Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Reconsideration denied.
* EN BANC.
105
due process does not require the State to preserve the semen
specimen although it might be useful to the accused unless the
latter is able to show bad faith on the part of the prosecution or
the police. Here, the State presented a medical expert who
testified on the existence of the specimen and Webb in fact sought
to have the same subjected to DNA test. For, another, when Webb
raised the DNA issue, the rule governing DNA evidence did not
yet exist, the country did not yet have the technology for
conducting the test, and no Philippine precedent had as yet
recognized its admissibility as evidence. Consequently, the idea of
keeping the specimen secure even after the trial court rejected the
motion for DNA testing did not come up. Indeed, neither Webb
nor his co-accused brought up the matter of preserving the
specimen in the meantime.
Criminal Law; Alibis and Denials; Judges; Impartiality; Not
all denials and alibis should be regarded as fabricated—indeed, if
the accused is truly innocent, he can have no other defense but
denial and alibi; A judge must keep an open mind, guarding
against slipping into hasty conclusion, often arising from a desire
to quickly finish the job of deciding a case—a positive declaration
from a witness that he saw the accused commit the crime should
not automatically cancel out the accused’s claim that he did not do
it; A lying witness can make as 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. Their reason is uniform:
Webb’s alibi cannot stand against Alfaro’s positive identification
of him as the rapist and killer of Carmela and, apparently, the
killer as well of her mother and younger sister. Because of this, to
the lower courts, Webb’s denial and alibi were fabricated. But not
all denials and alibis should be regarded as fabricated. Indeed, if
the accused is truly innocent, he can have no other defense but
denial and alibi. So how can such accused penetrate a mind that
has been made cynical by the rule drilled into his head that a
defense of alibi is a hangman’s noose in the face of a witness
positively swearing, “I saw him do it.”? Most judges believe that
such assertion automatically dooms an alibi which is so easy to
fabricate. This quick stereotype thinking, however, is distressing.
For how else can the truth that the accused is really innocent
have any chance of prevailing over such a stone-cast tenet? There
is only one way. A judge must keep an open mind. He must guard
against slipping into hasty conclusion, often arising from a desire
to quickly finish the job of deciding a case. A positive declaration
from a witness that he saw the accused commit the crime should
not automatically cancel out the accused’s claim that he did not do
it. A lying witness can make as positive an identification as a
truthful witness can. The lying witness can also say as
forthrightly and unequivocally, “He did it!” without blinking an
eye.
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
ABAD, J.:
Brief Background
_______________
125
_______________
126
Issues Presented
_______________
127
_______________
128
_______________
8 People v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224, May 19, 2004, 425 SCRA 504, 514.
9 Supra note 7.
10 488 U.S. 41 (1988).
11 Webb v. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995, 247 SCRA 652;
Webb v. People, G.R. No. 127262, July 24, 1997, 276 SCRA 243.
129
_______________
133
134
135
ATTY. ONGKIKO:
Q. All right, and what was your reaction when Ms. Alfaro
stated that “papapelan ko na lang yan?”
WITNESS SACAGUING:
A. I said, “hindi puwede yan, kasi hindi ka naman eye witness.”
ATTY. ONGKIKO:
Q. And what was the reply of Ms. Alfaro?
WITNESS SACAGUING:
A. Hindi siya nakakibo, until she went away.
(TSN, May 28, 1996, pp. 49-50, 58, 77-79)
_______________
13 TSN, August 6, 1996, pp. 13-41; TSN, May 22, 1997, pp. 72, 81-131,
142-157; Exhibits “274” and “275”.
138
that she got scared (another shift to fear) for she hurriedly
got out of the house after Webb supposedly gave her a
meaningful look.
Alfaro quickly went to her car, not minding Gatchalian,
Fernandez, Estrada, Rodriguez, and Filart who sat on the
car or milled on the sidewalk. She did not speak to them,
even to Estrada, her boyfriend. She entered her car and
turned on the engine but she testified that she did not
know where to go. This woman who a few minutes back led
Webb, Lejano, and Ventura into the house, knowing that
they were decided to rape and harm Carmela, was
suddenly too shocked to know where to go! This emotional
pendulum swing indicates a witness who was confused
with her own lies.
4. The supposed corroborations
Intending to provide corroboration to Alfaro’s testimony,
the prosecution presented six additional witnesses:
Dr. Prospero A. Cabanayan, the NBI Medico-Legal
Officer who autopsied the bodies of the victims, testified on
the stab wounds they sustained14 and the presence of
semen in Carmela’s genitalia,15 indicating that she had
been raped.Normal E. White, Jr., was the security guard
on duty at Pitong Daan Subdivision from 7 p.m. of June 29
to 7 a.m. of June 30, 1991. He got a report on the morning
of June 30 that something untoward happened at the
Vizconde residence. He went there and saw the dead bodies
in the master’s bedroom, the bag on the dining table, as
well as the loud noise emanating from a television set.16
White claimed that he noticed Gatchalian and his
companions, none of whom he could identify, go in and out
of Pitong Daan Subdivision. He also saw them along
Vinzons Street. Later, they entered Pitong Daan
Subdivision in a three-car convoy. White could not,
however, describe the kind of vehicles they used or recall
the time when
_______________
14 Exhibits “G” to “G-2”, “Q” to “R”, “V”, “W” and “X”, Records, Vol. 8,
pp. 308-310, 323-324, 328-330.
15 Exhibits “H” to “K”, Records, Vol. 8, pp. 311-315; TSN, January 30,
1996, pp. xx.
16 TSN, March 25, 1996, pp. 8-14, 17-34.
141
_______________
17 TSN October 10, 1995, pp. 97-98 (Records, Vol. 4, pp. 271-272).
142
_______________
143
_______________
144
_______________
146
_______________
147
_______________
31 TSN, June 3, 1997, pp. 14-33; photograph before the concert Exhibit
“295,” Records (Vol. 2), p. 208.
