactorily prove the due execution of
explanation of one Steven P. Bucher, Acting Chief of Records Services a private document, the testimony of the witness with regard to the execution
Branch of the U.S. INS, who admitted that the U.S. INS had previously of the said document must be positive. Such being the case, his testimony
reported on August 10, 1995, erroneously, that it had no record of the arrival thereto is at most hearsay and therefore not worthy of any credit.
and departure of Webb to and from the United States. The said office later on Likewise, we note that the said passenger manifest produced in court is a
admitted that it failed to exhaustively study all information available to it. We mere photocopy and the same did not comply with the strict procedural
are not convinced with this explanation. It is to be noted that the U.S. INS is requirement of the airline company, that is, all the checking agents who
an agency well known for its stringent criteria and rigid procedure in handling were on duty on March 9, 1991 must sign or initial the passenger
documents relating to one’s travel into and out of its territory. Such being the manifest. This further lessens the credibility of the said document.
case, it would therefore be hard to imagine that the said agency would issue (c) United Airline Ticket
a certification that it had no record of a person’s entry into and exit from the ...the alleged United Airline ticket of accused-appellant Webb offered in
United States without first conducting an efficient verification of its records. evidence is a mere photocopy of an alleged original, which was never
We do not also believe that a second search could give rise to a different presented below. Other than the submission that the original could no
conclusion, considering that there is no showing that the records searched longer be produced in evidence, there is no other proof that there ever was
were different from those viewed in the first search. The later certifications an original airline ticket in the name of Webb. This does not satisfy the
issued by the U.S. INS modifying its first certification and which was issued requirements set forth under Section 5 of Rule 130. x x x we find that the
only a few weeks earlier, come across as a strained effort by Webb at photocopy presented in evidence has little if no probative value. Even
establishing his presence in the United States in order to reinforce his assuming there was such an original ticket in existence, the same is hardly of
flimsy alibi. any weight, in the absence of clear proof that the same was indeed used by
It is not amiss to note that a reading of the first Certificate of Non- accused-appellant Webb to go to the United States.
existence of Record (Exhibit “212-D”) subscribed by Debora A. Farmer of the (d) Philippine passport
U.S. INS would show that the U.S. INS had made a “diligent” search, and The passport of accused-appellant Webb produced in evidence, and the
found no record of admission into the United States of Webb. The search inscriptions appearing thereon, also offer little support of Webb’s alibi. Be it
allegedly included an inquiry into the automated and non-automated records noted that what appears on record is only the photocopy of the pages of
systems of the U.S. INS. Be it also noted that the basis of the U.S. INS Webb’s passport. The Court therefore can only rely on the appreciation of
second certification (Exhibit “218”) was a printout coming also from the trial court as regards the authenticity of the passport and the marks
automated information systems. appearing thereon, as it is the trial court that had the exclusive opportunity to
As pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General in its appeal view at first hand the original of the document, and determine for itself
brief, “how it became possible for the U.S. INS Archives in Washington, whether the same is entitled to any weight in evidence.
which is supposed to merely download and copy the information given (e) Video footage of accused-appellant Webb’s parents in
by the San Francisco INS, to have an entry on accused-appellant Webb              Disneyland and Yosemite Park.252
when the said port of entry had no such record was never sufficiently 252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
addressed by the defense.” Lejano vs. People

Page 61 of 88
The video footage serendipitously taken by Victor Yap allegedly of (h) Webb’s Driver’s License
Senator Webb and his family while on vacation at Disneyland in Anaheim, We agree with the trial court’s observation that the Driver’s License
California on July 3, 1991 does little to support the alibi of accused-appellant allegedly obtained by accused-appellant from the California Department
Webb for it is quite interesting to note that nowhere did accused-appellant of Motor Vehicle sometime in the first week of June 1991 is unworthy of
Webb appear in this footage. None of the people shown in the film was credit, because of the inconsistencies in Webb’s testimony as to how
identified as the accused-appellant Webb. Moreover, the records disclose he obtained the same. In one testimony, Webb claimed he did not make an
that just before the segment of the film that showed Senator Webb, there application but just walked in the licensing office and he did not submit any
was a gap or portion of static that appeared which did not appear in any photograph relative to his application. In a later testimony, he claimed that he
other portion of the footage. We find that this supports the conclusion submitted an ID picture for his driver’s license, and that the picture appearing
that the videotape was possibly tampered as an additional support to on his driver’s license was the very same picture he submitted together with
the alibi of accused-appellant that he was in the United States. his application for the driver’s license. These are two inconsistent testimonies
x x x x on the same subject matter, which render the said driver’s license and the
(f) Video footage at Lake Tahoe and the del Toro-Manlapit Wedding alleged date when the same was obtained, unworthy of credit.
...the video footage showing accused-appellant Webb seemingly on (i) Logbook of Alex del Toro and Check Payments of Webb’s salary
holiday at Lake Tahoe with the Wheelocks, to our mind does not disprove The employment records of accused-appellant, which include the alleged
that Webb was in the country at the time of the Vizconde killing. Firstly, the logbook of del Toro in his pest control business, and check payments to
date being shown intermittently in the footage was not the same or near Webb were also offered to support the latter’s alleged presence in the United
the date of the Vizconde killing. As we have earlier stated, we do not States on the dates near the day of the Vizconde killings. A review of the
discount the possibility that Webb was in the Philippines during the time he logbook shows that the same is unworthy of any evidentiary weight. The
was supposed to have been in the United States, especially, when there are entries where the accused Webb were indicated to have performed
eyewitnesses who testified to the effect that Webb was in the Philippines only work for del Toro, showed that the name of Webb (“Hubie”/”U.B.”) was
a couple of weeks before the killing and who also testified of Webb’s merely superimposed on the actual entries and could have been easily
participation in the crime. In any case, we take judicial notice that modern fabricated to create the impression that Webb had some participation in the
electronic and photographic advances could offer a means to splice or business of del Toro, and therefore, are not reliable proofs of Webb’s
modify recorded images to configure to a desired impression, including the presence and occupation in the United States around the time of the
insertion or annotation of numeric figures on a recorded image. Vizconde killing.
Likewise, the videotape and photographs taken on Alex del Toro’s The alleged check payments of Webb’s salary are also unreliable. The
wedding also fail to convince, as this was allegedly taken on October 10, check dated June 13, 1991 was made payable to “Cash”, while the other
1992 well after the fateful days of June 29 and 30, 1991. check which appeared to be payable to “Hubert Webb” was however dated
(g) Photograph of Webb and Christopher Esguerra before only July 10, 1991. Neither of the said checks squarely placed accused-
             the Dee Lite Concert appellant Webb in the United States at the time of the Vizconde kill-
The photograph of accused-appellant Webb with Esguerra allegedly 254
taken in late April 1991 before they went to a band concert has little probative 254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
value. It must be pointed out that the image in the picture itself does not Lejano vs. People
depict the date or place it was taken, or of any Dee Lite concert ings. Simply put, neither check is therefore clear proof to support
allegedly attended by Webb. Likewise, we observed that the photograph Webb’s alibi.
appears to have been trimmed down from a bigger size, possibly to (j) Bicycle/Sportscar
remove the date printed therein. It is also to be noted that Esguerra admitted The Toyota MR2 sportscar and Cannondale bicycle allegedly purchased
253 by accused-appellant Webb and his father in the United States appear to
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 253 have been purchased with great haste, and under suspicious circumstances.
Lejano vs. People Consider that immediately after the accused-appellant’s father, former
that the inscription appearing at the back of the photograph of, “Hubert and I Senator Freddie Webb, arrived in the United States, the first thing he did was
before the Dee Lite Concert, April 1991” was only written by him in 1995, go out with his friend Honesto Aragon and accused-appellant to look for a
after it was given to him by accused-appellant’s mother, Elizabeth, before he bicycle and a car to be used by the latter in going to and from work. The car
took the witness stand. The Court cannot therefore but cast suspicion as to was bought sometime in early July 1991 and the bicycle sometime on June
its authenticity. 30, 1991. It is a wonder to this Court that the accused-appellant and his

Page 62 of 88
father would buy a bicycle and a sportscar at practically the same time to expressive with his feelings when he wrote that he missed Cabrera, “a lot,”
provide the accused-appellant transportation to his work. Would not just a car yet after only four letters that was conveniently written sometime in June
or a bicycle do for him? Also, the hurried purchase of the car right after the 1991, he thereafter stopped writing letters to Cabrera as if the whole matter
arrival of Freddie Webb appears at the very least, suspicious, as a was already forgotten. It is highly suspicious therefore that the only letters of
prospective car-buyer would understandably want to make a canvas first for accused-appellant Webb to Cabrera were written and sent at the exact
the best car to buy, and not just to purchase the first car he sees. opportune time that the Vizconde killings occurred which conveniently
Moreover, as aptly observed by the trial court, though it was made clear supplied a basis for his defense of alibi.
that the purpose of purchasing the said bicycle and car was for accused- Moreover, from the contents of the letters, we can deduce that there was
appellant’s convenience in going to and from his work—we find, that this some sort of romantic relationship with the accused-appellant Webb and
contradicts the other evidence presented by accused-appellant because it Cabrera. In fact, Webb in his letters referred to Cabrera as his “sweetheart”
appears from his evidence that other than his brief stint in del Toro’s pest and “dearest”, and confessed to her that all he thinks about was her, and he
control company business and his employment as a gasoline station was hoping he would dream of her at night. It is not improbable, therefore,
attendant which incidentally was not sufficiently proven, all that accused- that Cabrera could have prevaricated herself to save her friend.
appellant did in the United States was to go sightseeing, shopping and meet In sum, accused-appellant tried vainly to establish his defense
with family and friends. of alibi with the presentation of not only a substantial volume of documentary
Lastly, the fact that the car and the bicycle were allegedly purchased in evidence but also testimonies of an overwhelming number of witnesses
close proximity to the date of the rape and killing of the Vizconde women which were comprised mostly of relatives and family friends who obviously
does little to dissuade the perception that the car and bicycle were purchased wanted him to be exonerated of the crime charged. It is for this reason that
only for the purpose of providing a plausible defense of alibi for Webb. we regard their testimonies with an eye of suspicion for it is but natural,
(k) Letters to Jennifer Claire Cabrera although morally unfair, for a close relative or friend to give weight to blood
Cabrera, a friend and neighbor of accused-appellant in BF Homes, ties and close
Parañaque, produced four (4) letters allegedly written and sent to her by 256
Webb while he was in the United States, in order to support the accused- 256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
appellant’s alibi. These were allegedly the only letters sent by Webb to her. Lejano vs. People
The letters were allegedly written and posted at around the same time the relationship in times of dire needs especially when a criminal case is
Vizconde rape and killing happened, such that, if the letters were to be involved.”134 [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED]
255 The rule is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that in determining the
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 255 value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not
Lejano vs. People numbered. The testimony of only one witness, if credible and positive, is
duly considered, they would place Webb in the United States at the same sufficient to convict.135 As to appellant Webb’s voluminous documentary
time the June 30, 1991 killings occurred; thus, bolstering Webb’s defense evidence, both the RTC and CA judiciously examined each exhibit and
of alibi. concluded that these do not pass the test of admissibility and materiality
However, the said letters, to our mind, are not convincing proof of alibi, insofar as proving the physical impossibility of his presence at the Vizconde
inasmuch said letters were produced only in 1995 at the time she gave a residence on June 29, 1991 until the early morning of June 30, 1991.
statement, and the same time Webb was charged. However, Cabrera Appellant Webb cites the opposite view taken by Justices Tagle and
admitted that she knew Webb was being involved or accused in the Vizconde Dacudao in their dissenting opinions and urges this Court to accord the US
killings as early as 1991 and that she was shocked upon learning that he was INS certification and other documents relative to his arrival and departure in
being implicated therein. the US on the dates March 9, 1991 and October 26, 1992, respectively, the
The Court finds it incredible that despite being shocked in 1991, about the presumption of regularity being official documents issued by US authorities.
involvement of her friend, accused-appellant in the Vizconde rape-slay, Justices Tagle and Dacudao concurred in stating that the conclusion of their
Cabrera would wait until 1995 to “produce” the letters that could have cleared three (3) colleagues (majority) that the US INS certifications did not exclude
her friend’s name. An interregnum of four years before coming out with the possibility of Webb traveling back to the Philippines and again departing
valuable proof in support of a friend is to our mind, a telling factor on the for the US between March 9, 1991 and October 26, 1992—is nothing but
credibility of the alleged letters. speculation and conjecture. Webb further mentions that since a Justice of
Also, the impression that may be inferred from reading the letters was this Court “confirmed appellant Webb’s alibi of being in the United States on
one of a man who was pining away for his ladylove. Webb was quite 29 June 1991[,] [a]t the very least, such exculpatory testimony coupled with

Page 63 of 88
the plethora of appellant Webb’s other documentary and testimonial 258
evidence on his presence in the United 258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________ Lejano vs. People
134 CA Rollo, Vol. IV, pp. 3455-3463. and time of the commission of the crime.139 Against positive
135 Bastian v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160811, April 14, 2008, evidence, alibi becomes most unsatisfactory. Alibi cannot prevail over the
citing People v. Benito,  G.R. No. 128072, February 19, 1999, 303 SCRA positive identification of a credible witness.140 Appellant Webb was placed at
468; People v. Canada, No. L-63728, September 15, 1986, 144 SCRA the crime scene by Alfaro who positively identified him as the one (1) who
121; People v. Luces,  G.R. No. L-60744, November 25, 1983, 125 SCRA plotted and committed the rape of Carmela, and later fatally stabbed her, her
813; People v. Demeterio,  No. L-48255, September 10, 1983, 124 SCRA mother and sister, aided by or in concert with Lejano and Ventura. Gaviola
914; People v. Romero,  No. L-38786, December 15, 1982, 119 SCRA 234; and Cabanacan gave corroborating testimonies that appellant Webb was
and People v. Zabala,  86 Phil. 251 (1950). here in the country, as he was just in his house at BF Homes Subdivision
257 Phase III, at least a few weeks prior to and on June 29 to 30, 1991.
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 257  Verily, it is only when the identification of the accused as the author of
Lejano vs. People the crime charged is inconclusive or unreliable that alibi  assumes
States on 29 June 1991 raises reasonable doubt as to appellant Webb’s guilt importance. Such is not the situation in the case at bar where the
of the crime charged.”136 identification of the perpetrators by a lone eyewitness satisfied the moral
 I find the contentions bereft of merit. certainty standard.
 In the first place, let it be emphasized that Justice Carpio’s testimony  It is the prosecution’s burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
before the trial court confirmed merely the fact that his conversation with then reasonable doubt. Definitely, “reasonable doubt” is not mere guesswork
Congressman Webb took place on June 29, 1991 and what the latter relayed whether or not the accused is guilty, but such uncertainty that “a reasonable
to him about his location at the time such telephone call was made, who was man may entertain after a fair review and consideration of the evidence.”
with him in the US (his wife and appellant Webb) and the purpose of their US Reasonable doubt is present when—
trip (to find a job for appellant Webb). Said witness even admitted that he had “after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidences, leaves
no personal knowledge that appellant Webb was in fact in the United States the minds of the [judges] in that condition that they cannot say they feel an
at the time of his telephone conversation with Congressman Webb. 137 abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge; a certainty
 As to the travel documents consisting of his US passport, US INS that convinces and directs the understanding, and satisfies the reason and
certifications and other evidence presented by appellant Webb in support of judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it.” 141
his alibi, while it is true that such presentation of passport, plane ticket and That reasonable doubt is not engendered by the presentation of
other travel documents can serve as proof that he was indeed out of the certifications of entry into and exit from the US, passport with stamp
country at the time of the Vizconde killings,138 it must still be shown that the _______________
evidence is clear and convincing, and the totality of such evidence 139 People v. Malones, G.R. No. 124388-90, March 11, 2004, 425 SCRA
constitutes an airtight excuse as to exclude the least possibility of his 318, 339-340, citing People v.  Aliposa,  G.R. No. 97935, October 23, 1996,
presence at the crime scene. However, appellant Webb failed in this regard 263 SCRA 471.
and the RTC and CA did not err in giving scant weight to his arsenal of 140 Soriano v. People,  G.R. No. 148123, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 595,
evidence, particularly so on the strength of the positive identification of 605.
appellant Webb as Carmela’s rapist and one of those who actually took part 141 Fernan, Jr. v. People,  G.R. No. 145927, August 24, 2007, 531 SCRA
in the brutal killing of Carmela, her mother and sister between midnight of 1, 31, citing People v. Balacano, G.R. No, 127156, July 31, 2000, 336 SCRA
June 29, 1991 and early morning of June 30, 1991.  615, 621.
Indeed, alibi cannot be sustained where it is not only 259
without credible corroboration, but also where it does not, on its face, VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 259
demonstrate the physical impossibility of the accused’s presence at the place Lejano vs. People
_______________ marks of departure and declarations of witnesses who are mostly relatives
136 Rollo (G.R. No. 176864),  pp. 288-299. and friends of appellant Webb, can be gleaned from the fact that passports
137 TSN, August 12, 1997, pp. 9-12, 28-30. and plane tickets indicating dates of arrival and departure do not necessarily
138 Vide: People v. Tagun, G.R. No. 137745, February 15, 2002, 377 prove that the very same person actually took the flight. This Court takes
SCRA 154, 169. judicial notice of reported irregularities and tampering of passports in the

