Nielgem S.

Beja | XU-Law IV
Practice Court II

G.R. No. 176389

December 14, 2010
ANTONIO LEJANO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 176864

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

CRITIQUE TO THE DECISION

On the fateful night of June 29, 1991 the women of the Vizconde Family was slaIn
in their own home in Paranaque City. The police immediately presented to the
public and to the court an alleged group of akyat bahay gang who were allegedly
the perperators of the crime. But after due scrutin,y the court found this group to
be inoccent. More or less 4 years from the Vizconde Massacre, the NBI proudly
announced that they have resolved the case and offered a star witness named
Jessica Alfaro.

Alfaro implicated the following accused and has named Hubert Webb as the
leader of the hideous crime. Both the RTC and CA found all the accused guilty of
the offense charged. However, when the case reached the Supreme Court, the
decision was reversed, acquiting the accused.

In most of my stay in law school, I was convinced if not trained to always abide
with the Supreme Court’s decision. Supreme Court decisions are living words
that every law student must follow to survive. Only another decision from the
Supreme Court can disobey its own prior decision. In the two consolidated cases
involving the Vizconde Massacre, I created a table comparing the grounds
presented by the decision itself and that of the dissent. After my comparison, I
side with the dissenting Justices.

We may question why it took four years for a police asset to reveal that she knew
what happened on June 29, 1991. There is doubt whether she fabricated all her
statements or was she forced by her superiors to volunteer just to save their
Nielgem S. Beja | XU-Law IV
Practice Court II

reputation. But there is a bigger question that the defense must answer, why
would NBI implicate Hubert Webb? Why the son of a famous and incumbent
Congressman? From implicating an akyat bahay gang, why did they decide to
proceed with Hubert Webb if he is indeed in America at the time of the massacre.
Wouldn’t it be easier for them to implicate persons who are actually living near the
Vizconde’s Residence and not someone who is absent in the
Philippines,someone who is not a son of a powerful person?

I did not expect that the Supreme Court, in discredditing Alfaro, considered her
drug addiction and occupation as a police asset as grounds. It is a hornbook
principle in our Rules of Evidence that a witness’s credibility is not affected by his
past acts. As correctly stated by Justice Villarama, Alfaro’s drug addiction does
not per se destroy her credibility nor would her occupation affect her testimony.
Moreover, the defense failed to show any ill motive from Alfaro to implicate all the

accused. If she just wanted to impress her superiors, it would be easier for her to
name any person that would less likely have the power and resources to fight
back.

Granting that alfaro’s testimony do not warrant full weight, the same should not
be totally disregarded. Aside from the fact that Alfaro positively identified all the
accused and gave details that only a person who was actually present at the time
of the crime occured could narrate, her testimony was corroborated by other
testimonies and evidences.

It was not physically impossible for Webb to be in Paranaque on June 29, 1991.
There was a 19 month gap between the date Webb left for U.S. until his return on
October of 1992. As presented in court, his father was able to afford a sports car
in the US, thus it is not remotely impossible for him to fly home to the Philippines
and be back in the US in no time. The originals of his documentary evidence
where not presented in court for scrutiny, this serious matter was brushed off by
the Supreme Court simply on the ground that it is normal for the accused not to
trust the court the original of an important document such as a passport. The
doctrine of Best Evidence Rule dictates that the original of a documentary
evidence must be presented in court unless it falls within the strict limitations of
the rule. However, the justification of the defense so as the Supreme Court did
not fall within such limitations.

Lastly, the 2nd US INS Certification should not have been given full weight. First,
the result between the 1st and 2nd certification are completely different. Second,
the 1st certification was issued by the US INS itself. It must be noted that the “first
Certificate of Non-existence of Record 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
Nielgem S. Beja | XU-Law IV
Practice Court II

theU.S. INS. Be it also noted that the basis of the U.S. INS second certification
was a printout coming also from automated information systems.” 1 The 1st
Certification should not have been absolutely thrown out of the court’s
consideration but should have casted doubt as to the truthfulness of the 2 nd
Certification.

I may not totally agree with the Supreme Court’s decision, but I firmly believe that
our Honorable Justices have disposed the case in the best way possible. I remain
loyal and faithful to our justice system.

1 Dissenting Opinion of Justice Villarama, Jr., J, Antonio Lejano v. People of the Philippines, Gr. No. 176389; and
People v. Huber Webb et.al, Gr. No. 176864, December 14, 2010.