32 TSN, April 23, 1997, pp. 128-129, 134-148.
33 TSN, April 30, 1997, pp. 69-71.
34 TSN, June 2, 1997, pp. 51-64, 75-78.
35 TSN, June 16, 1997, pp. 12, 16-38, 43-59 and 69-93.
36 Exhibits “305”.
37 Exhibits “306” and “307”.
38 Exhibits “344” and “346”.
39 Exhibits “244”, “245” and “246”.
40 TSN, July 16, 1997, pp. 35, 41-42, 48-49, 58, 61-62.
41 TSN, July 16, 1996, pp. 16-17, 23-32, 61-63, 78-84.
148
_______________
149
_______________
53 Exhibit “212-D”.
54 Exhibit “261”.
55 Exhibit “260”.
56 TSN, June 23, 1997.
150
_______________
152
_______________
58 People v. Saban, G.R. No. 110559, November 24, 1999, 319 SCRA 36,
46.
59 Rollo (G.R. 176839), pp. 216-217.
153
_______________
154
_______________
155
Conclusion
CONCURRING OPINION
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
157
_______________
158
_______________
159
_______________
4 Rollo (G.R. No. 176389), pp. 393-399 and Rollo (G.R. No. 176864), pp.
80-104.
160
_______________
161
_______________
7 Resolution dated January 26, 2007, Rollo (G.R. No. 176839), pp. 197-
214. The resolution was penned by Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, with the
concurrence of Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Normandie B.
Pizarro. Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Lucenito N. Tagle, dissented.
8 A.M. 06-11-5-SC effective October 15, 2007. Section 4 states:
Application for DNA Testing Order.—The appropriate court may, at
any time, either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a
legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order
shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of
the following:
a. A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
b. The biological sample:
(i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now
requested; or
(ii) was previously subject to DNA testing, but the results may require
confirmation for good reasons;
c. The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
d. The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new
information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and
e. The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider
as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.
This rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior
court order, at the behest of any party, including law enforcement
agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced.
162
show that the specimen was among the object evidence that
was offered in evidence in the case by any of the parties. It
was in light of this development that accused Webb filed 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.
In the draft decision prepared by Justice Martin S.
Villarama as a basis of this Court’s deliberation, the
decision of the appellate court affirming with modification
the trial court’s decision was affirmed.
In discussing why the Decision of the Court of Appeals is
being affirmed with modification, the draft decision which
was the basis of this Court’s deliberations, started by
stating a “fundamental rule,” viz.:
_______________
9 People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828.
10 People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 173197, April 24, 2007, 522 SCRA
207.
163
_______________
11 Siao Tick Chong v. Republic, No. L-22151, March 30, 1970, 32 SCRA
253, 258.
12 37 N.J. Eq. 130, 132. Cited in Salonga, Philippine Law on Evidence,
774 (1964) and VIII Francisco, The Revised Rules Of Court In The
Philippines, 458-459 (1997).
13 January 4, 2000 RTC Decision, p. 74.
14 Vide TSN, October 18, 1995, pp. 105-106.
15 TSN, October 23, 1995, pp. 6-9.
16 Id., at pp. 25-27.
164
_______________
17 Id., at pp. 35-36; TSN, October 10, 1995, pp. 80-96, 156-163.
18 35 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 259 (1960)
19 Ibid.
20 Vide 98 C.J.S. 348.
21 Vide People v. Lewis, 25 Ill. 2d 396, 185 NE 2d 168 where the
Supreme Court of Illinois ruled:
The question of whether a witness is a narcotics addict is an important
consideration in passing upon the credibility of a witness for, as we have
stated, the testimony of a narcotics addict is subject to suspicion due to
the fact that habitual users of narcotics become notorious liars. (citations
omitted)
In People v. Perkins, 26 Ill 2d 2300, 186 NE 2d 330 (1962) , the
Supreme Court of Illinois said:
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding him guilty
on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of a drug addict who was the
165
_______________
only witness to the alleged crime, and further urges that the evidence as a whole does not
prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We have repeatedly held that the fact that a
upon his credibility and, while his position is not that of an accomplice, the situation is
such a witness, recognizing the fact that habitual users of narcotics become notorious
liars and that their testimony is likely to be affected thereby. (Citations omitted;
emphasis supplied)
166
Atty. M. Ongkiko:
Q: Yes. They could lie on the persons they go out with?
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:
A: Yes, Sir.
Atty. M. Ongkiko:
Q: They could lie on the persons they meet?
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:
A: Yes, Sir.
Atty. M. Ongkiko:
Q: They could lie on the persons from whom they allegedly get the
drugs?
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:
A: Yes, Sir.
Atty. M. Ongkiko:
Q: Is it not correct, Doctor, that the tendency of a drug dependent is to
hide the identity of the drug suppliers. Is this correct?
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:
A: This is our experience. I have not encountered a patient who would
tell you where they get their supply.
Atty. M. Ongkiko:
Q: Who would tell you the correct name of the drug supplier?
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:
A: Yes, Sir.
Atty. M. Ongkiko:
Q: And who would tell you the correct address of the drug supplier,
correct?
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:
A: Correct.
Atty. M. Ongkiko:
Q: Their tendency is to give you misleading information, correct?
Witness Dr. Rey San Pedro:
A: Yes, Sir.
Atty. M. Ongkiko:
Q: Now, would a drug dependent on shabu lie for money?
167
168
169
“x x x x
b. Cocaine—Cocaine is a powerful cortical stimulant which
causes a state of euphoric excitement and varying degrees of
pleasurable hallucinations. Under its influence, a person
experiences sensations of great muscular and mental strength
and overestimates his capabilities. He is truly, at least while
under the drug’s influence, in an “unreal” or “dream world,”
and the majority exception of admitting impeaching testimony
where the witness was under the influence of the drug at the time
of perception or testifying seems clearly sustainable in medical
evidence.
Over time, cocaine produces on the addict a degree of physical
and mental deterioration not found in connection with the use of
opiates. The cocaine addict is not a normal person; many, in fact,
become paranoids and suffer from feelings of persecution. Visual,
auditory and tactual hallucinations are common, as are digestive
tract disorders, and occasionally convulsions.
It would seem to follow that, so far as medical evidence is
concerned, expert testimony should be admissible to impeach the
cocaine addict. Both in its long-run effect of organic deterioration
and in its short run influence, the drug severs the user’s contact
with reality, and renders him, to that extent, unreliable. Even
the majority admits impeaching testimony in cases of organic
deterioration. There are few instances of deterioration more
pronounced than that found in the habitual user of cocaine.
x x x x
_______________
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q: Why, why so?