Page 64 of 88
years prior to the recent issuance by the DFA of machine-readable YOUR REQUEST WAS RECEIVED BY THIS OFFICE ON 07/10/95.
passports. In fact, the proliferation of photo-substituted passports, fake WE HAVE COMPLETED OUR SEARCH FOR RECORDS
immigration stamps, assumed identity and double passports, among others, RESPONSIVE TO YOUR REQUEST BUT DID NOT LOCATE ANY. IF YOU
have been cited as grounds to justify the necessity of amending STILL BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE RECORDS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
the Philippine Passport Act of 1996 (R.A. No. 8239) as proposed in the YOUR REQUEST, AND CAN PROVIDE US WITH ADDITIONAL
Senate, “x x x to rally for the issuance of passports using tamper proof and INFORMATION, WE WILL CONDUCT ANOTHER SEARCH. IF YOU ELECT
the latest data encryption technology; and provide stiffer penalties against TO REQUEST ANOTHER SEARCH, WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU NOT
proliferators of fake passports.”142 FOLLOW THE APPEALS PROCEDURE DESCRIBED BELOW UNTIL WE
 It is worthy of note I note that the original of Webb’s passport was not HAVE COMPLETED THAT SEARCH.
offered in evidence and made part of the records, which only gives credence YOU MAY APPEAL THE FINDING IN THIS MATTER BY WRITING TO
to the prosecution’s allegation that it bore signs of tampering and THE OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY, UNITED STATES
irregularities. And as earlier mentioned, the much vaunted US-INS second DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SUITE 570, 1310 G. STREET, N.W., FLAG
certification dated August 31, 1995 based on a mere computer print-out from BUILDING, WASHINGTON D.C., 20530 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF
the Non-immigrant Information System (Exhibit “213-1-D”) retrieved from the RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER. YOUR LETTER SHOULD REFERENCE THE
US- INS Archives in Washington, and the accompanying certifications, have INS CONTROL NUMBER ABOVE AND THE LETTER AND THE
little probative value, the truth of their contents had not been testified to by ENVELOPE SHOULD BE CLEARLY MARKED FOIA/PA APPEAL.
the persons who issued the same. Moreover, the issuance of this certification SINCERELY,
only a couple of weeks after the August 10, 1995 US-INS Office in San (SGD.) DISTRICT DIRECTOR144[EMPHASIS SUPPLIED]
Francisco was issued, only raised questions as to its accuracy. Said earlier _______________
certification through Debora A. Farmer stated that: 143 Exhibits “YY”, “DDD” and “213-1-D”, Records, Vol. 9, pp. 1142, 1147
_______________ and Records, Vol. 26, p. 270.
142 Sourced from Internet—http://www.pinoymoneytalk.com/forum/index. 144 Exhibits “XX” and “LLL”, Records, Vol. 9, pp. 1141 and 1157.
php?topic=5848.0; See also “Passport-reading Machine Uncovers Fake 161
Documents” by Tina Santos, Philippine Daily Inquirer, first posted 03:29:00 VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 161
06/15/2008 at website— Lejano vs. People
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080615- To show that the August 10, 1995 US-INS Certification was erroneous,
142790/Passport-reading-machine-uncovers-fake-documents; “DFA-RP appellant Webb presented the Memorandum addressed to Secretary
Passport Exposes Filipinos to Discrimination” by Venorica Uy, inquirer.net, Domingo L. Siazon signed by Consul Leo M. Herrera-Lim, the Diplomatic
Last Updated 07-05pm (Mla time) 03/13/2007 sourced Note dated October 30, 1995 and the letter of Debora Farmer stating that the
from http://www.pinoymoneytalk.com/forum/index.php?topic=5848.0 San Francisco certification was erroneous.145 The prosecution, however,
260 presented another document which indicated that an appeal to the U.S.
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Department of Justice, Office of Information and Privacy yielded a negative
Lejano vs. People result on any record on file that one (1) Hubert Webb arrived in the United
“[a]fter diligent search no record is found to exist in the records of the States on March 9, 1991, and further that Richard L. Huff, Co-Director of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service. The search included a review of the Office of Information and Privacy had in effect sustained as correct the US-
Service automated and nonautomated records system; there is no INS San Francisco report that there is no such data on Hubert Webb in the
evidence of any lawful admission to the United States as an immigrant, San Francisco database so that the Philippine Embassy in Washington, D.C.
or as a nonimmigrant, relating to Hubert P. Webb, born November 7, should instead ask the assistance of other U.S. government agencies  in their
1968, in the Philippines. The records searched are current as of July 1, search for data on appellant Webb.146
1995 for the immigrants and nonimmigrants.”143 [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED]  The defense endeavored to explain why the US-INS Archives in
The above finding was relayed by Thomas Schiltgen, District Director of Washington could have made the “mistake” of stating that it had no data or
the Immigration and Naturalization Service, San Francisco to Ms. Teresita V. information on the alleged entry of appellant Webb on March 9, 1991 and his
Marzan, Consul General of the Philippines: exit on October 26, 1992. However, it had not satisfactorily addressed the
SUBJECT: WEBB, HUBERT nagging question of how it became possible for
RE: Hubert Jeffrey Webb _______________
Dear Requester: 145 Exhibits “30”, “33” and “34”, Records, Vol. 9, pp. 708, 711-713.

Page 65 of 88
146 Cited by reference in Exhibit III, Records, Vol. 9, p. 1154. issued by the Philippine Embassy with respect to the US-INS Certifications
You were informed by the San Francisco District Office of the Immigration contained a disclaimer, specifically stating that the Embassy assumed no
and Naturalization Service that no records responsive to you request could responsibility for the contents of the annexed document. 148 The same
be located in its file. It has been determined that this response is correct. For observa-
your information, the INS normally does not maintain records on individuals _______________
who are entering the country as visitors rather than as immigrants. A notation 147 Vide: Soriano v. People,  G.R. No. 148123, June 30, 2008, 556
concerning the entry of a visitor may be made in the Nonimmigrant SCRA 595, 604.
Information System (NIIS), but many visitors are not entered into this 148 Exhibit “42-M”, Records, Vol. 9, p. 440.
system. The NIIS was searched, and no records pertaining to Mr. Webb 263
are found. I am informed by the San Francisco District Office that this matter VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 263
is still pending in that office and that a formal response to your request will be Lejano vs. People
issued shortly. tions regarding the “consularized certifications” was reflected in the Decision
It is possible that either the State Department or the United States dated April 16, 1998 in CA-G.R. SP No. 42285 (“Miguel Rodriguez v. Amelita
Customs Service might have information concerning Mr. Webb’s entry into Tolentino”) and CA-G.R. SP No. 42673 (“Hubert P. Webb v. Amelita
the country. I suggest you write to those agencies to request the information Tolentino”).149
you seek. Appellant Webb’s travel documents and other supposed paper trail of his
262 stay in the US are unreliable proof of his absence in the Philippines at the
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED time of the commission of the crime charged. The non-submission in
Lejano vs. People evidence of his original passport, which was not formally offered and made
the US-INS Archives in Washington, which is supposed to merely download part of the records,  had deprived the RTC, CA and this Court the opportunity
and copy the information given by the San Francisco INS, to have an entry to examine the same. Such original is a crucial piece of evidence which
on appellant Webb when the said port of entry had no such record. unfortunately was placed beyond judicial scrutiny.
Considering that many visitors (nonimmigrants) are admittedly not entered I/We quote the following observations made by the prosecution on
into the NIIS database, and that diligent search already yielded a negative Webb’s passport from the appeal brief of the OSG:
response on appellant Webb’s entry into the US on March 9, 1991 as per the “In tandem with the presentation of the various U.S. INS certifications to
August 10, 1995 Certification, as to what US government agency the alleged bolster appellant Webb’s story of a U.S. sojourn before, during and after the
computer-generated print-out in the August 31, 1995 certification actually commission of the offense charged, he further anchors his defense on his
came from remains unclear. passport (Exh. AAAAAA and 294) ostensibly to show, among others, that the
Appellant Webb’s reliance on the presumption of regularity of official grant by the United States government granted him a visa effective from April
functions, stressing the fact that the US-INS certifications are official 6, 1989 to April 6, 1994 and the U.S. Immigration in San Francisco
documents, is misplaced. The presumption leaned on is disputable and can stampmarked it on March 9, 1991 (Exh. AAAAAA-6) on page 30 thereof
be overcome by evidence to the contrary.147 In this case, the existence of an (Exh. AAAAAA-2 and 294-D).
earlier negative report on the NIIS record on file concerning the entry of On its face, what the entries in the passport plainly suggest is that
appellant Webb into and his exit from the US on March 9, 1991 and October appellant Webb violated U.S. immigration laws by “overstaying” beyond the
26, 1992, respectively, had raised serious doubt on the veracity and usual six-(6) month period allowed for tourists. However, he being the son of
accuracy of the subsequently issued second certification dated August 31, a Senator would not unnecessarily violate U.S. immigration laws. It would be
1995 which is based merely on a computer print-out of his alleged entry on quite easy for him to apply for and secure an extension of his authorized stay
March 9, 1991 and departure on October 26, 1992. in the U.S., if only he requested. But why did not he or his parents secure the
As to the testimony of former Foreign Affairs Secretary Domingo L. extension? Why was there no evidence to show that he ever requested an
Siazon, the same cannot be given due credence since he is incompetent to extension? Did he really overstay in the U.S. or could he simply enter and
testify on the contents of the August 31, 1995 US-INS Certification, having leave the U.S. and the Philippines without marking his passport? These raise
merely received the said document in his capacity as the head of the serious questions on the integrity of the passport.
Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines. Consul Leo M. Herrera- Is appellant Webb really untouchable that even U.S. authorities in various
Lim’s testimony likewise did not carry much weight considering that its states would let him get “off the hook” without much of a fuss after his alleged
significance is confined to the fact that the document from the US-INS was brushes with the law (TSN - Hubert Webb dated September 10, 1997,
transmitted and received by the DFA. It is to be noted that the certification _______________

Page 66 of 88
149 Records, Vols. 24 & 25, pp. 98-109. that he did not submit any photograph relative to his application for a
264 Californian Driver’s License, inasmuch as a photograph of him was taken,
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED and that, his driver’s license was issued sometime on the first week of June,
Lejano vs. People 1991. On the other hand, on September 1, 1997, the accused suddenly and
p. 82)? This is especially incredible considering that he was allegedly completely changed his testimony while still on direct examination. He claims
apprehended in the United States near the U.S. border (Ibid., pp. 82-83) that the picture appearing on the driver’s license was the very same he
where authorities are always on the look out for illegal aliens. submitted together with his application for the driver’s license. Thus, the
The questions involving appellant Webb’s passport are not limited to the discrepancy as to the source of the photograph (Exhibit “334-E”) between the
stamp marks (or lack of stamp marks) therein. There are unusual things testimony given on August 14, 1997 where the accused Webb said that the
about his passport which he has been unable to explain satisfactorily. California Department of Motor Vehicle took his picture, and the testimony
The passport of her mother, Elizabeth Webb, for example, appears to be given on September 1, 1997 where he said that he submitted it to the
well preserved despite having been used more frequently than that of California DMV as an attachment to his supposed driver’s license application
appellant Webb who supposedly used it in only one trip abroad. Not only do renders the accused Webb’s testimony as unbelievable and unworthy of
some of the pages appear smudged or untidy, but more significantly, the credence.
perforations on the passport pages indicating the serial number of appellant It is beyond belief that the same picture submitted by the accused Webb
Webb’s passport no longer fit exactly on the pages—that is, they are no became the picture in the driver’s license allegedly issued on June 14, 1991.
longer aligned. The perforations are intended not only to indicate the serial Moreover, it is contrary to human nature and experience, aside from the fact
number of the passport but more importantly to countercheck intercalations that it is likewise contrary to the procedure described by the accused Webb
and tampering. The “non-alignment” of the perforations is thus significant. in obtaining a driver’s license in the State of California. Since a driver’s
In addition to the over-all shabby appearance of appellant Webb’s license is one of the principal means of identification in the United States as
passport, what is evident is the torn plastic portion of the dorsal page thereof well as in the Philippines, to allow the applicants to produce their own
near the holder’s signature. There is also the matter of the marked difference pictures would surely defeat the purpose in requiring them to appear before
in the signatures of appellant Webb as appearing on the dorsal side of the the Department of Motor Vehicle, that is, to ensure the integrity and
passport (Exh. AAAAAA-3 and 294-A-1) as compared with that appearing on genuineness of the driver’s license.
his laminated photograph (Exh. AAAAAA-5 and 294-C-1). Of course, he tried The Court takes note that the accused Webb, in his fervent desire to
to offer an explanation on the variance in the two (2) signatures. All he could exculpate himself from criminal liability, earlier offered in evidence the letter
reason out, however, was that he wrote his name using his normal dated January 10, 1992 of Mr. Robert L. Heafner, Legal Attache of the
penmanship when in a lazy mood (TSN—Hubert Webb dated August 14, Embassy of the United States to the then Director of the National Bureau of
1997, p. 27), implying that the signature appearing on his laminated Investigation, Alfredo S. Lim, (Exhibit “61”) which stated in very clear terms
photograph is his real signature. A review of his other documentary evidence that the accused Webb’s California Driver’s License Number A8818707
supposedly bearing his signature shows that what appears therein is his was issued on August 9, 1991. Furthermore, the said letter states the listed
name written in his “normal penmanship,” and that it is only in the laminated address of the accused Webb at the time of the issuance of the driver’s
picture (Exh. AAAAAA-5 and 294-C) that such “real signature” appears. license was 532 So. Avenida Faro Ave., Anaheim, California 92807. The said
Following appellant Webb’s explanation, it means that he was in a lazy mood listed address of the accused Webb at the time his driver’s license was
all the time!”150 issued has demolished the testimony of the defense witness Sonia
 Two (2) more documents presented by appellant Webb deserve a close Rodriguez that the accused Webb was supposed to be already living with the
look—his US Driver’s License supposedly issued on June 14, 1991, and the Rodriguez family in Longwood, Florida by the first week of August, 1991.
Passenger Manifest. The RTC’s evaluation of said documents revealed their The accused Webb likewise offered in evidence the official
lack of probative value, thus: communication coming from the Federal Bureau of Investigation dated
_______________ De-
150 CA Rollo,  Vol. IV, pp. 2684-2687. 266
265 266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 265 Lejano vs. People
Lejano vs. People cember 31, 1991 (Exhibit “MMM” and submarkings; Exhibit “66-C” and
“On August 14, 1997, [Webb] testified that he did not make any submarkings) which likewise gave the information that the accused Webb
application since the procedure in California provides for a walk-in system, was issued California Driver’s License No. 8818707 on August 9, 1991,

