Lejano v People

On 30 June 1991, Estellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela and Jennifer were brutally slain at their home in
Paranaque City.
Four years later in 1995, the NBI announced that it had solved the crime. It presented star-witness Jessica Alfaro,
one of its informers, who claimed that she had witnessed the crime.
She pointed to Hubert Webb, Antonio Lejano, Artemio Ventura, Michael Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Peter
Estrada, Miguel Rodriguez and Joy Filart as the culprits. She also tagged police officer, Gerardo Biong, as an
accessory after the fact.
Alfaro had been working as an asset to the NBI by leading the agency to criminals. Some of the said criminals had
been so high-profile, that Alfaro had become the darling of the NBI because of her contribution to its success.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals found that Alfaros direct and spontaneous narration of events unshaken
by gruesome cross-examination should be given a great weight in the decision of the case.
In Alfaros story, she stated that after she and the accused got high of shabu, she was asked to see Carmela at
their residence. After Webb was informed that Carmela had a male companion with her, Webb became piqued
and thereafter consumed more drugs and plotted the gang rape on Carmela. Webb, on the other hand, denied
all the accusations against him with the alibi that during the whole time that the crime had taken place, he was
staying in the United States.
He had apparently left for the US on 09 March 1991 and only returned on 27 October 1992. As documentary
evidence, he presented photocopies of his passport with four stamps recording his entry and exit from both the
Philippines and the US, Flights Passenger Manifest employment documents in the US during his stay there and
US-INS computer generated certification authenticated by the Philippine DFA. Aside from these documentary
alibis, he also gave a thorough recount of his activities in the US.

WN the TC and CA erred in not giving credence to the documented alibi of Webb? YES

The Court of Appeals refused to accept these documents for the reason that Webb failed to present in court the
immigration official who prepared the same.
o But this was unnecessary. Webbs passport is a document issued by the Philippine government, which
under international practice, is the official record of travels of the citizen to whom it is issued. The entries
in that passport are presumed true.
The U.S. Immigration certification and computer print-out, the official certifications of which have been
authenticated by the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, merely validated the arrival and departure stamps
of the U.S. Immigration office on Webbs passport. They have the same evidentiary value. The officers who issued
these certifications need not be presented in court to testify on them. Their trustworthiness arises from the sense
of official duty and the penalty attached to a breached duty, in the routine and disinterested origin of such
statement and in the publicity of the record.
The Court of Appeals of course makes capital of the fact that an earlier certification from the U.S. Immigration
office said that it had no record of Webb entering the U.S. But that erroneous certification was amply explained
by the U.S. Government:
o As explained by witness Leo Herrera-Lim, Consul and Second Secretary of the Philippine Embassy in
Washington D.C., said Certification did not pass through proper diplomatic channels and was obtained in
violation of the rules on protocol and standard procedure governing such request.
o The initial request was merely initiated by BID Commissioner Verceles who directly communicated with
the Philippine Consulate in San Francisco, USA, bypassing the Secretary of Foreign Affairs which is the
proper protocol procedure. Mr. Steven Bucher, the acting Chief of the Records Services Board of US-INS
Washington D.C. in his letter addressed to Philip Antweiler, Philippine Desk Officer, State Department,
 declared the earlier Certification as incorrect and erroneous as it was "not exhaustive and did not reflect
all available information."
o Also, Richard L. Huff, Co-Director of the Office of Information and privacy, US Department of Justice:
"the INS normally does not maintain records on individuals who are entering the country as visitors
rather than as immigrants: and that a notation concerning the entry of a visitor may be made at the
Nonimmigrant Information system.
Since appellant Webb entered the U.S. on a mere tourist visa, obviously, the initial search could
not have produced the desired result inasmuch as the data base that was looked into contained
entries of the names of IMMIGRANTS and not that of NONIMMIGRANT visitors of the U.S.