Witness Velasco:
A: Because he is not in his state of mind.
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q: Well, what about the capacity to lie, Governor?
Witness Velasco:
A: Well, the capacity to lie may be very great, Your Honor.
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q: Well, because, you know, for maintaining or for in order to get money, they
will lie.”
(underscoring supplied)
170
_______________
25 BURRUS AND MARKS TESTIMONIAL RELIABILITY OF DRUG ADDICTS 35 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 259, 262-
171
Witness Sacaguing:
A We gave her very special treatment. So, we consider her already the
darling of the group because she was giving us good projects and
she loved it.
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q What do you mean by she loved it, she loved what?
Witness Sacaguing:
A She liked being treated that way.
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q Now tell the Honorable Court, was there ever any time where the
group got tired of giving Ms. Alfaro the VIP treatment?
x x x x
Atty. Ongkiko:
All right, Atty. Sacaguing, how long did you give Ms. Alfaro this
VIP treatment?
Witness Sacaguing:
A Well, she was always there and we treated her very nicely, but later
on, about . . . after the lapse of about one or two weeks, the boys, I
mean, my associates in my team, began teasing her because she
could not give us any project anymore.
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q What do you mean by projects, leads?
Witness Sacaguing:
A Projects, cases we could work on.
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q I see, and what do you mean by teasing?
x x x x
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q Mr. Sacaguing, after your group teased her because, according to
you, she could not give you anymore projects, what was the reaction
of Ms. Alfaro, if any?
Please look at the judge, please do not look at me.
Witness Sacaguing:
A She seemed to have been piqued and she said . . .
172
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q She seemed to have been what?
Witness Sacaguing:
A Piqued, yes, “napikon”.
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q I see, piqued.
Witness Sacaguing:
A Piqued.
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q Piqued. Ano yun, napikon?
Court:
p i c q u e d. (underscoring in the original)
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q And when she was piqued or “napikon”, what did she say or what
did she do?
x x x x
Atty. Ongkiko:
x x x x
Q Atty. Sacaguing, how did Jessica Alfaro become a witness in the
Vizconde murder case. Will you tell the Honorable Court?
Witness Sacaguing:
A She told me, she knew somebody who . . .
Court:
Face the Court.
Witness Sacaguing:
A She told me, Your Honor, that she knew somebody who
related to her the circumstances, I mean, the details of the
massacre of the Vizconde family. That’s what she told us,
Your Honor.
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q And what did you say?
Please look at the Court.
173
Witness Sacaguing:
A I was quite interested and I tried to persuade her to introduce to me
that man and she promised that in due time, she will bring to me
the man, and together with her, we will try to convince him to act
as a state witness and help us in the solution of the case.
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q Did she ever bring to you or to your office this man that, according
to her, knew about the Vizconde murder case?
x x x x
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q Atty. Sacaguing, were you able to interview this alleged witness?
Witness Sacaguing:
A No, sir.
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q Why not?
Witness Sacaguing:
A Because Jessica Alfaro was never able to comply with her promise to
bring the man to me. She told me later that she could not, and the
man does not like to testify.
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q All right, and what happened after that?
Witness Sacaguing:
A She told me, “easy lang kayo, Sir”, if I may quote, “easy lang, Sir,
huwag kayong . . .”
Court:
Q How was that?
Witness Sacaguing:
A “Easy lang, Sir. Sir, relax lang, Sir, papapelan ko yan, papapelan ko
na lang yan.”
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q And what did you understand by her statement as you quoted it?
Witness Sacaguing:
A I thought it . . .
174
Prosecutor Zuño:
Objection, Your Honor, that is asking for the opinion of this witness,
Your Honor.
Court:
Reform your question.
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q All right, and what was your reaction when Ms. Alfaro stated that
“papapelan ko na lang yan”?
Witness Sacaguing:
A I said, “hindi pwede yan, kasi, hindi ka naman eye witness.”
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q And what was the reply of Ms. Alfaro?
Witness Sacaguing:
A Hindi siya nakakibo, until she went away.
Atty. Ongkiko:
Q She what?
Witness Sacaguing:
A She went away, she went out of my office.
Court:
You speak clearly, Mr. Witness, I could hardly get you.
Witness Sacaguing:
A She did not answer anymore, Your Honor. She just went out of the
office.
x x x x26 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
_______________
175
176
Court:
Q When was that?
Witness Alfaro:
A: About October of 1994.
Court:
Q What prompted you to finally reveal what you have witnessed?
Witness Alfaro:
A: Well, when I started having these nightmares about my daughter
instead of that Jennifer that I see in my dreams. It’s my daughter
whom I see crying, and that triggered me, and then I got out from
drugs, and then it came to the point when I saw them accidentally,
so, that’s the thing which triggered me, Your Honor.
Court:
Q: Any other reason?
Witness Alfaro:
A: Those are my main reasons.
Court:
Q: Is that your principal reason?
Witness Alfaro:
A: I wanted to change my life already.27 (underscoring supplied)
_______________
177
178
179
180
181
_______________
182
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lejano vs. People
_______________
out of the blue, hurled it at the glass-paneled front door of the Vizconde
residence. His action really made no sense. From Alfaro’s narration, Webb
appeared rational in his decisions. It was past midnight, the house was
dark, and they wanted to get away quickly to avoid detection. Hurling a
stone at that glass door and causing a tremendous noise was bizarre, like
inviting the neighbors to come.
b. The crime scene showed that the house had been ransacked. The
rejected confessions of the Barroso “akyat-bahay” gang members said that
they tried to rob the house. To explain this physical evidence, Alfaro
claimed that at one point Ventura was pulling a kitchen drawer, and at
another point, going through a handbag on the dining table. He said he
was looking for the front-door key and the car key.
Again, this portion of Alfaro’s story appears tortured to accommodate
the physical evidence of the ransacked house. She never mentioned
Ventura having taken some valuables with him when they left Carmela’s
house. And why would Ventura rummage a bag on the table for the front-
door key, spilling the contents, when they had already gotten into the
house. It is a story made to fit in with the crime scene although robbery
was supposedly not the reason Webb and his companions entered that
house.
c. It is the same thing with the garage light. The police investigators
found that the bulb had been loosed to turn off the light. The confessions
of the Barroso gang claimed that one of them climbed the parked car’s
hood to reach up and darken that light. This made sense since they were
going to rob the place and they needed time to work in the dark trying to
open the front door. Some passersby might look in and see what they were
doing.