Page 67 of 88
and that as of August 9, 1991, the address of the accused Webb was 532 colleague of Tabuena. This makes the source of the document, even
South Avenida Faro, Anaheim, California 92807. The fact that the alleged ignoring the fact of its inadmissibility, suspicious.”151 [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED.]
Driver’s License No. A8818707 was issued on two (2) different dates (August The alibi of appellants Gatchalian and Lejano, who claimed they were at
9, 1991 and June 14, 1991) casts a serious doubt on its provenance and the Syap residence at Ayala Alabang Village watching video tapes the whole
authenticity. night of June 29, 1991 until early morning of June 30, 1991, was even less
x x x x plausible considering the distance of that place from Pitong Daan
In order to establish that the accused Hubert Webb departed from the Subdivision, which is just a few minutes ride away. The RTC noted the
Philippines on 09 March 1991 on board UA flight 808 the defense also manifestation of the defense on Andrew Syap’s refusal to testify on
presented witness Dulcisimo Daluz, Station Manager of United Airlines for Gatchalian and Lejano’s whereabouts during the night in question, despite
Manila who in turn presented a document purporting to be the Passenger their efforts to convince him to do so. It further noted the testimony of
Manifest for the flight departing on 09 March 1991 (Exhibits “233-A” to Assistant NBI Director Pedro Rivera that Carlos Syap upon seeing
“233-N”). Gatchalian with their group even berated Gatchalian for dragging him into his
This document merits outright rejection considering that the defense (Gatchalian’s) own problem. Aside from Alfaro, security guard Normal White,
witness Daluz confirmed that the same was prepared by the UA departure Jr. also testified that the presence of Gatchalian (son of a homeowner), who
area personnel and not by himself. Thus, this document is merely hearsay pointed to the other appellants in the two (2) cars behind him as his
and is devoid of any merit whatsoever. companions, was the reason they allowed his friends to enter the subdivision
In respect of the plane ticket of the accused Hubert Webb, what was on the night of June 29, 1991. White, Jr. also categorically declared he had,
likewise offered as part of the testimony of Daluz was a mere photo copy, earlier that same night, seen Gatchalian with his friends standing at Vinzons
wherein Daluz also admitted not having any direct participation in its St. Thus, other than the hearsay declaration of his father who merely testified
preparation. on what his son told him about spending the night watching video tapes at
The spurious nature of the document was observed by the witness Daluz the Syap residence on June 29, 1991, Gatchalian presented no corroborative
himself who admitted that there were irregularities in the Passenger evidence of his alibi.
Manifest presented by the defense. According to Daluz, it is a strict As to appellant Lejano, he was positively identified by Alfaro as the first to
procedural requirement that all the checking agents who were on duty on express approval of Webb’s plan to gang-rape Carmela by saying, “Ako ang
March 9, 1991 were supposed to initial the Passenger Manifest, However, he susunod.”  Lejano was also with Alfaro, Webb and Ventura in going inside the
admitted that Exhibits “223” and “223-N” did not contain the initials of Vizconde house, and whom she later saw inside the master’s bedroom, at
the checking agents who were supposed to initial the same. the foot of the bed where the bloodied
The defense presented Agnes Tabuena, Vice-President for Finance and _______________
Administration of the Philippine Airlines for the purpose of establishing that 151 Records, Vol. 25, pp. 143-153.
Hubert Webb arrived in the Philippines only on 26 October 1992. 268
Like witnesses Daluz and Nolasco, Tabuena’s statements on the witness 268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
stand and the Certification was based exclusively on the Passenger Lejano vs. People
Manifest of PAL’s PR 103. Unfortunately for the defense, the said testimony bodies of Estrellita and Jennifer lay, and just standing there about to wear his
is of no probative value and of doubtful veracity considering that the witness jacket while Webb was pumping the hogtied and gagged Carmela on the
did not prepare the same, nor did the witness identify the persons who floor. His alibi is likewise feeble, as he could have easily gone to the
prepared the same other than that they were “airport staff”, nor did she had Vizconde house within a few minutes from the Syap residence where he and
any idea Gatchalian allegedly watched video tapes.
267  Appellant Fernandez, on his part, insisted that Alfaro’s story was simply
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 267 fabricated by her “hidden mentors” who considered the sworn statement of
Lejano vs. People Roberto D. Barroso taken on November 4, 1991. Barroso was one (1) of the
when the document was transmitted to her office. In fact, the witness could members of the “Akyat Bahay” gang who were earlier charged before the
not even interpret the contents of the said Passenger Manifest, much more Makati City RTC in Criminal Case Nos. 91-7135-37 for Rape with Homicide
testify as to the due execution and genuineness thereof. and for Robbery with Homicide in connection with the Vizconde killings.
In view of the vital necessity to the other accused of establishing accused There is an uncanny congruence in the details of the incident as testified to
Webb’s alibi, it is important to note that Atty. Francisco Gatchalian, father of by Alfaro, with the sworn statement of Barroso particularly pertaining to the
the accused Michael Gatchalian was then a high ranking PAL Official and a manner by which the garage light of the Vizconde house was put out, the

Page 68 of 88
smashing of the glass panel of the main door, and the appearance of a rise to the conclusion that he was not positively identified by Alfaro as among
woman who opened the main door saying “Sino kayo?”152 those present and participated prior to, during and after the commission of
 Such submissions are inane, in view of the dismissal of those cases filed the crime as lookouts along with the rest of the group. Contrary to
against the first set of suspects based on lack of evidence. Contrary to Rodriguez’s claim, the first time that
Fernandez’s insinuation of a fabricated eyewitness account, Alfaro gave _______________
much more minute details than the limited narration given by Barroso. More 153 Id., at p. 3564.
important, Alfaro’s testimony was sufficiently corroborated on its material 154 People v. Ortiz,  G.R. No. 133814, July 17, 2001, 361 SCRA 274,
points, not only by the physical evidence, but also by the testimonies of four citing People v. Sumaoy,  G.R. No. 105961, October 22, 1996, 263 SCRA
(4) disinterested witnesses for the prosecution: White, Jr., Cabanacan, 460 and People v. Padao, G.R. No. 104400, January 28, 1997, 267 SCRA
Gaviola and Birrer. 64.
Fernandez also cited as among the reasons why Alfaro’s declarations 155 TSN, October 10, 1995, pp. 97-98.
were far from positive, the non-recovery of the fatal weapons used in the 156 Id., at pp. 129-131.
killings. He contended that a crucial link in the prosecution’s physical 157 CA Rollo,  Vol. IV, pp. 3542-3550.
evidence was thus missing, as Alfaro could not even say what was the 270
“object” or “thing” which she saw thrown out of the Nissan Patrol while the 270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
group was on their way to the BF Executive Village. Hence, her suggestion Lejano vs. People
that what she saw Ventura took from Alfaro referred to and enumerated the members of the “group” which she had
_______________ unexpectedly joined that night, was at the beginning of her narration on how
152 CA Rollo, Vol. IV, pp. 3564-3566. she met Ventura’s friends when she got her order of shabu at the Ayala
269 Alabang Commercial Center parking lot.
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 269 Q. And you said that Dong Ventura introduced you to this group, will you
Lejano vs. People name the group that was introduced to you by Dong Ventura?
the kitchen drawer may have been kitchen knives used to kill the victims A. First, he introduced me to Hubert Webb, then Fyke Fernandez, Miguel
must fail.153 Rodriguez, and then Tonyboy Lejano, Michael Gatchalian.158
Such proposition fails to persuade. The failure to present the murder Alfaro was again asked to enumerate the members of the “group” when
weapon will not exculpate the accused from criminal liability. The the prosecution asked her to name the members of the group, in the later
presentation and identification of the weapon used are not indispensable to part of her direct examination during the same hearing. 159 She also testified
prove the guilt of the accused, much more so where the perpetrator has been that after everyone, including Rodriguez, took part in a shabu session, they
positively identified by a credible witness.154 left the parking lot.160 It thus logically follows that whenever Alfaro made
Appellant Rodriguez denies being a conspirator with Webb’s group in the reference to the “group” in her entire narration, it necessarily included those
commission of the crime, asserting that his presence and participation in the she had enumerated she had met and had a shabu session with at the Ayala
Vizconde killings, from the time of its inception up to its consummation, was Alabang Commercial Center parking lot. This same group was with her from
not established beyond reasonable doubt. He cites the failure of Alfaro to their first trip to the Vizconde residence until the time they left Pitong Daan
mention his name as part of the “group” twice in her testimony. These Subdivision and retreated to a house at BF Executive Village early morning
instances refer to Alfaro’s direct examination when she was asked to name of June 30, 1991. Alfaro had specifically mentioned Rodriguez when asked
the persons riding the convoy of three (3) vehicles when they left Ayala by Prosecutor Zuño to describe their relative positions at the lawn area of the
Alabang Commercial Center parking lot to proceed to the Vizconde BF Executive Village house, thus establishing his presence during the
residence at Pitong Daan Subdivision, 155 and the second time when she was “blaming session”:
asked to enumerate the members of the “group” who were waiting along A. x x x kalat kami, sir, pero hindi kami magkakalayo x x x
Aguirre Avenue during their second trip to the Vizconde residence. 156 Thus,   x x x x
when Alfaro testified that the rest of the group acted as lookouts while she, Q. How about Miguel Rodriguez, how far was he from Hubert?
Webb, Lejano and Ventura went inside the Vizconde house, it must be A. Two meters away.
understood as limited only to those she had previously enumerated, which   x x x x
definitely did not include Rodriguez.157 _______________
The argument is untenable. The mere fact that Alfaro missed out naming 158 TSN, October 10, 1995, p. 81.
Rodriguez in two (2) instances during her direct examination does not give 159 Id., at p. 88.

Page 69 of 88
160 Id., at p. 97. who mutually agreed to commit the crime and assisted one (1) another in its
271 commission, on the occasion of which the rape victim Carmela, her mother
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 271 Estrellita and sister Jennifer, were killed, each of the accused-appellants
Lejano vs. People shall be criminally liable for rape with homicide.
A. Mike is very very near Ging Rodriguez.161  Indeed, appellants by their individual acts, taken as a whole, showed that
It must be stressed that Alfaro categorically declared it was Rodriguez they were acting in unison and cooperation to achieve the same unlawful
who approached her at Faces Disco on March 30, 1995 and told her to shut objective, even if it was only Webb, Ventura and Lejano who actually went
up or she would be killed. Aside from making that threat, Rodriguez also inside the Vizconde house while Estrada, Fernandez, Rodriguez, Gatchalian
offered Alfaro a plane ticket so she could leave the country. 162Rodriguez’s and Filart stood as lookouts outside the house. Under these premises, it is
bare denial cannot be given any evidentiary weight. We have ruled that not even necessary to pinpoint the precise participation of each of the
denial is a self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given greater weight accused-appellants, the act of one being the act of all. 165
than the declaration of a credible witness who testified on affirmative One who participates in the material execution of the crime by standing
matters.163 guard or lending moral support to the actual perpetrators thereof is criminally
Rodriguez’s attempt to set up an alibi through the testimony of his cousin responsible to the same extent as the latter. There being conspiracy among
Mark Rualo was equally frail. Even assuming as true Rualo’s testimony that the accused-appellants, they are liable
he had indeed invited Rodriguez to attend his birthday party on June 29, _______________
1991 but Rodriguez opted to stay in his house and even talked to him on the 164  Article 8, The Revised Penal Code, as amended; People v.
phone when he called Rodriguez to ask why he was not yet at the party, it Amodia,  G.R. No. 173791, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 518, citing People v.
cannot serve as proof of Rodriguez’s whereabouts at the time of the Pelopero,  G.R. No. 126119, October 15, 2003, 413 SCRA 397, 410.
commission of the crime. It did not rule out the actual presence of Rodriguez 165 People v. Lagarto, G.R. Nos. 118828 & 119371, February 29, 2000,
at the crime scene. 326 SCRA 693, 748, citing People v. Layno, G.R. No. 110833, November
Appellant Estrada, just like Rodriguez and Fernandez, did not take the 21, 1996, 264 SCRA 558; People v. Sumalpong, G.R. No. 124705, January
witness stand and simply relied on the alibi defense of his co-accused, 20, 1998, 284 SCRA 229; People v. Obello,  G.R. No. 108772, January 14,
principally that of Webb. Alfaro testified that it was Estrada, then her 1998, 284 SCRA 79; People v. Pulusan, G.R. No. 10037, May 21, 1998, 290
boyfriend, who was together with her in her car throughout the night of June SCRA 353; People v. Medina,  G.R. No. 127157, July 10, 1998, 292 SCRA
29, 1991 until early morning of June 30, 1991. Estrada was among those 436; and People v. Chua,  G.R. No. 121792, October 7, 1998, 297 SCRA
who acted as lookouts outside the Vizconde house after they all concurred in 229.
the plan of Webb to gang-rape Carmela while they were still at the parking lot 273
of the Ayala Alabang Commercial Center. VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 273
Conspiracy among appellants duly proven Lejano vs. People
The existence of conspiracy between appellants Webb, Ventura, Lejano, as co-principals regardless of the manner and extent of their
Gatchalian, Fernandez, Rodriguez and Filart was satisfactorily participation.166
_______________ Biong guilty as accessory after the fact
161 TSN, October 16, 1995, pp. 117-119. Appellant Biong contends that he cannot be convicted as accessory to
162 TSN, October 17, 1995, pp. 72-79, 95. the crime of rape with homicide because the acts imputed to him did not
163 People v. Watiwat, G.R. No. 139400, September 3, 2003, 410 SCRA result in the hiding of the case. There was no evidence that such indeed was
324, 335. his intent or motive. He points out that the bodies of the victims were found at
272 their respective places where they were assaulted and there was no
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED evidence that they had been moved an inch from where they breathed their
Lejano vs. People last. He asserts that non-preservation of the evidence is not an accessory
proven by the prosecution. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons crime under the Revised Penal Code.167
come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to The contentions have no merit.
commit it. Conspiracy comes to life at the very instant the plotters agree, The Revised Penal Code in Article 19 defines an accessory as one who
expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to actually has knowledge of the commission of the crime, yet did not take part in its
pursue it. It may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. 164 Although commission as principal or accomplice, but took part in it subsequent to its
only one (1) rape was actually proven by the prosecution, as conspirators commission by any of three modes: (1) profiting himself or assisting the

