Court Acquits Hubert Webb, et al.

"Will the Court send the accused to spend the rest of their lives in prison on the testimony of an NBI asset who proposed to her handlers that she take the role of the witness to the Vizconde massacre that she could not produce?"

This is precisely the question that the Supreme Court asked itself and answered in an en banc decision dated December 14, 2010, which led to the release from prison of Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, “Tony Boy” Lejano, Artemio “Dong” Ventura, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio “Pyke” Fernandez, Peter Estrada, Miguel “Ging” Rodriguez, and Joey Filart -- all accused in the infamous 1991 Vizconde Massacre case.

The legal battle was actually between Hubert Webb's alibi and state eyewitness Jessica Alfaro's positive identification of the criminals.

As far as the lower courts were concerned, Webb failed to bring down the strength of Alfaro's testimony through his alibi, hence convicting him and others for rape with homicide.

The Supreme Court, on appeal, however, took a slower stance and opined that a positive declaration from a witness that he saw the accused commit the crime should not automatically cancel out the accused’s claim that he did not do it, because a lying witness can make as positive an identification as a truthful witness can.

The High Court believes that, to be acceptable, the positive identification must meet at least two criteria: (1) the positive identification of the offender must come from a credible witness, and (2) the witness’ story of what she personally saw must be believable, not inherently contrived.  The Supreme Court, however, finds Alfaro to have failed in meeting the criteria. 

Among other things, the SC points out that Alfaro did not show up at the National Bureau of Investigation as a "spontaneous witness bothered by her conscience". She was actually the agency's stool pigeon, and that she merely volunteered to play the role of a witness in the killings when she could not produce a man she promised to the NBI.  Her testimony although full of details was "inherently incredible", according to the SC. 

To establish alibi, the High Court further reasons, the accused must prove by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence that (a) he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.  This is what actually Webb gave the trial court, e.g. travel documents such as passport, domestic and foreign records of departures and arrivals from airports, and other corroborating documents and testimony -- evidences which the prosecution did not bother to refute via presentation of their own impeaching evidence.

The Supreme Court says Webb’s documented alibi altogether thrown Alfaro's testimony into the gutter, not only with respect to him, but also with respect to the other accused. By accepting Webb's defense, Alfaro’s testimony against all involved crumbled down.

The prosecution, the SC explains, failed to deliver the quantum of evidence necessary to convict the accused, which is proof beyond reasonable doubt.  The Supreme Court concludes that in "our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court entertains doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all possibilities, but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt.  For, it would be a serious mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs on to one’s inner being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth."

For a complete decision of the Supreme Court, see http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/december2010/176389.htm 

Source: Antonio Lejano v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 176389

//rmis//