Alfaro had to adjust her testimony to take into account that darkened
garage light. So she claimed that Ventura climbed the car’s hood, using a
chair, to turn the light off. But, unlike the Barroso “akyat-bahay” gang,
Webb and his friends did not have anything to do in a darkened garage.
They supposedly knew in advance that Carmela left the doors to the
kitchen open for them. It did not make sense for Ventura to risk standing
on the car’s hood and be seen in such an awkward position instead of
going straight into the house.
29 G.R. Nos. 121039-45, January 25, 1999, 302 SCRA 21.
183
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 183
Lejano vs. People
185
_______________
187
x x x x
Atty. Aguirre:
Q While assisting Jessica Alfaro, did you notice any action on the part
of anybody which pressured Jessica Alfaro to finish her statement?
Witness Mercader:
A No, Your Honor, none that I have noticed. If I did, I would have
objected to.31
x x x x
Prosecutor Zuno:
Q And that, I believe, to your own perception, at that time she was
giving the facts, the answer, in accordance with her recollection?
x x x x
Witness Mercader:
A Your Honor, at that time what I noticed only was the spontaneity of
the answers of Jessica. Of course, I could not tell whether from
where Jessica was basing it. From the recollection or from a
memorize script, I do not know, Your Honor, about that. But
definitely, whenever she was asked a question, she answers them
readily as if she knows the answer personally.32 (emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
188
“x x x x
[T]he issue of the right of petitioners to cross-examine Jessica
Alfaro on the alleged inconsistencies between her first and second
affidavits is 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 failure of justice.
Consequently, we consider the actuations of respondent judge in
this regard to be reviewable by certiorari under rule 65 of the
Rules of Court. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Under Section 11, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, an adverse
party’s witness may be impeached (1) by contradictory evidence;
(2) by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, or
integrity is bad; (3) by evidence that he has made at other
times statement inconsistent with his present testimony;
and (4) by producing the record of his conviction of an offense.
Insofar as impeachment by evidence of prior inconsistent
statements however, under Section 13 of the same Rule 132, a
proper foundation must first be laid, in that, the attention of the
witness should first be called to such statements, and he should
be asked whether or not he made them, and afforded an
opportunity for explanation, or affirmance, or denial of the
authenticity of the writing.” (emphasis and underscoring in the
original)
_______________
189
_______________
35 People v. Rodrigo, G.R. No. 176159, September 11, 2008, 564 SCRA
584, 586.
36 Records, Vol. 17, pp. 186-196. Webb argued that:
x x x x
7. Since the semen specimen is still in the custody and possession of
the NBI, accused Webb moves for the submission of the semen evidence to
a DNA analysis by a US-government or US government accredited
forensic laboratory, preferably the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C. If granted, accused Webb reserves his right to be
presented at all stages of the DNA typing process and to have access to
the results thereof.
x x x x
37 Id., at pp. 502-529.
38 Records, Vol. 18, pp. 256-259.
39 G.R. No. 112229, March 18, 1997, 270 SCRA 1, 3.
190
_______________
40
41 People v. Tajada, G.R. No. 147200, December 17, 2002, 394 SCRA
159, 166; Monteverde v. People, G.R. No. 139610, August 12, 2002, 387
SCRA 196, 215.
42 People v. Abellanosa, G.R. No. 121195, November 27, 1996, 264
SCRA 722, 746-747.
43 People v. Peruelo, No. L-50631, June 29, 1981, 105 SCRA 226-238.
44 People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 184958, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA
280.
45 G.R. Nos. 138874-75, February 3, 2004, 421 SCRA 530.
192
_______________
1 See Justice Black’s concurring opinion in Smith v. California, 361
U.S. 147 (1959), part of which reads:
Certainly the First Amendment’s language leaves no room for inference
that abridgments of speech and press can be made just because they are
slight. That Amendment provides, in simple words, that “Congress shall
make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” I read
“no law . . . abridging” to mean no law abridging. The First
Amendment, which is the supreme law of the land, has thus fixed its own
value on freedom of speech and press by putting these freedoms wholly
“beyond the reach” of federal power to abridge. No other provision of the
Constitution purports to dilute the scope of these unequivocal commands
of the First Amendment. Consequently, I do not believe that any
federal agencies, including Congress and this Court, have power
or authority to subordinate speech and press to what they think
are “more important interests.” The contrary notion is, in my
judgment, court-made, not Constitution-made. (361 U.S. 147, 157-159).
194
_______________
2 A.M. No. RTJ-02-1698, June 23, 2005, 461 SCRA 12, 24-25, citing
Choa v. Chiongson, A.M. No. MTJ-95-1063, August 9, 1996, 260 SCRA
477, 484-485.
3 Law Reform Commission—New South Wales, Discussion Paper 43
(2000)—Contempt by Publication,
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/dp43chp02, last visited
December 9, 2010.
195
_______________
196
_______________
197
_______________
198
_______________
199
_______________
200
DISSENTING OPINION
The Case
_______________
201
The Facts
_______________
202
_______________
203
_______________
9 TSN, October 10, 1995, pp. 79-81 and 93-99 (Records, Vol. 4, pp. 253-
255, 267-273).
10 TSN, October 18, 1995, pp. 18-19, 27-40, 54 and 62-63 (Records, Vol.
4, pp. 943-944, 953-966, 980 and 988-989); TSN, October 30, 1995, pp. 27-
29 (Records, Vols. 5 & 6, pp. 900-902); TSN, November 8, 1995, pp. 91,
114, 117-118 (Records, Vol. 6, pp. 395, 418 and 421-422); TSN, October 16,
1995, pp. 142-143 (Records, Vol. 4, pp. 694-695); Exhibit “A”, Records, Vol.
8, p. 508.
11 TSN, October 10, 1995, pp. 99-103 (Records, Vol. 4, pp. 273-278).
12 Pictures of the Vizconde house at Records, Vol. 1, pp. 82-87.
204
_______________
205
_______________
19 Id., at pp. 40-72, 75-76 (Id., at pp. 593-625, 628 to 628-A); TSN,
January 25, 1996, pp. 14-15; TSN, February 26, 1996, pp. 104-106.