Page 70 of 88
offender to profit by the effects of the crime; (2) concealing or destroying the police had a difficult time figuring out whether it was robbers who entered the
body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof in order to prevent its Vizconde house and perpetrated the rape-slay, or drug-crazed addicts on the
discovery; and (3) harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the loose, or other persons having motive against the Vizconde family had
principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public exacted revenge, or a brutal sexual assault on Carmela by men who were
functions or when the offender is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an not strangers to her which also led to the killings.
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually On the basis of strong evidence of appellant Biong’s effort to destroy
guilty of some other crime.168 crucial physical evidence at the crime scene, I hold that the RTC
Under paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, 275
there are two (2) classes of accessories, one of which is a VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 275
_______________ Lejano vs. People
166 People v. Sicad, G.R. No. 133833, October 15, 2002, 391 SCRA 19, did not err in convicting him as an accessory to the crime of rape with
34, citing People v. Diaz, G.R. No. 110829, April 18, 1997, 271 SCRA 504, homicide.
515 and People v. Abordo,  G.R. No. 107245, December 17, 1999, 321 Penalty
SCRA 23, 39. The CA was correct in affirming the sentence imposed by the RTC upon
167 CA Rollo,  Vol. IV, p. 3081. each of the accused-appellants Webb, Lejano, Gatchalian, Rodriguez,
168 People v. Antonio, G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000, 335 SCRA 646, Fernandez and Estrada. The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua because
677, citing People v. Malvenda, G.R. No. 115351, March 27, 1998, 288 the imposition of the death penalty under the Revised Penal Code (in Article
SCRA 225. 335 thereof, as amended by R.A. No. 2632 and R.A. No. 4111, when by
274 reason or on the occasion of rape, a homicide is committed), was prohibited
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED by the Constitution at the time the offense was committed. 169 At any rate, the
Lejano vs. People subsequent passage of R.A. No. 9346 entitled “An Act Prohibiting the
public officer who harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the principal. Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines,” which was signed into law
Such public officer must have acted with abuse of his public functions, and on June 24, 2006, would have mandated the imposition on accused-
the crime committed by the principal is any  crime, provided it is not a light appellants the same penalty of reclusion perpetua.
felony. Appellant Biong is one (1) such public officer, and he abused his As to the penalty imposed by the CA on appellant Biong as accessory
public function when, instead of immediately arresting the perpetrators of the after the fact to the crime of rape with homicide, we find the same proper and
crime, he acceded to the bidding of appellant Webb to “clean the Vizconde in order.
house,” which means he must help hide any possible trace or sign linking DNA Testing
them to the crime, and not necessarily to prevent the discovery of the bodies Appellant Gatchalian reiterates his and appellant Webb’s motion for DNA
in such actual condition upon their deaths. Hence, such “cleaning” would testing of the semen specimen taken from the vaginal cavity of Carmela
include obliterating fingerprints and other identifying marks which appellants during the autopsy conducted by Dr. Cabanayan, which motion was denied
Webb, Lejano and Ventura might have left at the scene of the crime. by the RTC for lack of available scientific expertise and technology at the
Contrary to Biong’s assertion, his failure to preserve evidence at the time.
crime scene such as fingerprints on the doors and objects inside the master’s With the great advances in forensic science and under pertinent state
bedroom where the bodies were found, the bloodied floor of the toilet, the laws, American courts allow post-conviction DNA testing when its application
actual material used in gagging Carmela and Estrellita, the bloodied blankets has strong indications that the result could potentially exonerate the convict.
and bed sheets, the original condition of the broken glass panel of the main Indeed, even a convicted felon has the right to avail of new technology not
door, the shoe print and foot prints on the car hood and at the back of the available during his trial.
house, fingerprints on the light bulb at the garage—was a form of assistance _______________
to help the perpetrators evade apprehension by confusing the investigators in 169 People v. Magana, G.R. No. 105673, July 26, 1996, 259 SCRA 381,
determining initially what happened and the possible 402.
suspects. Consequently, Biong’s unlawful taking of the jewelries and 276
Carmela’s ATM card and driver’s license, his act of breaking the larger 276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
portion of the main door glass, the washing out of the blood on the toilet floor Lejano vs. People
and permitting the relatives to burn the bloodied bed sheets and blankets— On October 2, 2007, this Court approved the Rule on DNA
had in fact misled the authorities in identifying potential suspects. Thus, the Evidence170 which took effect on October 15, 2007.

Page 71 of 88
Pursuant to Section 4 of the Rule, the court may at any time, either motu DNA Evidence which requires prior hearing and notice; (b) a determination of
proprio or on application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter propriety of DNA testing at this stage under the present Rule, separate from
in litigation, order a DNA testing after due notice and hearing. Such order that filed by Webb before the trial court on October 6, 1997, is necessary as
shall issue upon showing of the following: there was no opportunity back then to establish the requisites for a DNA
(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case; testing order under the Rule which took effect only in 2007; (c) the result of
(b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of the DNA testing will constitute new evidence, which cannot be received and
DNA testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, appreciated for the first time on appeal; and (d) this Court failed to elucidate
but the results may require confirmation for good reasons; an exceptional circumstance to justify its decision to consider a question of
(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique; fact, as this Court itself acknowledged in its April 20, 2010 Resolution that the
(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new result of DNA testing is not crucial or indispensable in the determination of
information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and appellant Webb’s guilt for the crime charged.173
(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider On May 21, 2010, Atty. Roberto Makalintal, Jr., Branch Clerk of RTC
as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing. 171 Parañaque City, Branch 274, submitted his Comment on The Compliance
By Resolution dated April 20, 2010, this Court granted appellant Webb’s and Manifestation Dated April 27, 2010 of the NBI stating that: (a) There is
request to submit for DNA analysis the semen specimen taken from the no showing of actual receipt by RTC Branch 274 of the specimen/vaginal
cadaver of Carmela Vizconde under the custody of the National Bureau of smear mentioned in Dr. Cabanayan’s affidavit dated April 27, 2010; (b)
Investigation (NBI). We ordered (1) the NBI to assist the parties in facilitating Based on available records such as the TSN of January 31, 1996 and
the submission of the said specimen to the UP-Natural Science and February 7, 1996 during which Dr. Caba-
Research Institute (UP-NSRI), Diliman, Quezon City; and (2) the NBI and _______________
UP-NSRI to report to this Court within fifteen (15) days from notice regarding 172 Rollo (G.R. No. 176389),  pp. 531-542.
compliance with and implementation of the said resolution. 173 Id., at pp. 543-554.
In his Compliance and Manifestation dated April 27, 2010, Atty. Reynaldo 278
O. Esmeralda, NBI Deputy Director for Technical Services, informed this 278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Court that the semen specimen/vaginal smear taken from the cadaver of Lejano vs. People
Carmela Vizconde and all original documents (autopsy and laboratory nayan testified, no such specimen/vaginal smear was submitted to RTC
reports, and photographs) are no longer in the custody of the NBI as these Branch 274; (c) The TSN of January 31, 1996 on pages 57, 58 and 69
were submitted as evidence to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque suggest that marked in evidence as Exhibits “S”, “T” and “U” by then Chief
City, Branch 274 by then State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño were only the photographs of the three
_______________ slides containing the semen specimen; (c) In the hearing of February 7,
170 A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC. 1996, Dr. Cabanayan’s last testimony before RTC Branch 274 in this case,
171 Id.,  Sec. 4. he testified that the last time he saw those slides was when he had the
277 photographs thereof taken in 1995 (the first time was when he examined
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 277 them in 1991), and as far as he knows between 1991 and 1995, those slides
Lejano vs. People were kept in the Pathology Laboratory of the NBI; and (d) The entire records
NBI Medico-Legal Chief, Prospero A. Cabanayan, M.D., when the latter of the cases were already forwarded to this Court a long time ago, including
testified on direct and cross-examination on January 30, 31, February 1, 5, 6 the evidence formally offered by the prosecution and the accused. 174
and 7, 1996. Attached thereto are certified true copies of Laboratory Report Under our Resolution of June 15, 2010, we required the NBI to (a) show
No. SN-91-17 (stating positive result for the presence of human proof of the release of the semen specimen to the RTC of Parañaque City,
spermatozoa), Autopsy Report No. N-91-1665 (with remarks: “Smear for Branch 274 in 1996; and (b) comment on the alleged conflicting
presence of spermatozoa”), copy of the sworn statement of Dr. Cabanayan representations in its Compliance and Manifestation dated April 27, 2010,
and certified true copy of the envelope bearing his signed handwritten both within ten days from notice. However, the NBI has not complied with
notation that all original photographs have been submitted as evidence said directive.
during the aforementioned hearing dates.172 In his Comment on the OSG’s motion for reconsideration, appellant
On May 11, 2010, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Motion Fernandez argued that when this Court, in the higher interest of justice,
for Reconsideration of our Resolution dated April 20, 2010 on grounds that relaxed the Rule on DNA Evidence to afford Webb the fullest extent of his
(a) the DNA testing order was issued in disregard of Section 4 of the Rule on constitutional rights, the prosecution was not thereby denied its equally

Page 72 of 88
important right to due process. Contrary to the OSG’s claim that this Court evidences and concerns regarding the proper preservation of evidence in the
immediately granted DNA testing without observing the requisites under custody of the NBI
Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence, and without due notice and hearing, _______________
appellant asserts that the Resolution dated April 20, 2010 clearly defines the 175 Id., at pp. 580-585.
parameters of the DNA analysis to be conducted by the UP-NSRI assisted by 176 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
the NBI. Indeed, there are ample safeguards in the Rule to assure the 177 Rollo (G.R. No. 176389), pp. 586-592.
reliability and acceptability of the results of the DNA testing. Fernandez, 280
however, objected to the statement of the OSG that “in the light of positive 280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
identification” of appellant Webb by the principal witness for the prosecution, Lejano vs. People
Jessica Alfaro, the existing circumstances more than would have to be addressed in the light of the requirements laid down by
_______________ the Rule on DNA Evidence. As to the prosecution’s argument that this Court
174 Id., at pp. 560-563. cannot receive and appreciate “new evidence,” Section 4 of the Rule states
279 that “the appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 279 application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation,
Lejano vs. People order a DNA testing”; DNA testing is even available post-conviction
warrant the affirmation of Webb’s guilt. Alfaro’s cross-examination exposed (Ibid, Sec. 6). This Court in accordance with proper procedure thus decided
her as an “out-and-out perjurer, a bold and intentional liar under oath” and a to receive DNA evidence in order not to further delay the case, appellants
“fake witness” whose account of the incident is “shot-through with fatal after all, were convicted more than ten (10) years ago in 2000 and have been
omissions, self-contradictions, inconsistencies and inherent incarcerated for fifteen (15) years now.
improbabilities.”175 Webb further underscored that where the evidence has not been offered,
Appellant Lejano likewise filed his comment, pointing out that the trial it is the prosecution who should have the legal custody and responsibility
court denied Webb’s motion to direct the NBI to submit semen specimen for over it.178 The NBI’s letter dated April 23, 1997 confirmed that the semen
DNA analysis on November 25, 1997 only after lengthy exchange of specimen was in its custody. The NBI’s repudiation of such fact is belied by
pleadings between the defense and prosecution, the latter having properly the records; the Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence shows that Exhibits
opposed said motion. Hence, the People cannot now rightfully claim that “S”, “T” and “U” were merely photographs of the slides containing the vaginal
there was no notice or hearing on the issue of submitting the semen smear. Also, nowhere in the transcript of stenographic notes taken during Dr.
specimen for DNA analysis. Citing Brady v. Maryland,176 Lejano contended Cabanayan’s testimony was it shown that he turned over the actual slides to
that the suppression of exculpatory evidence—or evidence that will show the trial court. On the contrary, when Dr. Cabanayan was asked on February
reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different had the 6, 1996 to produce the slides, which he had promised to bring during the
evidence been disclosed—grossly violates an accused’s right to due previous hearing, he admitted that he “forgot all about it” when he came to
process. In this case, the evidence needs only to be subjected to DNA the hearing. Thus, it appears from the record that from the time the semen
analysis to establish the innocence of appellant Webb, as well as of specimen was taken from Carmela Vizconde’s cadaver, it has always been in
petitioner and appellant Lejano. It was further asserted that the semen the custody of the NBI.179
specimen was already existing at the time of the trial, and hence can hardly Evidently, the NBI could no longer produce the semen specimen/vaginal
be considered as “new evidence” and that DNA testing of said semen smear taken from the cadaver of Carmela Vizconde and consequently DNA
specimen taken from the victim Carmela Vizconde “has the scientific analysis of said physical evidence can no longer be done. Hence, this Court
potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution set aside the April 20, 2010 resolution and forthwith proceeded to resolve the
of the case” (Sec. 4 (d), Rule on DNA Evidence).177 present appeal on the basis of existing evidence which have been formally
On his part, appellant Webb stressed that there are exceptional offered by the parties and/or made part of the records.
circumstances that justify this Court’s order to immediately conduct the DNA _______________
analysis. He has been behind bars for more than fifteen (15) years. He has 178 See City Prosecution Office of General Santos City v. Bersales, A.M.
filed a motion for DNA analysis as early as 1997 or thirteen (13) years ago. No. MTJ-04-1552, June 9, 2004, 431 SCRA 430, 436.
The result of such test could yield evidence that could acquit him while no 179 Id., at p. 432.
damage will be suffered by the prosecution considering that this Court 281
emphasized in its Resolution of April 20, 2010 that the prosecution’s VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 281
Lejano vs. People

Page 73 of 88
Appellant Webb’s Urgent DNA analysis of the sperm specimen taken from Carmela’s cadaver, such
Motion To Acquit potentially exculpatory evidence could not be produced by the State. Webb
With the recall of the order for DNA testing, appellant Webb moved for his now claims that as a result of the destruction or loss of evidence under the
acquittal on the ground of violation of his constitutional right to due process NBI’s custody, he was effectively deprived of his right to present a complete
by reason of the State’s failure to produce the semen specimen, either defense, in violation of his constitutional right to due process, thus entitling
through negligence or willful suppression. Webb argues that the loss or him to an acquittal.
suppression by the prosecution of the semen specimen denied him the right Loss of Semen Specimen
to avail of the latest DNA technology and prove his innocence. Citing Not Ground For
American jurisprudence (Matter of Dabbs v. Vergari,180 California v. Acquittal of Webb
Trombetta181 and Brady v. Maryland182), Webb contends that in disallowing Webb’s argument that under the facts of this case and applying the cited
the DNA examination he had requested, the RTC denied him from presenting rulings from American jurisprudence, he is entitled to acquittal on the ground
a “complete defense” through that “singular piece of evidence that could of violation of his constitutional right to due process, is without merit.
have definitively established his innocence,” the trial court relying instead on In Brady v. Maryland183 it was held that “the suppression by the
the identification of Jessica Alfaro, a “perjured witness.” The constitutional prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due
duty of the prosecution to turn over exculpatory evidence to the accused process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment,
includes the duty to preserve such evidence. irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” In said case,
Webb maintains that the semen specimen extracted from the cadaver of the petitioner was convicted of murder committed in the course of robbery
Carmela had exculpatory value, as even NBI’s Dr. Cabanayan testified and sentenced to death. He later learned that the prosecution suppressed an
during the hearing of February 7, 1996, that it was still possible to subject the extrajudicial confession made by his accomplice who admitted he did the
same to DNA analysis to identify the person to whom the sperm belonged. actual killing. The US Supreme Court granted a new trial and remanded the
Thus, a DNA analysis of said semen specimen excluding appellant Webb as case but only on the question of punishment.
the source thereof would disprove the prosecution’s evidence against him. _______________
Further, Webb points out that the prosecution considered the presence of 183 Id.
spermatozoa on the body of Carmela as evidence that she was raped, 283
offering the photographs of the glass slides containing the sperm cells as VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 283
proof that she was in fact raped on or about the late evening of June 29, Lejano vs. People
1991 or early morning of June 30, 1991. But the only evidence of the In Matter of Dabbs v. Vergari,184 the court ordered DNA testing of
prosecution that it was Webb who raped Carmela was the testimony of Alfaro specimen taken from a rape victim after the sexual assault and from the
which was given full credit by the RTC and CA despite all its inconsistencies, accused who was convicted, DNA testing being unavailable at the time of the
and despite all documentary and testimonial evidence trial. Accused therein was identified by the victim as her attacker. The court
_______________ found the factual circumstances clearly showed that the semen specimen
180 149 Misc. 2d 844, 570 N.Y.S. 2d 765 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Co. could have come only from the accused. It noted that the witness testified
1990). that accused acted alone, had ejaculated and she did not have sexual
181 467 U.S. 479 (1984). intercourse with any other person within 24 hours prior to the sexual assault.
182 373 U.S. 83 (1963). DNA testing ultimately revealed that petitioner’s DNA composition did not
282 match with that found on the victim’s underwear. Consequently, the court
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED granted petitioner’s subsequent motions to vacate the judgment of
Lejano vs. People conviction.
presented by the defense proving that Webb was at the United States at the In California v. Trombetta,185 a case involving the prosecution for drunk
time the crime was committed. driving, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the
On the matter of preserving DNA evidence, Webb cites Section 12 of Constitution does not require that law enforcement agencies preserve breath
the Rule on DNA Evidence which authorizes the court to order the samples in order to introduce breath-analysis tests at trial.
appropriate government agency to preserve the DNA evidence during trial “Given our precedents in this area, we cannot agree with the California
and even when the accused is already serving sentence, until such time the Court of Appeal that the State’s failure to retain breath samples for
decision of the court has become final and executory. While this Court has respondents constitutes a violation of the Federal Constitution. To begin with,
given Webb the best opportunity to prove his innocence in the order granting California authorities in this case did not destroy respondents’ breath

