GR No.

176389
ANTONIO LEJANO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

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

G.R. No. 176864

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, ANTONIO LEJANO, MICHAEL A. GATCHALIAN,
HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, PETER ESTRADA and GERARDO
BIONG, Appellants.

December 14, 2010

Facts:

On June 30, 1991 Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela, nineteen years old,
and xxx, seven, were brutally slain at their home in Parañaque City. Following an
intense investigation, the police arrested a group of suspects, some of whom gave
detailed confessions. But the trial court smelled a frame-up and eventually ordered them
discharged. Thus, the identities of the real perpetrators remained a mystery especially
to the public whose interests were aroused by the gripping details of what everybody
referred to as the Vizconde massacre.

Four years later in 1995, the National Bureau of Investigation or NBI announced that it
had solved the crime. It presented star-witness Jessica M. Alfaro, one of its informers,
who claimed that she witnessed the crime. She pointed to accused Hubert Jeffrey P.
Webb, Antonio "Tony Boy" Lejano, Artemio "Dong" Ventura, Michael A. Gatchalian,
Hospicio "Pyke" Fernandez, Peter Estrada, Miguel "Ging" Rodriguez, and Joey Filart as
the culprits. She also tagged accused police officer, Gerardo Biong, as an accessory
after the fact. Relying primarily on Alfaro's testimony, on August 10, 1995 the public
prosecutors filed an information for rape with homicide against Webb, et al.

The Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, presided over by Judge Amelita G.
Tolentino, tried only seven of the accused since Artemio Ventura and Joey Filart
remained at large.

The prosecution presented Alfaro as its main witness with the others corroborating her
testimony. These included the medico-legal officer who autopsied the bodies of the
victims, the security guards of Pitong Daan Subdivision, the former laundrywoman of
the Webb’s household, police officer Biong’s former girlfriend, and Lauro G. Vizconde,
Estrellita’s husband.

Webb’s alibi appeared the strongest since he claimed that he was then across the
ocean in the United States of America. He presented the testimonies of witnesses as
well as documentary and object evidence to prove this. In addition, the defense
presented witnesses to show Alfaro's bad reputation for truth and the incredible nature
of her testimony.

But impressed by Alfaro’s detailed narration of the crime and the events surrounding it,
the trial court found a credible witness in her. It noted her categorical, straightforward,
spontaneous, and frank testimony, undamaged by grueling cross-examinations.

On January 4, 2000, after four years of arduous hearings, the trial court rendered
judgment, finding all the accused guilty as charged and imposing on Webb, Lejano,
Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, and Rodriguez the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
on Biong, an indeterminate prison term of eleven years, four months, and one day to
twelve years. The trial court also awarded damages to Lauro Vizconde.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, modifying the penalty
imposed on Biong to six years minimum and twelve years maximum and increasing the
award of damages to Lauro Vizconde.

The appellate court did not agree that the accused were tried by publicity or that the trial
judge was biased. It found sufficient evidence of conspiracy that rendered Rodriguez,
Gatchalian, Fernandez, and Estrada equally guilty with those who had a part in raping
and killing Carmela and in executing her mother and sister.

On April 20, 2010, as a result of its initial deliberation in this case, the Court issued a
Resolution granting the request of Webb to submit for DNA analysis the semen
specimen taken from Carmela’s cadaver, which specimen was then believed still under
the safekeeping of the NBI.

The Court granted the request pursuant to section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence to
give the accused and the prosecution access to scientific evidence that they might want
to avail themselves of, leading to a correct decision in the case.

Unfortunately, on April 27, 2010 the NBI informed the Court that it no longer has
custody of the specimen, the same having been turned over to the trial court. The trial
record shows, however, that the specimen was not among the object evidence that the
prosecution offered in evidence in the case.

This outcome prompted accused Webb to file an urgent motion to acquit on the ground
that the government’s failure to preserve such vital evidence has resulted in the denial
of his right to due process.

Controlling Issues:

1. Whether or not Alfaro’s testimony as eyewitness, describing the crime and identifying
Webb, Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, Rodriguez, and two others as the
persons who committed it, is entitled to belief; and

2. Whether or not Webb presented sufficient evidence to prove his alibi and rebut
Alfaro’s testimony that he led the others in committing the crime.