206
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lejano vs. People
_______________
20 TSN, October 10, 1995, pp. 76-97 (Records, Vol. 4, pp. 628-A to 649);
May 22, 1995 Affidavit, Records, Vol. l, p. 96.
21 Id., at pp. 97-104 (Id. at pp. 649-656); TSN, February 19, 1996, pp.
6-39; May 22, 1995 Affidavit, Records, Vol. 1, pp. 97-98.
207
_______________
208
_______________
26 Exhibits “M” to “U”, Records, Vol. 8, pp. 319-322; TSN, January 31,
1996, pp. 8-10, 13-20.
27 TSN, January 31, 1996, pp. 7, 17-18 and 74.
28 TSN, March 25, 1996, pp. 8-14, 17-34.
209
_______________
210
_______________
211
_______________
33 TSN, March 14, 1996, pp. 12, 15-25, 41-45, 48, 51-54, 63-64; TSN,
March 18, 1996, pp. 88-97.
34 TSN, March 14, 1996, pp. 79-89, 103-104.
212
_______________
213
_______________
214
room and on the top of the dining table they saw a shoulder
bag and scattered next to it were various items such as
Carmela’s ATM card, her driver’s license and calling cards.
Biong proceeded to the main door and removed its chain
lock. When they came out towards the garage area, Biong
saw a stone by the window. He then asked Capt. Bartolome
to go inside the room of the two (2) maids to see for himself
if indeed the noise of the breaking glass could not be heard.
When Capt. Bartolome was already inside the middle room,
Biong shattered the remaining glass of the main door with
the butt of his gun. When Biong asked if he could hear it,
Capt. Bartolome answered in the affirmative. Biong next
inspected the garage where he saw the footmarks on the
car’s hood; Biong also found fingerprints on the electric
bulb. She was just beside Biong at the time. They followed
Biong towards the back of the house but upon seeing
another shoe print on the ground just outside the master’s
bedroom, he directed them not to proceed any further. They
left the Vizconde house at around 10:00 a.m. and proceeded
to the Parañaque Municipal Building.40
Birrer further testified that on July 1, 1991 at 10:00
o’clock in the morning, Biong arrived at her house bringing
along with him the two (2) maids of the Vizcondes. He
asked her to cook something for the maids to eat. Biong
also instructed her to interview the maids on what they
know about the killings. She did as told but the maids said
they do not know anything as they were asleep. After they
had lunch, Biong told her to let the maids rest. While she
and the maids were resting at the sala, Biong requested to
use her bathroom. Before taking a bath, Biong took out the
contents of his pockets which he put on the dining table.
She saw Carmela’s ATM card and driver’s license, bracelet,
earrings and the round pendant watch Biong had taken
from a jewelry box while they were inside the Vizconde
house. When Biong left her house, he brought all said items
with him.41
On July 2, 1991 at around 6:00 p.m., Birrer was at the
Parañaque Municipal Building inside Biong’s office. She
saw Biong open his steel cabinet and took out a brown
leather jacket which she thought was
_______________
215
_______________
216
_______________
217
Defense Evidence
The accused chiefly assailed the credibility of
prosecution star witness Alfaro, in particular her execution
of two (2) allegedly inconsistent affidavits (one on April 28,
1995 and another on May 22, 1995) and raised alibi and
denial as defenses to the charge of rape with homicide
attended by conspiracy. During the trial, no less than 95
witnesses47 were presented, and voluminous documentary
exhibits were submitted.
The testimonies of the principal witnesses for the
defense are summarized as follows:
Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb testified that at the time of
the killings between June 29 and 30, 1991, he was still in
Anaheim Hills, California, U.S.A., having departed from
the Philippines on March 9, 1991 on board a United
Airlines flight bound for San Francisco. He was
accompanied by Gloria Webb, whose husband Richard
Webb is the eldest brother of his father Senator Freddie
Webb. It was the first time he traveled to the US and he
returned to the Philippines only on October 25, 1992. On
the eve of his departure, he, Rael, Tina and his then
girlfriend Milagros Castillo went out and had dinner at
Bunchchums. Later that night, they went to Faces Disco at
Makati Avenue where his friends Paulo Santos and Jay
Ortega followed. They went home at 3:00 o’clock in the
morning already. After driving around in the city and
bringing Milagros home, he arrived at his house at around
5:00 a.m. His parents were already preparing to leave and
so they headed to the airport.48 Webb’s friend Rafael Jose,
Paulo Santos, Senator Webb’s security staff Miguel Muñoz,
Webbs’ secretary Cristina Magpusao and house girl
Victoria Ventoso corroborated Webb’s testimony that he
departed from the Philippines on March 9, 1991.49
Webb further testified that he stayed at the house of her
Auntie Gloria and Uncle Dinky at San Francisco until late
April to May 1991.
_______________
218
_______________
219
_______________
220
_______________
221
_______________
222
_______________
223
_______________
224
_______________
77 Exhibit “338”
78 Exhibits “341” and “342”, Records, Vol. 21, pp. 6-9, 40, 63-65, 112,
140, 141-145 (Vol. 3).
79 Exhibits “369” and “364”, Records, Vol. 21, pp. 24, 104-142 (Vol. 4).
80 Exhibits “207” to”219”.
81 Exhibit “207-B”.
82 Exhibit “212-D”, Records, Vol. 21, p. 265 (Vol. 1).
83 Exhibit “260”.
84 Exhibit “261”.
85 Exhibit “262”.
86 Exhibit “192”, Records, Vol. 21, pp. 253-279 (Vol. 1), 1-7, 157, 158,
169 (Vol. 2), 194 (Vol. 1).
87 Exhibit “215” “215-B” “215-C”, Records, Vol. 21, pp. 254-256, 272-
274 (Vol. 1).
88 Exhibit “216”; TSN, April 15-17, 1997.
225
_______________
226
_______________
_______________
_______________
98 TSN, August 6, 1996, pp. 13-41; TSN, May 22, 1997, pp. 72, 81-131,
142-157; Exhibits “274” and “275”.