Page 74 of 88
samples in a calculated effort to circumvent the disclosure requirements inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It can assist immensely in effecting
established by Brady v. Maryland and its progeny. In failing to preserve a more accurate account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the
breath samples for respondents, the officers here were acting “in good faith conviction of the guilty, securing the acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring
and in accord with their normal practice.” x x x The record contains no the proper administration of justice in every case.
allegation of official animus towards respondents or of a conscious effort to DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can link a suspect to a crime
suppress exculpatory evidence. or eliminate one from suspicion in the same principle as fingerprints are
More importantly, California’s policy of not preserving breath samples is _______________
without constitutional defect. Whatever duty the Constitution imposes on the 186 Matter of Dabbs v. Vergari, supra.
States to preserve evidence, that duty must be limited to  evidence that might 187  G.R. No. 150224, May 19, 2004, 428 SCRA 504.
be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense. 285
To meet this standard of constitutional materiality, x x x evidence must VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 285
both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence Lejano vs. People
was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable used. Incidents involving sexual assault would leave biological evidence such
to as hair, skin tissue, semen, blood, or saliva which can be left on the victim’s
_______________ body or at the crime scene. Hair and fiber from clothing, carpets, bedding, or
184 Supra note 180. furniture could also be transferred to the victim’s body during the assault.
185 Supra note 181. Forensic DNA evidence is helpful in proving that there was physical contact
284 between an assailant and a victim. If properly collected from the victim, crime
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED scene or assailant, DNA can be compared with known samples to place the
Lejano vs. People suspect at the scene of the crime.
obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means. Neither of The U.P. National Science Research Institute (NSRI), which conducted
these conditions is met on the facts of this case.” [ITALICS SUPPLIED.] the DNA tests in this case, used the Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
From the above cases, it is clear that what is crucial is the requirement of amplification method by Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis. With PCR
materiality of the semen specimen sought for DNA testing. Appellant Webb testing, tiny amounts of a specific DNA sequence can be copied
must be able to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the DNA sample exponentially within hours. Thus, getting sufficient DNA for analysis has
would prove his innocence. Evidence is material where “there is reasonable become much easier since it became possible to reliably amplify small
probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of samples using the PCR method.
the proceeding would have been different.”186 In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should
In People v. Yatar,187 decided before the promulgation of the Rule on consider, inter alia, the following factors: how the samples were
DNA Evidence, the Court expounded on the nature of DNA evidence and the collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the
factors to be considered in assessing its probative value in the context of samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the
scientific and legal developments. The proper judicial approach is founded on proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and
the concurrence of relevancy  and reliability. Most important, forensic the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
identification though useful does not preclude independent evidence of In the case at bar, Dr. Maria Corazon Abogado de Ungria was duly
identification. qualified by the prosecution as an expert witness on DNA print or
“DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living identification techniques. Based on Dr. de Ungria’s testimony, it was
organisms. A person’s DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change determined that the gene type and DNA profile of appellant are identical to
throughout a person’s lifetime; the DNA in a person’s blood is the same as that of the extracts subject of examination. The blood sample taken from the
the DNA found in his saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of hair, earwax, appellant showed that he was of the following gene types: vWA 15/19, TH01
mucus, urine, skin tissue, and vaginal and rectal cells. Most importantly, 7/8, DHFRP2 9/10 and CSF1PO 10/11, which are identical with semen taken
because of polymorphisms in human genetic structure, no two individuals from the victim’s vaginal canal. Verily, a DNA match exists between the
have the same DNA, with the notable exception of identical twins. semen found in the victim and the blood sample given by the appellant in
DNA print or identification technology has been advanced as a uniquely open court during the course of the trial.
effective means to link a suspect to a crime, or to exonerate a wrongly Admittedly, we are just beginning to integrate these advances in science
accused suspect, where biological evidence has been left. For purposes of and technology in the Philippine criminal justice system, so we must be
criminal investigation, DNA identification is a fertile source of both cautious as we traverse these relatively unchartered waters. Fortunately, we

Page 75 of 88
can benefit from the wealth of persuasive jurisprudence that has developed 188 Id., at pp. 514-517.
in other jurisdictions. Specifically, the prevailing doctrine in the U.S. has 287
proven instructive. VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 287
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow, it was ruled that pertinent evidence based Lejano vs. People
on scientifically valid principles could be used as long as it Indeed, in other jurisdictions it has been recognized that DNA test results
286 are not always exculpatory.
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED “Postconviction test results are not always exculpatory. In addition,
Lejano vs. People exculpatory test results will not necessarily free the convicted individual. If
was relevant and reliable. Judges, under Daubert, were allowed greater the evidence does exclude the petitioner, the court must weigh the
discretion over which testimony they would allow at trial, including the significance of the exclusion in relation to all the other evidence. Convicted
introduction of new kinds of scientific techniques. DNA typing is one such offenders often believe that if crime scene evidence does not contain their
novel procedure. DNA they will automatically be exonerated. Not finding the petitioner’s DNA
Under Philippine law, evidence is relevant when it relates directly to does not automatically indicate the case should be overturned, however. In a
a fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non- rape case, for example, the perpetrator may have worn a condom, or not
existence. Applying the Daubert test to the case at bar, the DNA evidence ejaculated. In some cases, the absence of evidence is not necessarily
obtained through PCR testing and utilizing STR analysis, and which was evidence of the defendant’s absence or lack of involvement in the crime” 189
appreciated by the court a quo is relevant and reliable since it is reasonably We hold that the source of the semen extracted from the vaginal cavity of
based on scientifically valid principles of human genetics and molecular the deceased victim is immaterial in determining Webb’s guilt. From the
biology. totality of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense,
Independently of the physical evidence of appellant’s semen found Webb was positively identified as Carmela’s rapist.
in the victim’s vaginal canal, the trial court appreciated the following  As the records bear out, the positive identification of appellant Webb as
circumstantial evidence as being sufficient to sustain a conviction Carmela’s rapist satisfied the test of moral certainty, and the prosecution had
beyond reasonable doubt: (1) Appellant and his wife were living in the equally established beyond reasonable doubt the fact of rape and the
house of Isabel Dawang together with the victim, Kathylyn Uba; (2) In June unlawful killing of Carmela, Estrellita and Jennifer on the occasion thereof.
1998, appellant’s wife left the house because of their frequent quarrels; (3) Even assuming that the DNA analysis of the semen specimen taken from
Appellant received from the victim, Kathylyn Uba, a letter from his estranged Carmela’s body hours after her death excludes Webb as the source thereof,
wife in the early morning of June 30, 1998; (4) Appellant was seen by it will not exonerate him from the crime charged. Alfaro did not testify that
Apolonia Wania and Beverly Denneng at 1:00 p.m. of June 30, 1998 near the Webb had ejaculated or did not use a condom while raping Carmela. She
kitchen of the house of Isabel Dawang, acting strangely and wearing a dirty testified that she saw Webb rape Carmela and it was only him she had
white shirt with collar; (5) Judilyn Pas-a saw appellant going down the ladder witnessed to have committed the rape inside the Vizconde residence
of the house of Isabel at 12:30 p.m., wearing a dirty white shirt, and again at between late evening of June 29, 1991 and early morning of June 30, 1991.
1:30 p.m., this time wearing a black shirt; (6) Appellant hurriedly left when the Moreover, she did not testify that Carmela had no sexual relations with any
husband of Judilyn Pas-a was approaching; (7) Salmalina Tandagan saw other man at least 24 hours prior to that time. On the other hand, a positive
appellant in a dirty white shirt coming down the ladder of the house of Isabel result of DNA examination of the semen specimen ex-
on the day Kathylyn Uba was found dead; (8) The door leading to the second _______________
floor of the house of Isabel Dawang was tied by a rope; (9) The victim, 189 A LITIGATOR’S GUIDE TO DNA FROM THE LABORATORY TO THE
Kathylyn Uba, lay naked in a pool of blood with her intestines protruding from COURTROOM by Ron C. Michaelis, Robert G. Flanders, Jr. and Paula H.
her body on the second floor of the house of Isabel Dawang, with her stained Wulff, 2008 published by Elsevier Inc., p. 370.
pants, bra, underwear and shoes scattered along the periphery; (10) 288
Laboratory examination revealed sperm in the victim’s vagina (Exhibits “H” 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
and “J”); (11) The stained or dirty white shirt found in the crime scene was Lejano vs. People
found to be positive with blood; (12) DNA of slide, Exhibits “J” and “H”, tracted by Dr. Cabanayan from Carmela’s cadaver would merely serve as
compared with the DNA profile of the appellant are identical; and (13) corroborative evidence.
Appellant escaped two days after he was detained but was subsequently As to the loss of the semen specimen in the custody of the NBI, appellant
apprehended, such flight being indicative of guilt.”188 [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED.] Webb’s contention that this would entitle him to an acquittal on the basis
_______________ of Brady v. Maryland is misplaced.

Page 76 of 88
In Arizona v. Youngblood,190  a 10-year old boy was molested and Appeals noted in its opinion—and we agree—that there was no suggestion
sodomized by the accused, a middle-aged man, for 1½ hours. After the of bad faith on the part of the police. It follows, therefore, from what we
assault, the boy was examined in a hospital where the physician used swab have said, that there was no violation of the Due Process
to collect specimen from the boy’s rectum and mouth, but did not examine Clause.” [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED.]
them at anytime. These samples were refrigerated but the boy’s clothing was In this case, there is no showing of bad faith on the part of the police
not. Accused was identified by the victim in a photographic lineup and was investigators, specifically the NBI, for the non-production of the vaginal swab
convicted of child molestation, sexual assault and kidnapping. During the and glass slide containing the semen specimen, during the trial and upon our
trial, expert witnesses had testified that timely performance of tests with recent order for DNA testing. The prosecution did not conceal at anytime the
properly preserved semen samples could have produced results that might existence of those vaginal swab and glass slide containing the vaginal
have completely exonerated the accused. The Court held: smear. Curiously, despite Dr. Cabanayan’s admission during the hearing that
“There is no question but that the State complied with Brady and it was still possible to subject the semen specimen to DNA analysis, the
Agurs here. The State disclosed relevant police reports to respondent, defense never raised the issue thereafter and resurrected the matter only in
which contained information about the existence of the swab and the October 1997 when Webb’s counsel filed his motion.
clothing, and the boy’s examination at the hospital. The State provided It bears to stress that the vaginal smear itself was not formally offered by
respondents’ expert with the laboratory reports and notes prepared by the the prosecution, but only the photographs of the glass slide containing the
police criminologist, and respondent’s expert had access to the swab and to semen specimen for the purpose only of proving that Carmela was in fact
the clothing. raped and not that Webb was the source of the sperm/semen. As noted by
x x x x the RTC when it denied Webb’s motion for DNA on November 25, 1997,
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted in prevailing jurisprudence stated that DNA being a relatively new science then,
Brady, makes the good or bad faith of the State irrelevant when the State has not yet been accorded official recognition by our courts. The RTC also
fails to disclose to the defendant material exculpatory evidence. But we think considered the more than six (6) years that have elapsed since the
the Due Process Clause requires a different result when we deal with the commission of the crime in June 1991, thus the possibility of the specimen
failure of the State to preserve evidentiary material of which no more can be having been tampered with or contaminated. Acting on reasonable belief that
said than that it could have been subjected to tests, the results of which the proposed DNA examination will not serve the ends of justice but
might have exonerated the defendant. x x x We think that requiring a 290
defendant to show bad faith on the part of the police both limits the extent of 290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the police’s obligation to preserve evidence to reasonable bounds and Lejano vs. People
confines it to that class of cases where the interests of justice most clearly instead lead to complication and confusion of the issues of the case, the trial
require it, i.e., those cases in which the police themselves by their conduct court properly denied Webb’s request for DNA testing.
indicate that the We thus reiterate that the vaginal smear confirming the presence of
_______________ spermatozoa merely corroborated Alfaro’s testimony that Carmela was raped
190 488 U.S. 51 (1988), 102 L Ed 281, 109 S Ct 333. before she was killed. Indeed, the presence or absence of spermatozoa is
289 immaterial in a prosecution for rape. The important consideration in rape
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 289 cases is not the emission of semen but the unlawful penetration of the female
Lejano vs. People genitalia by the male organ. 191 On the other hand, a negative result of DNA
evidence could form a basis for exonerating the defendant. We therefore examination of the semen specimen could not have exonerated Webb of the
hold that unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of crime charged as his identity as a principal in the rape-slay of Carmela was
the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not satisfactorily established by the totality of the evidence. A finding that the
constitute a denial of due process of law. semen specimen did not match Webb’s DNA does not necessarily negate his
In this case, the police collected the rectal swab and clothing on the night presence at the locus criminis.
of the crime: respondent was not taken into custody until six weeks later. The Civil Liability of Appellants
failure of the police to refrigerate the clothing and to perform tests on The Court sustains the award of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, pursuant
the semen samples can at worst be described as negligent. None of to current jurisprudence that in cases of rape with homicide, civil indemnity in
this information was concealed from respondent at trial, and the the amount of P100,000.00 should be awarded to the heirs of the
evidence—such as it was—was made available to respondent’s expert victim.192 Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victims
who declined to perform any tests on the samples. The Arizona Court of without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. For the deaths