Other Issues:

1. Whether or not the Court should acquit him outright, given the government’s failure to
produce the semen specimen that the NBI found on Carmela’s cadaver, thus depriving
him of evidence that would prove his innocence; and

2. Whether or not Webb, acting in conspiracy with Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez,

Estrada, Rodriguez, Ventura, and Filart, raped and killed Carmela and put to death her
mother and sister.

Held:

The Right to Acquittal Due to Loss of DNA Evidence

Webb claims, citing Brady v. Maryland, that he is entitled to outright acquittal on the
ground of violation of his right to due process given the State’s failure to produce on
order of the Court either by negligence or willful suppression the semen specimen taken
from Carmela.

When Webb raised the DNA issue, the rule governing DNA evidence did not yet exist,
the country did not yet have the technology for conducting the test, and no Philippine
precedent had as yet recognized its admissibility as evidence.

Consequently, the idea of keeping the specimen secure even after the trial court
rejected the motion for DNA testing did not come up. Indeed, neither Webb nor his co-
accused brought up the matter of preserving the specimen in the meantime.
Parenthetically, after the trial court denied Webb’s application for DNA testing, he
allowed the proceeding to move on when he had on at least two occasions gone up to
the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to challenge alleged arbitrary actions taken
against him and the other accused.

They raised the DNA issue before the Court of Appeals but merely as an error
committed by the trial court in rendering its decision in the case. None of the accused
filed a motion with the appeals court to have the DNA test done pending adjudication of
their appeal. This, even when the Supreme Court had in the meantime passed the rules
allowing such test. Considering the accused’s lack of interest in having such test done,
the State cannot be deemed put on reasonable notice that it would be required to
produce the semen specimen at some future time.

Suspicious Details

Alfaro had been hanging around at the NBI since November or December 1994 as an
"asset." She supplied her handlers with information against drug pushers and other
criminal elements. Some of this information led to the capture of notorious drug pushers
like Christopher Cruz Santos and Orlando Bacquir. Alfaro’s tip led to the arrest of the
leader of the "Martilyo gang" that killed a police officer. Because of her talent, the task
force gave her "very special treatment" and she became its "darling," allowed the
privilege of spending nights in one of the rooms at the NBI offices.

When Alfaro seemed unproductive for sometime, however, they teased her about it and
she was piqued. One day, she unexpectedly told Sacaguing that she knew someone
who had the real story behind the Vizconde massacre. Sacaguing showed interest.
Alfaro promised to bring that someone to the NBI to tell his story. When this did not
happen and Sacaguing continued to press her, she told him that she might as well
assume the role of her informant.

Webb’s U.S. Alibi

Among the accused, Webb presented the strongest alibi through (a) the travel
preparations; (b) the two immigration checks; (c) details of US sojourn; (d) the second
immigration check; and (e) alibi versus positive identification; and (f) a documented alibi.

To establish alibi, 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.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals expressed marked cynicism over the accuracy
of travel documents like the passport as well as the domestic and foreign records of
departures and arrivals from airports. They claim that it would not have been impossible
for Webb to secretly return to the Philippines after he supposedly left it on March 9,
1991, commit the crime, go back to the U.S., and openly return to the Philippines again
on October 26, 1992. Travel between the U.S. and the Philippines, said the lower courts
took only about twelve to fourteen hours.

Effect of Webb’s alibi to others

Webb’s documented alibi altogether impeaches Alfaro's testimony, not only with respect
to him, but also with respect to Lejano, Estrada, Fernandez, Gatchalian, Rodriguez, and
Biong. For, if the Court accepts the proposition that Webb was in the U.S. when the
crime took place, Alfaro’s testimony will not hold together. Webb’s participation is the
anchor of Alfaro’s story. Without it, the evidence against the others must necessarily fall.

Conclusion

In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court entertains
doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all
possibilities, but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it
would be a serious mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt
hangs on to one’s inner being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth.