99 TSN, November 12, 1997, pp. 7-8, 17-19, 38-43, 55-72.
229
230
231
_______________
232
_______________
233
_______________
234
Appellants’ Arguments
Appellants Webb and Lejano set forth the following
arguments in their Supplemental Appeal Brief as grounds
for the reversal of the CA Decision and their acquittal in
this case:
I
THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING APPELLANT WEBB’S ABSENCE
FROM PHILIPPINE TERRITORY BETWEEN 9 MARCH 1991 AND 27
OCTOBER 1992 ENGENDERS A REASONABLE DOUBT AND
PRECLUDES AN ABIDING CONVICTION, TO A MORAL
CERTAINTY, OF HIS GUILT OF THE CRIME CHARGED. THUS, AS
CORRECTLY APPRECIATED BY JUSTICES TAGLE AND DACUDAO
IN THEIR SEPARATE DISSENTING OPINIONS—
A. THE PASSPORT OF APPELLANT WEBB, AS THE OFFICIAL
TRAVEL DOCUMENT ISSUED BY THE PHILIPPINE
GOVERNMENT TO HIM, IS STAMPMARKED AND INITIALED
WITH THE DEPARTURE DATE OF 9 MARCH 1991 AND
ARRIVAL DATE OF 27 OCTOBER 1992, SHOWING THAT HE
WAS NOT IN THE PHILIPPINES BUT ABROAD AT THE TIME
OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME ON 29 JUNE 1991.
B. THE CERTIFICATIONS AND COMPUTER PRINTOUT
ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES INS NON-IMMIGRANT
INFORMATION SYSTEM, WHICH INDICATE EXACTLY THE
SAME DEPARTURE AND ARRIVAL DATES OF 9 MARCH 1991
AND 27 OCTOBER 1992, CONFIRM THAT IT WAS
PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR APPELLANT WEBB TO
HAVE COMMITTED THE CRIME.
C. THE RULING THAT APPELLANT WEBB WAS “SMUGGLED”
INTO AND OUT OF THE PHILIPPINES WITHIN 9 MARCH
1991 AND 27 OCTOBER 1992, WITH THE US INS
CERTIFICATIONS BEING THE PROBABLE PRODUCT OF
“MONEY, POWER, INFLUENCE, OR CONNECTIONS” IS
BASED ON PURE SPECULATION AND BIASED CONJECTURE
AND NOT ON A CONCLUSION THAT ANY COURT OF LAW
SHOULD MAKE.
D. NO LESS THAN THE HONORABLE JUSTICE ANTONIO T.
CARPIO TESTIFIED IN OPEN COURT THAT IN THE
MORNING OF 29 JUNE 1991, OR BEFORE THE COMMISSION
OF THE CRIME, HE HAD AN OVERSEAS CONVERSATION
WITH SEN. FREDDIE N. WEBB ON
235
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO
THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF SUPPOSED EYEWITNESS
JESSICA AL-
_______________
236
237
VOL. 638, DECEMBER 14, 2010 237
Lejano vs. People
V
MICHAEL GATCHALIAN RESPECTFULLY INVOKES HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS ON THE GROUNDS
OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE, AND FOR ALL THAT IT IS WORTH, HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL AND A SPEEDY
DISPOSITION OF HIS CASE.109
_______________
238
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lejano vs. People
_______________
111 People v. Comanda, G.R. No. 175880, July 6, 2007, 526 SCRA 689.
112 People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA
828.
113 People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 173197, April 24, 2007, 522 SCRA
207.
239
240
_______________
115 People v. Comiling, G.R. No. 140405, March 4, 1004, 424 SCRA
698, 719, citing Francisco, Evidence, Vol. VII, 1990 ed., p. 743.
241
_______________
116 People v. Simon, G.R. No. 130531, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 330,
352, citing People v. Rostata, G.R. No. 91482, February 9, 1993, 218 SCRA
657.
242
_______________
117 People v. Zinampan, G.R. No. 126781, September 13, 2000, 340
SCRA 189, 200.
118 Fukuzume v. People, G.R. No. 143647, November 11, 2005, 474
SCRA 570.
119 G.R. No. 121039-45, January 25, 1999, 302 SCRA 21.
120 Id., at p. 50.
243
_______________
121 TSN, October 17, 1995, pp.12-15, 23, 40-41, 139, 152, 161; TSN,
October 18, 1995, p. 180; TSN, July 2, 1996, pp. 74, 82-86; TSN, July 11,
1996, pp. 43-52.
122 People v. Pineda, G.R. No. 141644, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 478,
495, citing People v. Quima, No. L-74669, 14 April 1988, 159 SCRA 613
citing People v. Alto, 135 Phil. 136; 26 SCRA 342 (1968).
244
_______________
123 People v. Rodrigo, G.R. No. 176159, September 11, 2008, 564 SCRA
584, 597.
124 People v. Meneses, G.R. No. 11742, March 26, 1998, 288 SCRA 95,
97, citing People v. Teehankee, Jr., 319 Phil. 128, 179; 249 SCRA 54, 94
(1995).
245
_______________
125 People v. Magallanes, G.R. No. 136299, August 29, 2003, 410 SCRA
183, 197.
126 People v. Rodrigo, supra at p. 596.
127 People v. Mosquerra, G.R. No. 129209, August 9, 2001, 362 SCRA
441, 450, citing People v. Batidor, G.R. No. 126027, February 18, 1999,
303 SCRA 335, 350; People v. Realin, G.R. No. 126051, January 21, 1999,
301 SCRA 495, 512; People v. Tulop, G.R. No. 124829, November 21, 1998,
289 SCRA 316, 333.
128 Id., at p. 450, citing People v. Saban, G.R. No. 110559, November
24, 1999, 319 SCRA 36, 46; People v. Reduca, G.R. Nos. 126094-95,
January 21,
246
_______________
1999, 301 SCRA 516, 534; and People v. De Labajan, G.R. Nos. 129968-69,
October 27, 1999, 317 SCRA 566, 575.
129 Id., at p. 451, citing People v. Hillado, G.R. No. 122838, May 24,
1999, 307 SCRA 535, 553 and People v. Balmoria, G.R. Nos. 120620-21,
March 20, 1998, 287 SCRA 687, 708.