Page 77 of 88
of Estrellita and Jennifer, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto to their This highly publicized case became the center of the nation’s attention
heirs, was likewise in order, in the amount of P50,000.00 owing to the public outrage over the atrocious nature of the crime committed
each.193 Following People v. Dela Cruz,194 in what was then thought to be a relatively secure
_______________ _______________
191 People v. Bato,  G.R. No. 134939, February 16, 2000, 325 SCRA 195 People v. Arellano, G.R. No. 176640, August 22, 2008, 563 SCRA
671, 678, citing People v. Juntilla,  G.R. No. 130604, September 16, 1999, 181, 189.
314 SCRA 568, 583; People v. Sacapaño,  G.R. No. 130525, September 3, 196 Id.
1999, 313 SCRA 650, 659; and People v. Manuel,  G.R. No. 121539, October 197 People v. Pascual, supra at pp. 260-261.
21, 1998, 298 SCRA 184. 198 Nueva España v. People, supra at p. 558.
192 People v. Pascual, G.R. No. 172326, January 19, 2009, 576 SCRA 292
242, 260, citing People v. Sevilleno, G.R. No. 152954, March 10, 2004, 425 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
SCRA 247, 257. Lejano vs. People
193 Nueva España v. People,  G.R. No. 163351, June 21, 2005, 460 neighborhood. Worse, it brought inconsolable grief to a husband and father
SCRA 547, 555-556, citing People v. Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March who lost his entire family to senseless violence while he was working
17, 2004, 425 SCRA 654, 673. overseas. Events soon after the occurrence of the crime on 30 June 1991
194 G.R. No. 166723, August 2, 2007, 529 SCRA 109, 118. would only help fuel civic indignation. Just two days thereafter, or on 2 July
291 1991, La Salle Engineering student Eldon Maguan was gunned down in cold
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 291 blood by businessman Rolito Go over a parking skirmish in San Juan. 1 After
Lejano vs. People the lapse of only 11 days, young Maureen Hultman and Roland John
P75,000.00 civil indemnity and P75,000 moral damages in rape cases are Chapman were fatally shot by Claudio Teehankee, Jr. in Dasmarinas Village
awarded only if they are classified as heinous.195 As the rape-slay of Carmela after a minor scuffle.2
took place in 1991, R.A. No. 7659 entitled “AN ACT TO IMPOSE DEATH The vehement outcry to find and punish those responsible for the
PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT Vizconde horror initially led, four months after, to the arrest and eventual
PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER filing by the prosecution of Information for two counts of robbery with
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,” which was homicide and one count of robbery with rape against six named and an
approved on December 13, 1993 and was to become effective fifteen (15) undetermined number of unnamed persons touted as members of the Akyat
days after its publication in two national newspapers of general circulation, Bahay gang. In view of the illegal arrests of the accused and noncompliance
was not yet effective.196 with the requirements for conducting custodial investigation, including
As to moral damages, recent jurisprudence allows the amount of evidence of torture in extracting confessions from the accused, the trial court
P75,000.00 to be awarded in cases of rape with homicide. 197 We find the in its 1993 Decision3 pronounced the accused not guilty of the charges.
amount of P2,000,000.00 as moral damages awarded by the RTC as During the same year (1993), another set of suspects (apparently former
affirmed by the CA, rather excessive. While courts have a wide latitude in contractors/workers of the Vizcondes) was identified, only to be released
ascertaining the proper award for moral damages, the award should not be to later on due to insufficiency of evidence.4
such an extent that it inflicts injustice on the accused. 198 The award of Almost four years after the crime was committed, self-confessed drug
P2,000,000.00 as moral damages to the heir of the victims should user Jessica Alfaro (Alfaro) named young men from wealthy and powerful
accordingly be reduced to P500,000.00. The rest of the awards given by the families as perpetrators of the crime, which she claimed to have witnessed,
trial court are affirmed. thereby tantalizing a sympathetic public with ideal visions of justice—of
In view of the foregoing, I respectfully vote that the appeals in the above- morally depraved offenders finally caught and no longer able to wreck
entitled cases be DISMISSED and the Decision dated December 15, 2005 of random havoc on the lives of law-abiding
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 00336 be AFFIRMED with _______________
MODIFICATION only as to the award of damages. 1 Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101837, 11 February 1992, 206
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION SCRA 138.
SERENO, J.: 2 People v. Teehankee, Jr., G.R. Nos. 111206-08, 6 October 1995, 319
The duty of the prosecution is not merely to secure a conviction, but Phil.128; 249 SCRA 54 (1995).
to secure a just conviction. 3 Decision dated 13 September 1993 issued by the Regional Trial Court
of Makati, Branch 63 in Criminal Case Nos. 91-7135 to 37.

Page 78 of 88
4 Lejano v. People, G.R. Nos. 176389 and 176864, 20 April 2010. fairness for him. Rights of the victim are not ignored, but they are respected
293 only to the extent that they are consistent with the fairness of the trial for the
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 293 accused.9
Lejano vs. People In Allado V. Diokno,10 we also elucidated this delicate balancing of
citizens; of privileged perpetrators subjected to the rule of law no matter how interests in the following manner:
high and mighty; of bereaved families brought a measure of comfort for the “The sovereign power has the inherent right to protect itself and its people
vindication of wasted young lives. from vicious acts which endanger the proper administration of justice; hence,
However, there was little objective forensic evidence obtained from the the State has every right to prosecute and punish violators of the law. This is
crime scene due to deplorable missteps taken by the investigating police essential for its self-preservation, nay, its very existence. But this does not
officers. Consequently, Senior Police Officer 1 Gerardo Biong and some confer a license for pointless assaults on its citizens. The right of the State to
John Does were charged as accessories to the crime for “conceal[ing] and prosecute is not a carte blanche for government agents to defy and disregard
destroy[ing] the effects or instruments thereof by failing to preserve the the rights of its citizens under the Constitution. Confinement, regardless of
physical evidence and allowing their destruction in order to prevent the duration, is too high a price to pay for reckless and impulsive prosecution.
discovery of the crime.”5 Hence, even if we apply in this case the “multifactor balancing test” which
A review of the proceedings during preliminary investigation and trial requires the officer to weigh the manner and intensity of the interference on
showed that the prosecution did not fare much better, for it committed acts of the right of the people, the gravity of the crime committed and the
prosecutorial misconduct that effectively deprived the accused of their circumstances attending the incident, still we cannot see probable cause to
constitutionally guaranteed right to due process. order the detention of petitioners.
At the outset, it cannot be overemphasized that the prosecuting officer “is The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people against arbitrary
the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a and discriminatory use of political power. This bundle of rights guarantees
sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its the preservation of our natural rights which include personal liberty and
obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal security against invasion by the government or any of its branches or
prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As instrumentalities. Certainly, in the hierarchy of rights, the Bill of Rights takes
such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the precedence over the right of the State to prosecute, and when weighed
twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He against each other, the scales of justice tilt towards the former. Thus, relief
may prosecute with earnestness and vigor—indeed, he should do so. But, may be availed of to stop the purported enforcement of criminal law where it
while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as _______________
much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a 7  The Prosecution Role in Upholding the Right to a Fair Trial and
wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a Responding to Victims/Witnesses, The Prosecutor Papers, November 2005
just one.”6 at p. 10.
In the words of Richard Refshauge: “The adversarial system … is rooted 8  R v. Boucher, (1954) S.C.R. 16.
in the notion of a contest with winners and losers, yet the prosecutor is 9  Stuart, Don, CHARTER JUSTICE IN CANADIAN CRIMINAL LAW, 2001, p. 7.
ethically forbidden from embracing that notion. The 10 G.R. No. 113630, 5 May 1994, 232 SCRA 192.
_______________ 295
5 Information, Regional Trial Court Rollo, vol. 1, p. 34. VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 295
6 Tan v. Gallardo, G.R. Nos. L-41213-14 October 5, 1976, 73 SCRA 306, Lejano vs. People
citing Suarez v. Platon, et al., 69 Phil. 556 (1940). is necessary to provide for an orderly administration of justice, to prevent the
294 use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive and vindictive manner, and
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED to afford adequate protection to constitutional rights.
Lejano vs. People Let this then be a constant reminder to judges, prosecutors and other
question then, is not what will make the prospect of a conviction more government agents tasked with the enforcement of the law that in the
certain, but what is fair and what will contribute to justice.”7 performance of their duties they must act with circumspection, lest their
Thus, a criminal trial is not about personal redress for the victims, but thoughtless ways, methods and practices cause a disservice to their office
about determining the guilt and the just punishment of the accused. 8 What is and maim their countrymen they are sworn to serve and protect. We thus
in truth referred to when expanding on the concept of “fair trial” is that the caution government agents, particularly the law enforcers, to be more
rights of the accused are protected, to the extent necessary to ensure prudent in the prosecution of cases and not to be oblivious of human rights

Page 79 of 88
protected by the fundamental law. While we greatly applaud their determined pronouncing the presumption of innocence of the accused and their right to
efforts to weed society of felons, let not their impetuous eagerness violate due process, the Constitution declares that the risk of letting the guilty walk
constitutional precepts which circumscribe the structure of a civilized free would be error on the side of justice. This outcome is infinitely better
community.” than imprisoning an innocent person.
Indeed, at the core of our criminal justice system is the presumption of Because the accused must be presumed innocent, and because they are
innocence of the accused until proven guilty. Lip service to this ideal is not entitled to due process of law, it is the duty of the prosecution not to issue
enough, as our people are well acquainted with the painful reality that the prejudicial statements about them while the trial is being conducted. This
rights of the accused to a fair trial were violated with impunity by an standard applies with even more force to the trial judge who must at all times
unchecked authority in our not so distant history. In response, the rights of not only be impartial, but also appear to be so.12
the accused were enshrined in no less than the 1987 Constitution,  Allegations of issuance of prejudicial comments about the accused in this
particularly Article III thereof. They are further bolstered by the Rules of case pertained to the acts of the trial judge, and not the prosecution. When
Court, related legislation, general rules on evidence, and rules on ethical allegations of instances of the trial judge’s bias were first brought to this
conduct. Court, it was understandable that the Court
The said rights of the accused come with the corresponding duties, nay, _______________
guarantees on the part of the State, the prosecution in particular. The 12 Montemayor v. Bermejo, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-04-1535, 12 March 2004,
prosecution’s disregard of these standards amounts to prosecutorial 425 SCRA 403.
misconduct. 297
Some examples of prosecutorial misconduct would be the intimidation of VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 297
defense witnesses, the obstruction of defense lawyers’ access to prosecution Lejano vs. People
witnesses, the coercion of confession from the accused, the issuance of would accord the judge the presumption of regularity in the performance of
prejudicial comments about the accused, the mishandling and/or withholding her duties. Her subsequent acts, however, as well as her Decision—taken
of evidence, and the failure to preserve evidence.11 together—showed a pattern now recognizable in retrospect as bias against
_______________ the accused, amounting to denial of due process.
11 Cramm, Paul, D. The Perils of Prosecutorial Misconduct, http://www. In Webb, et al. v. People,13  the accused assailed the Court of Appeals for
24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/theperils-of-prosecutorial-misconduct- denying their Petition for the inhibition from the case of Judge Amelita
102380.php accessed on 10 December 2010. Tolentino, the presiding judge of Branch 274 of the Regional Trial Court of
296 Parañaque.
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Webb’s first Motion for the disqualification of Judge Tolentino, filed prior
Lejano vs. People to their arraignment, was anchored on the ground that the said judge had
Issuance of Prejudicial Comments allegedly told the media that “failure of the accused to surrender following the
About the Accused issuance of the warrant of arrest is an indication of guilt.” This motion was
Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution emphatically mandates: denied by Judge Tolentino. Two days later, Webb filed a second motion to
“Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense disqualify her. Allegedly, she had further told the media that the accused
without due process of law. “should not expect the comforts of home,” pending the resolution of his
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent Motion to be committed to the custody of the Philippine National Police at
until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself Camp Ricardo Papa, Bicutan, Parañaque. The judge again denied the
and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation Motion. Gerardo Biong also filed a motion to disqualify her on the ground of
against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the bias and partiality, but this Motion was also denied.
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the Thereafter, at the hearing for the accused’s Petitions for bail during which
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. the prosecution presented Jessica Alfaro, Judge Tolentino issued an Order.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence The judge ruled that Alfaro could not be cross-examined on the contents of
of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to the latter’s April 28 Affidavit. The affidavit was held to be inadmissible in
appear is unjustifiable.” (Underscoring supplied.) evidence, as it was allegedly not executed in the presence of a counsel.
The presumption of innocence of the accused is at the center of our Alfaro was asked about her brother Patrick Alfaro and her uncle Robert
criminal justice system—the cornerstone, as it were, of all the other rights Alfaro. She admitted that her brother was a drug addict and had been
accorded to the accused, including the right to due process of law. In arrested by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for illegal drug

Page 80 of 88
possession. She further claimed that her brother was now in the United April 28 Affidavit. The appellate court, however, denied all the other reliefs
States. The prosecution objected to further questions regarding the arrest prayed for. The accused thus elevated the matter to this Court.
and departure of Alfaro’s brother on the ground that it was irrelevant, They subsequently filed a Supplemental Petition, alleging, among others,
immaterial and impertinent for cross-examination. Despite the defense that during the trial on the merits, Judge Tolentino had allowed prosecution
counsel’s explanation that the ques- witness Atty. Pedro Rivera to testify on the character of the accused,
_______________ although the defense had not put his character in issue; that the judge
13 G.R. No. 127262, 24 July 1997, 276 SCRA 243; 342 Phil. 206. disallowed the defense to impeach the credibility of Atty. Rivera by the
298 presentation of an earlier statement executed by him, on the ground that his
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED statement was immaterial; and that, after ruling that the proffer of oral
Lejano vs. People evidence made by defense counsel Atty. Vitaliano Aguirre was improper on
tions were for the purpose of establishing Alfaro’s bias and motive for cross-examination, Judge Tolentino struck the proffer from the record.
testifying against the accused, the trial court sustained the objection. We affirmed the Court of Appeals’ disposition, explaining as follows:
Similar objections on the ground of irrelevance, immateriality and “A critical component of due process is a hearing before an impartial and
impertinence were sustained by the trial court when the defense counsel disinterested tribunal [and] every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the
cross-examined Alfaro on her educational attainment. Prior to the cross- cold neutrality of an impartial judge for all the other elements of due process,
examination, Alfaro was shown her transcript of records indicating her like notice and hearing, would be meaningless if the ultimate decision would
completion of only one academic year, thus earning nine units of college. come from a partial and biased judge. [However, t]his right must be weighed
Accused then filed a Motion to disqualify Judge Tolentino or inhibit herself with the duty of a judge to decide cases without fear of repression. Hence, to
from the case due to bias and prejudice, but she denied the Motion. disqualify a judge on the ground of bias and prejudice the movant must prove
The accused thus assailed before this Court [1] the Order of judge the same by clear and convincing evidence. …
Tolentino denying Webb’s motion for hospitalization; and [2] the Order of As a general rule, repeated rulings against a litigant, no matter how
Judge Tolentino disallowing the defense to cross-examine Alfaro on the erroneous and vigorously and consistently expressed, are not a basis for
contents of her April 28 affidavit. disqualification of a judge on grounds of bias and prejudice. Extrinsic
Accused later filed with this Court a Supplemental Petition to set aside evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in
Judge Tolentino’s Order denying their Motion for inhibition. addition to the palpable error which may be inferred from the decision or
This Court resolved to refer the petitions to the Court of Appeals for order itself. Although the decision may seem so erroneous as to raise doubts
proper disposition. concerning a judge’s integrity, absent extrinsic evidence, the decision itself
In the meantime, the hearing on the accused’s Petitions for bail would be insufficient to establish a case against the judge. The only
continued, with petitioner Webb filing a motion for deposition of witnesses exception to the rule is when the error is so gross and patent as to produce
residing in the United States, who would testify on his presence in that an ineluctable inference of bad faith or malice.
country on the date of the commission of the crime. This Petition was denied A perusal of the records will reveal that petitioners failed to adduce any
by Judge Tolentino on the ground that petitioner failed to allege that the extrinsic evidence to prove that respondent judge was motivated by malice or
witnesses did not have the means to go to the place of the trial. Petitioner 300
Webb filed another Supplemental Petition to the Court of Appeals 300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
challenging the said Order. Lejano vs. People
The defense made their Formal Offer of Evidence upon conclusion of the bad faith in issuing the assailed rulings. Petitioners simply lean on the
hearings on the Petitions for bail. The prosecution filed its alleged series of adverse rulings of the respondent judge which they
Comment/Objection to the Formal Offer of Evidence. Judge Tolentino ruled characterized as palpable errors. This is not enough. We note that
on the accused’s formal offer of evidence, admitting only ten   [10] out of the respondent judge’s rulings resolving the various motions filed by petitioners
one hundred forty-two [142] exhibits offered by the defense. Subsequently, were all made after considering the arguments raised by all the parties. It is
the judge denied the accused’s Petitions for bail.299 true that the respondent judge erred in some of her rulings such as her
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 299 rejection of petitioners’ one hundred thirty two pieces of evidence. It appears,
Lejano vs. People however, that respondent judge reversed this erroneous ruling and already
The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision on the various Petitions and admitted these 132 pieces of evidence after finding that “the defects in [their]
Supplemental Petitions, reversing Judge Tolentino’s refusal to admit Alfaro’s admissibility have been cured through the introduction of additional evidence
during the trial on the merits.” This correction diminishes the strength of