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

The Supreme Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision dated December 15,
2005 and Resolution dated January 26, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-
H.C. 00336 and ACQUITS accused-appellants Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano,
Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and
Gerardo Biong of the crimes of which they were charged for failure of the prosecution to
prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED
from detention unless they are confined for another lawful cause.
People vs. Larrañaga
G.R. Nos. 138874-75. February 3, 2004

Larrañaga et al were convicted of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide
and rape on February 3, 2004; and for serious illegal detention. The first crime is
punishable by death and the second is punishable by reclusion perpetua. One of the co-
accused, James Andrew Uy, alleged that on July 16, 1997, the date of the commission
of the crime, he was only 17 years old and 262 days old. To prove his claim, Uy
presented his birth certificate duly certified by the City Civil Registrar and the National
Statistics Office.
ISSUE: Whether or not Uy is entitled a mitigating circumstance due to minority?
HELD: Yes. Uy was able to prove his claim hence he is entitled to a mitigating
circumstance in both crimes charged against him. This is pursuant to Article 68 and 80
of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that persons below 18 years of age are
entitled to a penalty one degree lower than that imposed by law.

People of the Philippines vs. Claudio Teehankee, Jr.

FACTS OF THE CASE:
On July 10, 1991 Maureen Hultman, Jussi Leino and Roland Chapman while walking along thecorner
of Caballero & Mahogany streets, was approached by the accused Teehankee jr. And after a seriesof
events, the accused fired his gun killing Chapman and mortally wounding Hultman and Leino, then
left.Leino, though mortally wounded mustered all his strength and called for help and noticed at least 3
peoplelooking on from outside their house namely Vicente Mangubat, Domingo Florece and Agripino
Cadenas.Mangubat, after the gunman sped away, ran outside his house, helped the victims and
reportedthe incident to the proper authorities.During their Investigation the NBI and the Makati police
asked Jussi Leino twice regarding the person whoshot them; The first instance was On July 15, 1991
while Leino was still in the hospital, he was shown (3) pictures of different men by the investigators. He
identified Claudio Teehankee Jr. as the gunman from the pictures.In order to confirm the identification
made by Leino and other witnesses Cadenas and Mangubat who alsopointed the accused as the
gunman thru a separate out –of court identification procedures. The Assistantdirector of NBI Epimaco
Velasco, the Chief of NBI-Special operations group Salvador Ranin and 2 otheragents brought the
accused to Forbes park for further identification by the surviving victim, Jussi Leino.Leino has just been
discharged from the hospital the day before. Since his parents were worried about hissafety, they
requested the NBI to conduct the investigation of the gunman in Forbes Park where the Leinosalso
live. The NBI agreed.So, the security agents from US embassy fetched Leino at his house and his
father to a vacant house inForbes Park. After a couple of minutes, Leino was brought out of the laws
and placed in a car with slightlytinted windows. The car was parked about 5 meters away from the
house. Inside the car with Leino was hisFather, NBI-SOG chief Salvador Ranin and a driver. Leino
was instructed to look at men who will be comingout of the house and identify the gunman from the
line up. A group of five to six men (including theaccused) then came out of the unoccupied house, into
the street. From the group, Leino identified theaccused as the gunman for the second time.3 separate
criminal cases were filed against accused Claudio Teehankee, Jr. Initially, he was charged
with:MURDER for the killing of ROLAND CHAPMAN, and two (2) FRUSTRATED MURDER for the
shooting andwounding of JUSSI LEINO and MAUREEN HULTMAN. When Hultman subsequently
died after 97 days of confinement at the hospital and during the course of the trial, the Information for
Frustrated Murder wasamended to MURDER. The trial court convicted the accused Claudio
Teehankee jr. because the strength of the testimonies of 3eyewitnesses who positively identified him
as the gunman. However, in his appeal, he vigorously assailedthe validity of the out-of-court
identification by these eyewitnesses especially the identification of JussiLeino.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the out-of-court identification in this case is a valid and licit way in the identification of
theaccused?
HELD:
Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. It is done thru show-ups where
thesuspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. It is done thru mug shots
where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. It is also done thru line-ups
where a witnessidentifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. Since
corruption of out-of-court identification contaminates the integrity of in-court identification during the trial
of the case, courts havefashioned out rules to assure its fairness and its compliance with the
requirements of constitutional due process. (People vs. Teehankee jr. 249 SCRA 54-125, pg 95).
Based on this statement given by the high court regarding the issue, we can say that out-of the
courtidentification of the accused is valid and licit when it is in line with the rules that the Supreme court
have  

fashioned. In the case given, the authorities did not violate anything stated in the latter, otherwise it
isstated in the decision that they violated one.Wherefore, the out of court identification in this case is
valid and licit. Which makes the contention of theaccused regarding the validity of the identification,
groundless.