130 People v. Florentino Bracamonte, G.R. No. 95939, June 17, 1996, as
cited in People v. Añonuevo, G.R. No. 112989, September 18, 1996, 262
SCRA 22, 36.
247
_______________
248
hap also testified that on the same evening of July 16, 1997, at
about 8:00 o’clock, she saw Marijoy and Jacqueline talking to two
(2) men at the West Entry of Ayala Center. She recognized the
two (2) men as Larrañaga and Josman, having seen them several
times at Glicos, a game zone, located across her office at the third
level of Ayala Center. Williard Redobles, the security guard then
assigned at Ayala Center, corroborated the foregoing testimonies
of Shiela and Analie. In addition, Rosendo Rio, a businessman
from Cogon, Carcar, declared that he saw Larrañaga at Tan-awan
at about 3:30 in the morning of July 17, 1997. The latter was
leaning against the hood of a white van. And over and above all,
Rusia categorically identified Larrañaga as one of the participes
criminis.132 [emphasis supplied]
In the light of relevant precedents, I find no reversible
error committed by the RTC in refusing to give credence to
appellant Webb’s argument that he could not have
committed the crime of rape with homicide because he was
still in the US on June 29 and 30, 1991. The RTC thus
correctly ruled:
_______________
132 En Banc Resolution, July 21, 2005, 463 SCRA 654, 662-664.
249
_______________
250
tions which the said office issued regarding the basic information
under its direct control and custody.
It is to be remembered that as part of his evidence, Webb
presented the explanation of one Steven P. Bucher, Acting Chief
of Records Services Branch of the U.S. INS, who admitted that
the U.S. INS had previously reported on August 10, 1995,
erroneously, that it had no record of the arrival and departure of
Webb to and from the United States. The said office later on
admitted that it failed to exhaustively study all information
available to it. We are not convinced with this explanation. It is to
be noted that the U.S. INS is an agency well known for its
stringent criteria and rigid procedure in handling documents
relating to one’s travel into and out of its territory. Such being the
case, it would therefore be hard to imagine that the said agency
would issue a certification that it had no record of a person’s entry
into and exit from the United States without first conducting an
efficient verification of its records.
We do not also believe that a second search could give rise to a
different conclusion, considering that there is no showing that the
records searched were different from those viewed in the first
search. The later certifications issued by the U.S. INS modifying
its first certification and which was issued only a few weeks
earlier, come across as a strained effort by Webb at establishing
his presence in the United States in order to reinforce his flimsy
alibi.
It is not amiss to note that a reading of the first Certificate of
Non-existence of Record (Exhibit “212-D”) subscribed by Debora
A. Farmer of the U.S. INS would show that the U.S. INS had
made a “diligent” search, and found no record of admission into
the United States of Webb. The search allegedly included an
inquiry into the automated and non-automated records systems of
the U.S. INS. Be it also noted that the basis of the U.S. INS
second certification (Exhibit “218”) was a printout coming also
from automated information systems.
As pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General in its
appeal brief, “how it became possible for the U.S. INS
Archives in Washington, which is supposed to merely
download and copy the information given by the San
Francisco INS, to have an entry on accused-appellant
Webb when the said port of entry had no such record was
never sufficiently addressed by the defense.”
It is with this view that the Court recognizes little if not nil
probative value in the second certification of the U.S. INS.
x x x x
(b) Passenger Manifest of United Airlines Flight
251
252
254
255
256
_______________
134 CA Rollo, Vol. IV, pp. 3455-3463.
135 Bastian v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160811, April 14, 2008, citing
People v. Benito, G.R. No. 128072, February 19, 1999, 303 SCRA 468;
People v. Canada, No. L-63728, September 15, 1986, 144 SCRA 121;
People v. Luces, G.R. No. L-60744, November 25, 1983, 125 SCRA 813;
People v. Demeterio, No. L-48255, September 10, 1983, 124 SCRA 914;
People v. Romero, No. L-38786, December 15, 1982, 119 SCRA 234; and
People v. Zabala, 86 Phil. 251 (1950).
257
_______________
258
_______________
139 People v. Malones, G.R. No. 124388-90, March 11, 2004, 425 SCRA
318, 339-340, citing People v. Aliposa, G.R. No. 97935, October 23, 1996,
263 SCRA 471.
140 Soriano v. People, G.R. No. 148123, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 595,
605.
141 Fernan, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 145927, August 24, 2007, 531 SCRA
1, 31, citing People v. Balacano, G.R. No, 127156, July 31, 2000, 336 SCRA
615, 621.
259
_______________
260
_______________
143 Exhibits “YY”, “DDD” and “213-1-D”, Records, Vol. 9, pp. 1142,
1147 and Records, Vol. 26, p. 270.
144 Exhibits “XX” and “LLL”, Records, Vol. 9, pp. 1141 and 1157.
161
_______________
145 Exhibits “30”, “33” and “34”, Records, Vol. 9, pp. 708, 711-713.
146 Cited by reference in Exhibit III, Records, Vol. 9, p. 1154.
You were informed by the San Francisco District Office of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service that no records responsive to you
request could be located in its file. It has been determined that this
response is correct. For your information, the INS normally does not
maintain records on individuals who are entering the country as visitors
rather than as immigrants. A notation concerning the entry of a visitor
may be made in the Nonimmigrant Information System (NIIS), but many
visitors are not entered into this system. The NIIS was searched,
and no records pertaining to Mr. Webb are found. I am informed by
the San Francisco District Office that this matter is still pending in that
office and that a formal response to your request will be issued shortly.
It is possible that either the State Department or the United States
Customs Service might have information concerning Mr. Webb’s entry
into the country. I suggest you write to those agencies to request the
information you seek.
262
_______________
147 Vide: Soriano v. People, G.R. No. 148123, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA
595, 604.
148 Exhibit “42-M”, Records, Vol. 9, p. 440.
263
_______________
264
_______________
265
“On August 14, 1997, [Webb] testified that he did not make any
application since the procedure in California provides for a walk-
in system, that he did not submit any photograph relative to his
application for a Californian Driver’s License, inasmuch as a
photograph of him was taken, and that, his driver’s license was
issued sometime on the first week of June, 1991. On the other
hand, on September 1, 1997, the accused suddenly and completely
changed his testimony while still on direct examination. He
claims that the picture appearing on the driver’s license was the
very same he submitted together with his application for the
driver’s license. Thus, the discrepancy as to the source of the
photograph (Exhibit “334-E”) between the testimony given on
August 14, 1997 where the accused Webb said that the California
Department of Motor Vehicle took his picture, and the testimony
given on September 1, 1997 where he said that he submitted it to
the California DMV as an attachment to his supposed driver’s
license application renders the accused Webb’s testimony as
unbelievable and unworthy of credence.