Page 81 of 88
petitioners’ charge that respondent judge is hopelessly biased against them. stipulations set forth in his tail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by
… the court for purposes of identification. The absence of the accused without
… There is still another reason why we should observe caution in justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a
disqualifying respondent judge. The trial of the petitioners is about to end and waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an accused under custody
to assign a new judge to determine the guilt or innocence of petitioners will escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on all
not be for the best interest of justice. The records of the case at bar run into subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the
volumes. These voluminous records cannot capture in print the complete accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently
credibility of witnesses when they testified in court. As the respondent judge appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the
observed the demeanor of witnesses while in the witness chair, she is in the assistance of counsel.
best position to calibrate their credibility. The task of evaluating the credibility (d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-
of witnesses includes interpreting their body language and their meaningful examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not
nuances are not expressed in the transcripts of their testimonies. in any manner prejudice him.
We hasten to stress that a party aggrieved by erroneous interlocutory (e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
rulings in the course of a trial is not without remedy. The range of remedy is (f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial.
provided in our Rules of Court and we need not make an elongated Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who
discourse on the subject. But certainly, the remedy for erroneous rulings, is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the Philippines,
absent any extrinsic evidence of malice or bad faith, is not the outright unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or
disqualification of the judge. For there is yet to come a judge with the 302
omniscience to issue rulings that are always infallible. The courts will close 302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
shop if we disqualify judges who err for we all err.” Lejano vs. People
Mishandling and/or Withholding of Evidence proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject
The rights of the accused to have compulsory process to secure the matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him.
production of evidence on their behalf is a right enshrined in no less than our (g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of
Constitution, particularly Article III, Section 14 thereof, to wit:301 witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 301 (h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.
Lejano vs. People (i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.”
“Section 14: (Underscoring supplied.)
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due  Section 10, Rule 116 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, in fact further
process of law. mandates:
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent “SEC. 10. Production or inspection of material evidence in
until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself possession of prosecution.—Upon motion of the accused showing good
and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation cause and with notice to the parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise,
against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the suppression, or alteration, may order the prosecution to produce and permit
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the the inspection and copying or photographing of any written statement given
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.” xxx by the complainant and other witnesses in any investigation of the offense
(Underscoring supplied.)  conducted by the prosecution or other investigating officers, as well as any
 This right is echoed and further fleshed out in the Rules of Criminal designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
Procedure. Rule 115, Section 1 thereof, provides: photographs, objects, or tangible things not otherwise privileged, which
“SECTION 1. Rights of accused at the trial.—In all criminal prosecutions, constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the case and
the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: which are in possession or under the control of the prosecution, police, or
(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond other law investigating agencies.” (Underscoring supplied.)
reasonable doubt. Thus, the accused’s right of access to evidence requires the correlative
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. duty of the prosecution to produce and permit the inspection of the evidence,
(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of and not to suppress or alter it.
the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The Applying this standard to the present case, it is notable that during
accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the preliminary investigation, the NBI presented to the Department of Justice

Page 82 of 88
(DOJ) Panel, among others, the Sworn Statement of their principal witness, Lejano vs. People
Alfaro, dated 22 May 1995. Before submitting his Counter-Affidavit, Webb Webb et al. came to this Court to assail the DOJ Panel’s finding and the
filed with the DOJ Panel a Motion for Production and Examination of trial court’s issuance of warrants for their arrest. We upheld the right of
Evidence and Documents for the NBI to produce, among others, any other petitioners to compel the NBI to disclose exculpatory evidence in their favor:
written statements of Alfaro. “Further, petitioners charge the NBI with violating their right to discovery
The DOJ Panel granted the Motion, and the NBI submitted a mere proceedings during their preliminary investigation by suppressing the April
photocopy of an earlier Sworn Statement of Alfaro dated 28 April 1995. The 28, 1995 original copy of the sworn statement of Alfaro and the FBI Report.
Statement did not appear to be signed by Alfaro’s counsel of choice, named The argument is novel in this jurisdiction and as it urges an expansive
as Atty. Arturo Mercader, Jr., in the same document. In reading of the rights of persons under preliminary investigation it deserves
303 serious consideration. To start with, our Rules on Criminal Procedure do not
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 303 expressly provide for discovery proceedings during the preliminary
Lejano vs. People investigation stage of a criminal proceeding. Sections 10 and 11 of Rule 117
this earlier Sworn Statement, Alfaro declared that she had never met do provide an accused the right to move for a bill of particulars and for
Carmela before that fateful night; that she did not know why the accused production or inspection of material evidence in possession of the
wanted to enter the Vizconde house, except that they were after Carmela; prosecution. But these provisions apply after the filing of the Complaint or
that the accused entered the premises by jumping over the fence; that she Information in court and the rights are accorded to the accused to assist
did not know how the accused were able to enter the house, as she was them to make an intelligent plea at arraignment and to prepare for trial.
about ten (10) meters away from the kitchen door; that she did not know who This failure to provide discovery procedure during preliminary
opened that door for the accused, but hinted that one of the maids must have investigation does not, however, negate its use by a person under
done it since Estrellita and Carmela were tied; and that she had no idea what investigation when indispensable to protect his constitutional right to life,
transpired in the house until they left the area. liberty and property. Preliminary investigation is not too early a stage to
This Statement contradicted salient points in Alfaro’s 22 May 1995 Sworn guard against any significant erosion of the constitutional right to due process
Statement, which was the basis of the NBI’s complaint. In her 22 May 1995 of a potential accused. As aforediscussed, the object of a preliminary
Sworn Statement, Alfaro claimed to have known Carmela since February investigation is to determine the probability that the suspect committed a
1991; that the group decided to rape Carmela when Alfaro informed Webb crime. We hold that the finding of a probable cause by itself subjects the
that Carmela had dropped off a man who appeared to be her boyfriend; that suspect’s life, liberty and property to real risk of loss or diminution. In the
Carmela left open the gate through which they entered the premises freely; case at bar, the risk to the liberty of petitioners cannot be understated for
that Alfaro led the group in entering the kitchen door; that she witnessed the they are charged with the crime of rape with homicide, a non-bailable offense
rape of Carmela by Webb and also saw the bodies of Estrellita and Jennifer when the evidence of guilt is strong.
piled up on the bed. Attuned to the times, our Rules have discarded the pure inquisitorial
The NBI explained that they produced a mere photocopy of the 28 April system of preliminary investigation. Instead, Rule 112 installed a quasi-
1995 Sworn Statement, because the original was lost. When the DOJ Panel judicial type of preliminary investigation conducted by one whose high duty is
refused to issue a subpoena duces tecum to Atty. Mercader, the accused to be fair and impartial. As this Court emphasized in Rolito Go vs. Court of
filed a case with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 63, to obtain the Appeals, “the right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before
original of the first Sworn Statement. Atty. Mercader then appeared and being bound over for trial for a criminal offense, and hence formally at risk of
produced before the trial court the original Sworn Statement of Alfaro dated incarceration or some other penalty, is not a mere or technical right; it is a
28 April 1995, which also contained his signature. Webb retained a certified substantive right.” A preliminary investigation should therefore be
true copy of the first Sworn Statement (certified by Assistant State scrupulously conducted so that the constitutional right to liberty of a potential
Prosecutor Jovencito Zuno), while the duplicate original copy thereof was accused can be protected from any material damage. We uphold the legal
submitted to the DOJ Panel. basis of the right
The DOJ Panel still found probable cause to charge the accused and on 305
10 August 1995, an Information for Rape with Homicide was filed with the VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 305
Regional Trial Court of Parañaque against Webb, et al. It was raffled to Lejano vs. People
Branch 274, presided by Judge Amelita Tolentino, who thereupon issued of petitioners to demand from their prosecutor, the NBI, the original copy of
warrants for their arrest.304 the April 28, 1995 sworn statement of Alfaro and the FBI Report during their
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED preliminary investigation considering their exculpatory character, and hence,

Page 83 of 88
unquestionable materiality to the issue of their probable guilt. The right is On the third day of Alfaro’s cross-examination, the prosecution objected
rooted on the constitutional protection of due process which we rule to be to questions referring to the first Sworn Statement on the ground that it was
operational even during the preliminary investigation of a potential accused. made without the assistance of counsel. The trial court sustained the
It is also implicit in Section (3) (a) of Rule 112 which requires during the objection.14 The accused’s counsel orally sought reconsideration, but this
preliminary investigation the filing of a sworn complaint which shall “. . . state was denied.15 When counsel moved for reconsideration, the trial court denied
the known address of the respondent and be accompanied by affidavits of the motion “with finality.”16 The accused’s counsel then showed the trial court
the complainant and his witnesses as well as other supporting their copy of the first Sworn Statement containing Atty. Mercader’s signature
documents . . . .” and certified as a true copy by Asst. Prosecutor Zuno. In turn, Assitant
In laying down this rule, the Court is not without enlightened precedents Prosecutor Atty. Zuno, who had the duplicate original thereof, failed or
from other jurisdictions. In the 1963 watershed case of Brady v. Maryland the refused to produce the statement despite repeated requests from the
United States Supreme Court held that “suppression of evidence favorable to accused Webb. (It was produced only on 24 October 1995.) Alfaro’s cross-
an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is examination continued, with no question pertaining to the first Sworn
material to guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of Statement allowed.
the prosecution.” Its progeny is the 1935 case of Mooney v. Holohan which On 8 November 1995, the trial court issued its Order dated 30 October
laid down the proposition that a prosecutor’s intentional use of perjured 199517 in open court. The Court rejected the admissibility of the first Sworn
testimony to procure conviction violates due process. Thus, evolved Statement and barred its use for the purpose of impeaching Alfaro’s
jurisprudence firming up the prosecutor’s duty to disclose to the defense credibility or for refuting her subsequent statements. All previous questions
exculpatory evidence in its possession. The rationale is well put by Justice and answers connected with the said Sworn Statement were also ordered
Brennan in Brady—“society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but expunged from the records. The trial court reasoned that the said Sworn
when criminal trials are fair.” Indeed, prosecutors should not treat litigation Statement was an “illegally obtained evidence, and therefore, cannot be used
like a game of poker where surprises can be sprung and where gain by guile either directly or indirectly against Alfaro.” Citing Section 12, Article III of the
is not punished.” (Citations omitted.) Constitution, the trial court concluded that “Alfaro could not be cross-
Nevertheless, we ruled that with the production of the first Sworn _______________
Statement, “(p)etitioners thus had the fair chance to explain to the DOJ Panel 14 TSN, 19 October 1995, pp. 23-24.
then still conducting their preliminary investigation the exculpatory aspects of 15 Id., at pp. 25-33.
this sworn statement. Unfortunately for petitioners, the DOJ Panel still found 16 Id., at pp. 33-45.
probable cause to charge them despite the alleged material discrepancies 17 Order, Regional Trial Court Rollo, vol. 1, pp. 852-860.
between the first and second sworn statements of Alfaro. For reasons we 307
have expounded, this finding of probable cause cannot be struck down as VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 307
done with grave abuse of discretion.” Lejano vs. People
It appeared, however, that the prosecution would continue to suppress examined by the defense on the contents of the said affidavit in order to
Alfaro’s first Sworn Statement. When bail hearings commenced on 9 October discredit her statement dated May 22, 1995 and her testimony in open
1995, the prosecution started with a presentation of the testimony of Alfaro. court.”18
On 16 October 1995, Alfaro was allowed by the This Order led accused Webb et al. to seek Judge Tolentino’s inhibition
306 and to incorporate the above instance as part of their proof of the trial judge’s
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED bias. The Court of Appeals denied the Petition, and we affirmed the denial in
Lejano vs. People the manner laid out in the preceding discussion.
trial court to testify on the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Failure to Preserve Evidence
two Sworn Statements, notwithstanding that said statements were not As discussed in the preceding section, the accused’s right to access to
presented for proper identification and marking. On cross-examination, Alfaro evidence necessitates in the correlative duty of the prosecution to produce
admitted that in the first Sworn Statement were answers that were not hers, and permit the inspection of the evidence, and not to suppress or alter it.
but were only supplied by the NBI agents then present during the statement- When the prosecution is called upon not to suppress or alter evidence in its
taking. For instance, she stated that the answer to question number 8 is not possession that may benefit the accused, it is also necessarily obliged to
true, because she only finished second year and was not actually a college preserve the said evidence. To hold otherwise would be to render illusory the
graduate. existence of such right.