It is beyond belief that the same picture submitted by the
accused Webb became the picture in the driver’s license allegedly
issued on June 14, 1991. Moreover, it is contrary to human nature
and experience, aside from the fact that it is likewise contrary to
the procedure described by the accused Webb in obtaining a
driver’s license in the State of California. Since a driver’s license
is one of the principal means of identification in the United States
as well as in the Philippines, to allow the applicants to produce
their own pictures would surely defeat the purpose in requiring
them to appear before the Department of Motor Vehicle, that is, to
ensure the integrity and genuineness of the driver’s license.
The Court takes note that the accused Webb, in his fervent
desire to exculpate himself from criminal liability, earlier offered
in evidence the letter dated January 10, 1992 of Mr. Robert
L. Heafner, Legal Attache of the Embassy of the United
States to the then Director of the National Bureau of
Investigation, Alfredo S. Lim, (Exhibit “61”) which stated in very
clear terms that the accused Webb’s California Driver’s
License Number A8818707 was issued on August 9, 1991.
Furthermore, the said letter states the listed address of the
accused Webb at the time of the issuance of the driver’s license
was 532 So. Avenida Faro Ave., Anaheim, California 92807. The
said listed address of the accused Webb at the time his driver’s
license was issued has demolished the testimony of the defense
witness Sonia Rodriguez that the accused Webb was supposed to
be already living with the Rodriguez family in Longwood, Florida
by the first week of August, 1991.
The accused Webb likewise offered in evidence the official
communication coming from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation dated De-
266
268
_______________
269
270
_______________
271
_______________
272
_______________
273
_______________
166 People v. Sicad, G.R. No. 133833, October 15, 2002, 391 SCRA 19,
34, citing People v. Diaz, G.R. No. 110829, April 18, 1997, 271 SCRA 504,
515 and People v. Abordo, G.R. No. 107245, December 17, 1999, 321 SCRA
23, 39.
167 CA Rollo, Vol. IV, p. 3081.
168 People v. Antonio, G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000, 335 SCRA 646,
677, citing People v. Malvenda, G.R. No. 115351, March 27, 1998, 288
SCRA 225.
274
_______________
169 People v. Magana, G.R. No. 105673, July 26, 1996, 259 SCRA 381,
402.
276
_______________
277
_______________
278
_______________
279
_______________
280
_______________
178 See City Prosecution Office of General Santos City v. Bersales, A.M.
No. MTJ-04-1552, June 9, 2004, 431 SCRA 430, 436.
179 Id., at p. 432.
281
_______________
180 149 Misc. 2d 844, 570 N.Y.S. 2d 765 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Co.
1990).
181 467 U.S. 479 (1984).
182 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
282
_______________
183 Id.
283
_______________
284
_______________
285
286
_______________
287
_______________
288
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lejano vs. People
_______________
190 488 U.S. 51 (1988), 102 L Ed 281, 109 S Ct 333.
289
_______________
191 People v. Bato, G.R. No. 134939, February 16, 2000, 325 SCRA 671,
678, citing People v. Juntilla, G.R. No. 130604, September 16, 1999, 314
SCRA 568, 583; People v. Sacapaño, G.R. No. 130525, September 3, 1999,
313 SCRA 650, 659; and People v. Manuel, G.R. No. 121539, October 21,
1998, 298 SCRA 184.
192 People v. Pascual, G.R. No. 172326, January 19, 2009, 576 SCRA
242, 260, citing People v. Sevilleno, G.R. No. 152954, March 10, 2004, 425
SCRA 247, 257.
193 Nueva España v. People, G.R. No. 163351, June 21, 2005, 460
SCRA 547, 555-556, citing People v. Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March
17, 2004, 425 SCRA 654, 673.
194 G.R. No. 166723, August 2, 2007, 529 SCRA 109, 118.
291
SERENO, J.:
The duty of the prosecution is not merely to
secure a conviction, but to secure a just conviction.
This highly publicized case became the center of the
nation’s attention owing to the public outrage over the
atrocious nature of the crime committed in what was then
thought to be a relatively secure
_______________
195 People v. Arellano, G.R. No. 176640, August 22, 2008, 563 SCRA
181, 189.
196 Id.
197 People v. Pascual, supra at pp. 260-261.
198 Nueva España v. People, supra at p. 558.
292
_______________
293
_______________
294
_______________
7 The Prosecution Role in Upholding the Right to a Fair Trial and Responding
to Victims/Witnesses, The Prosecutor Papers, November 2005 at p. 10.
8 R v. Boucher, (1954) S.C.R. 16.
9 Stuart, Don, CHARTER JUSTICE IN CANADIAN CRIMINAL LAW, 2001, p. 7.
10 G.R. No. 113630, 5 May 1994, 232 SCRA 192.
295
_______________
296
_______________
297
_______________
13 G.R. No. 127262, 24 July 1997, 276 SCRA 243; 342 Phil. 206.
298
300
“Section 14:
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to
be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial,
and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.” xxx (Underscoring
supplied.)
This right is echoed and further fleshed out in the Rules
of Criminal Procedure. Rule 115, Section 1 thereof,
provides:
302
305
_______________
_______________
308
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lejano vs. People
20 G.R. No. 125901, 8 March 2001, 406 Phil. 449; 354 SCRA 17.
21 G.R. No. 150224, 19 May 2004, 428 SCRA 504.
22 Resolution dated 20 April 2010.
310
_______________
311
are now only eight (8) states that have not adopted
statutes allowing post-conviction DNA testing,25 with some
requiring the correlative duty to preserve DNA evidence.
So far, 261 convicts in the United
_______________
312
_______________
313
“Due process must also take into account the burdens that the
preservation of evidence places on the police. Law enforcement
officers must be provided the
_______________
314
315
_______________
316