Page 84 of 88
The advent of DNA technology prompted this Court’s promulgation of the part of the defense, instead of for the prosecution. If a negative DNA test
New Rules for DNA Evidence.19 As DNA evidence provides objective proof of result could not be considered as providing certainty that Webb did not
identification and may be obtained from evidence left in the scene of the commit the crime, would it not have at least cast a reasonable doubt that he
crime or in the victim’s person, it also gives new meaning to the above duty committed it?
of the prosecution. Moreover, the argument against the relevance of the semen sample—
 The prosecution did not fare well when measured against this standard. that the presence of semen was not necessary to prove that rape was
Alfaro testified that the group had earlier agreed that Webb would be the committed—is not in point. What the defense was after when it sought DNA
first to rape Carmela. When Alfaro said she saw Webb pumping Carmela, testing was neither to prove nor to disprove the commission of rape, but to
while two bloodied bodies were on top of the bed, the former was so shocked pinpoint the identity of the assailant. In this case,
that she “stepped back and turned around to go outside.” On her way out, 309
she met Ventura near the door. He said, “Prepare escape.” Things had VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 309
apparently gone awry, so they left the place. The NBI proclaimed that the Lejano vs. People
semen samples they had collected from Carmela were preserved in slides semen with spermatozoa was in fact obtained, and it did possess exculpatory
and remained intact. Thus, in order potential that might be beneficial to the accused. In Tijing v. Court of
_______________ Appeals,20 we held that “courts should apply the results of science when
18 Id., at pp. 7-8. competently obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said result
19 A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC effective 15 October 2007. is to deny progress.” Hence, it is the constitutional duty of the trial judge to
308 afford all possible means to both the NBI and the counsel for accused, in
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED order that such evidence may be scrutinized in open court. The Court held
Lejano vs. People in People v. Yatar:
for the prosecution’s theory to be consistent, pursuant to the quantum “DNA print or identification technology has been advanced as a uniquely
required in criminal cases, the DNA evidence in the slides must positively effective means to link a suspect to a crime, or to exonerate a wrongly
match that from accused Webb. accused suspect, where biological evidence has been left. For purposes of
Based on the foregoing circumstances, the defense counsel accordingly criminal investigation, DNA identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory
filed a Motion to Direct NBI to Submit Semen Specimen to DNA Analysis and exculpatory evidence. It can assist immensely in effecting a more
during the course of the trial. Several exchanges of pleadings on the matter accurate account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the conviction
were filed before the trial court, and at no time was the timeliness of the filing of the guilty, securing the acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring the proper
of the Motion at issue. It could not have been, considering that the Motion administration of justice in every case.
was timely filed during the course of the trial. While the Motion was filed six DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can link a suspect to a crime
years after the crime was committed, the trial of the accused herein did not or eliminate one from suspicion in the same principle as fingerprints are
start until more than four years after the commission of the crime. used. Incidents involving sexual assault would leave biological evidence such
The trial court denied the Motion on 25 November 1997, holding that as hair, skin tissue, semen, blood, o saliva which can be left on the victim’s
since more than six (6) years had lapsed since the commission of the crime, body or at the crime scene. Hair and fiber from clothing, carpets, bedding or
there was no assurance that the semen specimen remained uncontaminated. furniture could also be transferred to the victim’s body during the assault.
Also, the trial court held that Webb was not able to show that the proper Forensic DNA evidence is helpful in proving that there was physical contact
procedure for the extraction and preservation of the semen sample had been between an assailant and a victim. If properly collected from the victim, crime
complied with. Finally, the trial court held that a DNA test would only lead to scene or assailant, DNA can be compared with known samples to place the
confusion of the issues. suspect at the scene of the crime.”21
However, as correctly held by Justice Lucenito Tagle in his Dissenting Thus, when the present case reached this Court and a similar Motion was
Opinion, the trial judge’s objections to the DNA testing were based on mere filed, we resolved to grant22petitioner’s motion to allow DNA testing of the
conjectures that ran against the presumption of regularity in the performance semen sample collected from the victim in order to compare it with Webb’s
of official duty. DNA. Unfortunately, said semen sample appears to have been lost by the
Meanwhile, the idea that a negative DNA test result would not have NBI, which had custody thereof.
necessarily exculpated Webb, because previous sexual congress by _______________
Carmela with another man prior to the crime could not be discounted, would 20 G.R. No. 125901, 8 March 2001, 406 Phil. 449; 354 SCRA 17.
unrealistically raise the bar of evidence—and for the wrong party, i.e., for the 21 G.R. No. 150224, 19 May 2004, 428 SCRA 504.

Page 85 of 88
22 Resolution dated 20 April 2010. are now only eight (8) states that have not adopted statutes allowing
310 post-conviction DNA testing,25 with some requiring the correlative duty to
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED preserve DNA evidence. So far, 261 convicts in the United
Lejano vs. People _______________
Does the prosecution’s loss of this potentially exculpatory evidence result PCR is usually followed by short tandem repeat (STR) testing, which
in a fundamentally unfair trial of the accused that entitles him to a judgment compares thirteen specific regions, or loci, found on nuclear DNA. The odds
of acquittal? that two unrelated individuals will share the same thirteen-loci DNA profile
In resolving this question in the negative, the Dissent cites Youngblood v. can be as high as one in a billion or more. Thus, PCR-STR analysis is both
Arizona,23 a United States Supreme Court Decision, which held that the highly sensitive and discriminating. It is sensitive in that small amounts of
prosecution’s failure to keep intact a piece of potentially exculpatory evidence biological material can be tested. It is discriminating in that the results of a
does not result in a due process violation, unless the accused is able to show thirteen-loci comparison generate unique DNA profiles that can establish guilt
that the prosecution acted in bad faith. or innocence to a practical certainty in certain types of cases.
However, reliance on Youngblood is ill-advised. 25 98 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 329
First, Youngblood was promulgated more than two decades ago, in Yet another powerful forensic DNA tool has emerged: mitochondrial DNA
1988, when DNA testing was still in its infancy. Since then, the technology (mtDNA) testing. Unlike STR analysis, this technique examines the DNA
has grown by leaps and bounds.24 In the United States, there contained in the mitochondria of a cell, not its nucleus. This is important
_______________ because some biological material, including hair shafts, bones, and teeth,
23 488 U.S. 51 (1988). lack nuclei, but possess mitochondria. In some cases, especially those
24 In his Article, OLD BLOOD, BAD BLOOD, AND YOUNGBLOOD: DUE involving decomposed tissue, only teeth or bones may remain. Mitochondrial
PROCESS, LOST EVIDENCE, AND THE LIMITS OF BAD FAITH, 86 Wash. U. L. Rev. DNA testing allows for the study and comparison of DNA in such material.
241, Norman C. Bay reported (pp. 282-283): One drawback to mtDNA is that it is not as discriminating as STR.
Forensic DNA typing was not developed until 1985, when Dr. Alec Mitochondrial DNA is passed maternally; consequently, siblings and maternal
Jeffreys, an English scientist, used the technique to exonerate one suspect in relatives have the same mtDNA, and the test cannot distinguish among
the sexual assault and murder of two young girls and to inculpate another. them. Nonetheless, mtDNA provides a powerful supplement to STR and may
Three years later, in 1988, the same year Youngblood was decided, the FBI allow for analysis when none is otherwise available. Among other things,
began testing DNA. That same year, for the first time, a state appellate court mtDNA has identified one of the unknown soldiers in the Tomb of the
upheld the admission of DNA evidence in a criminal case. The crime at issue Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery, the remains of Czar
in Youngblood occurred well before the advent of DNA testing, and the Nicholas II and his family, and the likely offspring of Thomas Jefferson and
Supreme Court decided the case when DNA testing was in its infancy, still Sally Heming.
embroiled in litigation over its reliability and admissibility. Since 1985, the field of forensic DNA typing has continued to progress.
In the two decades since it was first used, forensic DNA typing has Emerging Y-chromosome analysis focuses on variations in male genetic
continued to progress. At this point, scientists have developed three material; it may prove to be helpful in sexual assault cases involving multiple
generations of tests. The current, dominant generation of technology is the male perpetrators. Hand-held or portable devices with “labs-on-a-chip” may
polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This approach analyzes DNA taken from be developed that allow for rapid DNA testing at a crime scene. Robotic
the nucleus of a cell. PCR allows the DNA in a biological sample to be systems are already being used to help process DNA samples. Similarly,
replicated; only a minute amount of DNA is needed and the sample from computer software compares and interprets STR data. In short, forensic DNA
which it comes can be highly degraded. Only a few cells are required for typing will continue to become increasingly automated, faster, cheaper, and
reliable results. Usable DNA can be recovered from a myriad of items, more accurate. This, in turn, ought to affect the due process calculus when
including computer keyboards, hats, bandannas, eyeglasses, facial tissue, the state loses or destroys potentially exculpatory evidence. The context in
cotton swabs, dirty laundry, toothpicks, chewing gum, cigarette butts, which such problems arise today is entirely different than when Youngblood
envelope seals, the mouths of bottles, the rims of glasses, or urine stains. was decided.” (Citations omitted.)
311 312
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 311 312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lejano vs. People Lejano vs. People
States have been exonerated as a result of post-conviction DNA testing. 26

Page 86 of 88
Second, Youngblood was not a product of a unanimous Decision. The ‘good faith’ and ‘bad faith’ is anything but bright, and the majority’s
majority opinion in Youngblood was penned by Justice Rehnquist and formulation may well create more questions than it answers.”
concurred in by Justices White, O’Connor, Scalia and Kennedy, with Justice Justice Blackmun proposed the following alternative to the bad-faith
Stevens concurring with the result and writing a Separate Opinion. Justice standard:
Blackmun wrote a strong Dissent, which was joined in by Justices Brennan “Rather than allow a State’s ineptitude to saddle a defendant with an
and Marshall. impossible burden, a court should focus on the type of evidence, the
A critique27 of the Youngblood decision points out that there are two possibility it might prove exculpatory, and the existence of other evidence
competing due process interests therein. On the one hand is adjudicative going to the same point of contention in determining whether the failure to
fairness, which “seeks to ensure that the accused receives meaningful preserve the evidence in question violated due process. To put it succinctly,
protection in court, in other words, reliable fact finding and a fair trial. … [and where no comparable evidence is likely to be available to the defendant,
which] manifests itself in an assessment of the materiality of evidence and police must preserve physical evidence of a type that they reasonably should
prejudice to the accused …[as] paramount in determining whether a due know has the potential, if tested, to reveal immutable characteristics of the
process violation has occurred.” On the other hand is instrumentalism, criminal, and hence to exculpate a defendant charged with the crime.”
which seeks “to impose restraints on the state. …[by] punishing the state for Justice Blackmun then gave his opinion on how to balance the
police and prosecutorial misconduct. … to deter future misconduct and to defendant’s rights and the duty imposed upon the law enforcement to
create a prophylactic effect. In measuring the misconduct, one examines the preserve evidence:
subjective intent of the officer and whether the officer acted in good faith or “Due process must also take into account the burdens that the
bad faith. Under this approach, the focus is on the state, not the individual. preservation of evidence places on the police. Law enforcement officers must
Moreover, the focus on the state and on deterring official misconduct invites be provided the
an examination of the costs of providing additional process.” _______________
The majority opinion in Youngblood focused on the state of mind of the 28 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
police officer rather than on materiality and fairness to the accused. 29 The Court in Brady held: “The suppression by the prosecution of
However, in his Separate Opinion wherein he registered his reservation to evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where
the bad faith standard being laid out by the majority, Justice Stevens the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the
recognized that “there may well be cases in which the defendant is unable to good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”
prove that the State acted in bad faith but in which the loss or destruction of 314
evidence is nonetheless so critical to the defense as to make a criminal trial 314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
fundamentally unfair.” Lejano vs. People
_______________ option, as is implicit in Trombetta, of performing the proper tests on
26The Innocence Project. <http://www.innocenceproject.org> accessed physical evidence and then discarding it. Once a suspect has been arrested,
on 12 December 2010. the police, after a reasonable time, may inform defense counsel of plans to
27 86 Wash. U. L. Rev. 241. discard the evidence. When the defense has been informed of the existence
313 of the evidence, after a reasonable time, the burden of preservation may shift
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 313 to the defense. There should also be flexibility to deal with evidence that is
Lejano vs. People unusually dangerous or difficult to store.”
While the earlier case Brady v. Maryland28 held that due process violation  Third, it is not amiss to note that in the year 2000, the injustice of
could be committed even without bad faith, 29the majority the Youngblood decision was brought into sharp relief when more
distinguished Youngblood from Brady  by holding that the evidence sophisticated DNA technology was used on the degraded evidence. The
in Brady was clearly favorable to the accused, while that in Youngblood was technology yielded a DNA profile that (1) exonerated Larry Youngblood of the
only potentially exculpatory. crime charged (child molestation, sexual assault and kidnapping) and (2)
Justice Blackmun opined, though, that it was impossible for the accused enabled the police to find the real offender. Excerpts from the website of The
to prove that a particular piece of evidence was exculpatory when, precisely, Innocence Project, an organization advocating the use of DNA evidence, are
it was no longer in existence. Justice Blackmun also disapproved of the bad- as follows:
faith standard, because “(a)part from the inherent difficulty a defendant would “Larry Youngblood was convicted in 1985 of child molestation, sexual
have in obtaining evidence to show a lack of good faith, the line between assault, and kidnapping. He was sentenced to ten years and six months in
prison. In October 1983, a ten year old boy was abducted from a carnival in

Page 87 of 88
Pima County, Arizona, and molested and sodomized repeatedly for over an However, since “the task of the pillars of the criminal justice system is to
hour by a middle aged man. The victim was taken to a hospital, where the preserve our democratic society under the rule of law, ensuring that all those
staff collected semen samples from his rectum as well as the clothing he was who appear before or are brought to the bar of justice are afforded a fair
wearing at the time of the assault. opportunity to present their side,”31 the measure of whether the accused
Based on the boy’s description of the assailant as a man with one herein has been deprived of due process of law should not be limited to the
disfigured eye, Youngblood was charged with the crime. He maintained his state of mind of the prosecution, but should include fundamental principles of
innocence at trial, but the jury convicted him, based largely on the fair play. Hence, as we write
eyewitness identification of the victim. No serological tests were conducted _______________
before trial, as the police improperly stored the evidence and it had 30 The Innocence Project—Know the Cases: Browse Profiles: Larry
degraded. Expert witnesses at trial stated that, had the evidence been stored Youngblood,
correctly, test results might have demonstrated conclusively Youngblood’s <http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Larry_Youngblood.php> accessed
innocence. on 12/13/2010
Larry Youngblood appealed his conviction, claiming the destruction of 31 Tan v. People, G.R. No. 173637, 21 April 2009, 586 SCRA 139.
potentially exculpatory evidence violated his due process rights, and the 316
Arizona Court of Appeals set aside his conviction. He was released from 316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
prison, three years into his sentence, but in 1988, the Supreme Court Lejano vs. People
reversed the lower court’s ruling, and his conviction was reinstated (Arizona finis to this case, it is time we evaluate the total picture that the prosecution’s
v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51). Youngblood remained free as the case made acts or omissions have wrought upon the accused’s rights with each
its way through the Arizona appellate court system a second time, but seemingly innocuous stroke, whatever its intention may have been.
returned to prison in 1993, when the Arizona Supreme Court reinstated his The various violations of the accused’s rights have resulted in his failure
conviction.315 to secure a just trial. As such, the judgment of conviction cannot stand.
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 315 Judgment and resolution reversed and set aside, accused-appellants
Lejano vs. People Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio
In 1998, Youngblood was released on parole, but was sent back to prison Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and Gerardo Biong acquitted
in 1999 for failing to register his new address, as required by Arizona sex and ordered immediately released.
offender laws. In 2000, upon request from his attorneys, the police Notes.—A judgment acquitting the accused is a final verdict which cannot
department tested the degraded evidence using new, sophisticated DNA be reopened, assuming it is erroneous, because of the doctrine of double
technology. Those results exonerated Youngblood, and he was released jeopardy. (Ala-Martin vs. Sultan, 366 SCRA 316 [2001])
from prison in August 2000. The district attorney’s office dismissed the Where the accused after conviction by the trial court did not appeal his
charges against Larry Youngblood that year. conviction, an appeal by the government seeking to increase the penalty
Shortly thereafter, the DNA profile from the evidence was entered into the imposed by the trial court places the accused in double jeopardy and should
national convicted offender databases. In early 2001, officials got a hit, therefore be dismissed. (People vs. Leones, 366 SCRA 535 [2001])
matching the profile of Walter Cruise, who is blind in one eye and currently ——o0o——
serving time in Texas on unrelated charges. In August 2002, Cruise was © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
convicted of the crime and sentenced to twenty-four years in prison.” 30
In view of all the foregoing salient objections to Youngblood, it should not
be adopted in this jurisdiction.
While it is a laudable objective to inquire into the state of mind of the
prosecution and punish it when it has committed prosecutorial misconduct,
there are times when, undoubtedly, whether through malice or plain
ineptitude, its act or omission results in plain injustice to the accused.
In our various decisions relating to interlucotory orders and incidents
pertaining to this case, this court’s adherence to instrumentalism has led to
our finding in each instance that there was no due process violation
committed against petitioner, because bad faith was not shown by the
prosecution or the trial judge.

Page 88 of 88

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen