The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the absence of DNA evidence did not warrant acquitting Webb due to loss of evidence. While the evidence could have helped Webb, he did not previously pursue having it preserved or tested. The Court also found sufficient other evidence to convict Webb and the others, as the prosecution witness provided a detailed testimony of the crime that was corroborated by other evidence. However, the Court ultimately acquitted all the accused because Webb conclusively proved his alibi that he was in the U.S. at the time of the crime, which disproved the testimony against him and the others.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the absence of DNA evidence did not warrant acquitting Webb due to loss of evidence. While the evidence could have helped Webb, he did not previously pursue having it preserved or tested. The Court also found sufficient other evidence to convict Webb and the others, as the prosecution witness provided a detailed testimony of the crime that was corroborated by other evidence. However, the Court ultimately acquitted all the accused because Webb conclusively proved his alibi that he was in the U.S. at the time of the crime, which disproved the testimony against him and the others.
The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the absence of DNA evidence did not warrant acquitting Webb due to loss of evidence. While the evidence could have helped Webb, he did not previously pursue having it preserved or tested. The Court also found sufficient other evidence to convict Webb and the others, as the prosecution witness provided a detailed testimony of the crime that was corroborated by other evidence. However, the Court ultimately acquitted all the accused because Webb conclusively proved his alibi that he was in the U.S. at the time of the crime, which disproved the testimony against him and the others.
G.R NO. 176389/ People of the Philippines, appellee v. Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada, Gerardo Biong, appellants G.R. NO. 176864 December 14, 2010 FACTS: On June 30 1991 Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela, nineteen and Jennifer, seven, were brutally slain at their home in Parañaque City. In an intensive 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. Four years later in 1995 the National Bureau of Investigation said that it had solved the crime. It presented a star- witness, Jessica M. Alfaro, one of its informers who claimed 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, Branch 274, presided over by Judge Amelita G. Tolentino, tried only seven of the accused since Artemio Ventura and Joey Filart remained at large. [2] 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. For their part, some of the accused testified, denying any part in the crime and saying they were elsewhere when it took place. 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. Jessica Alfaro’s testimony stated that after she had a shabu session with Webb and company at the parking lot of Ayala Alabang Commercial Center, they drove by convoy to Carmela Vizconde’s house but only Alfaro proceeded to Carmela’s house and the others parked along Aguirre Ave. upon Alfaro’s arrival, she was seen by Carmela and told by the latter that she cannot leave yet but instructed Alfaro to return before midnight as she just got home. Carmela instructed Afaro that she would leave the pedestrian gate and the kitchen gate unlocked. Sometime later, Carmela drove out of her house and was followed by Alfaro who saw Carmela drop off her boyfriend at Aguirre Ave. Alfaro then returned to Webb’s group and informed Webb that Carmela dropped off her boyfriend then Webb’s mood changed for the rest of the evening and they all again returned to the parking lot of Ayala Alabang Commercial Center where they had another shabu session wherein Webb gave out free cocaine. After about 40 to 45 minutes, Webb decided that it was time for them to leave. He said, “Pipilahan natin siya [Carmela] at ako ang mauuna.” Lejano said, “Ako ang susunod” and the others responded “Okay, okay.” Upon arrival at Carmela’s house, Carmela opened the aluminum screen door of the kitchen for them. She and Webb looked each other in the eyes for a moment and, together, headed for the dining area. As she lost sight of Carmela and Webb, Alfaro decided to go out. Lejano asked her where she was going and she replied that she was going out to smoke. After 10 minutes, Alfaro decided to go back in the house where she heard a static like noise which grew louder as she approached the master’s bedroom. As she walked in, she saw Webb on top of Carmela while she lay with her back on the floor. Two bloodied bodies lay on the bed. Lejano was at the foot of the bed about to wear his jacket. Carmela was gagged, moaning, and in tears while Webb raped her, his bare buttocks exposed. Webb gave Alfaro a meaningful look and she immediately left the room. She met Ventura at the dining area. He told her, “Prepare an escape. Aalis na tayo.” Shocked with what she saw, Alfaro rushed out of the house to the others who were either sitting in her car or milling on the sidewalk. The RTC convisted Webb et al and was affirmed by the CA As a result of its initial deliberations in this matter, the Court issued a Resolution on April 20, 2010, approving Webb's request to submit the semen sample he had collected from Carmela's corpse for DNA testing. At the time, it was thought that the NBI still had custody of the sample. The Court granted the request in accordance with section 4 of the DNA Evidence Rule in order to provide the prosecution and the accused with access to scientific evidence they might want to use, which helped the Court reach the appropriate conclusion in the case. Unfortunately, the NBI told the court on April 27, 2010, that it no longer has possession of the specimen because it has been given to the trial court. The specimen, however, was not one of the object pieces of evidence that the prosecution presented during the trial, according to the trial record. This result prompted the accused Webb to file an urgent motion to acquit on the grounds that the government's failure to preserve such crucial evidence has resulted in the denial of his right to due process. Webb cited the Brady V. Maryand case, in which the accused was found not guilty on the grounds of lack of due process because the state failed to produce the semen as DNA evidence either through negligence or willful suppression, respectively. ISSUE/S: (1) Whether or not Webb may be acquitted due to the loss of DNA evidence. (2) Whether or not there is sufficient evidence in the absence of DNA evidence to convict Webb et al. RULING: No. The absence of DNA evidence may prevent Webb from being exonerated. For one thing, the Brady v. Maryland case that he cites was long since superseded by the Arizona v. Youngblood ruling, in which the U.S. unless the accused is able to show bad faith on the side of the prosecution or the police, the Supreme Court ruled that due process does not oblige the State to preserve the semen specimen, even though it would be helpful to the accused. For another, when Webb brought up the DNA issue, no Philippine precedent had yet acknowledged its acceptability as evidence, the regulation governing DNA evidence did not yet exist, the nation did not yet have the technology to conduct the test. As a result, it was not discussed whether to keep the samples safe even after the trial court denied the application for DNA testing. In fact, neither Webb nor his co-accused mentioned the need to keep the specimen safe while waiting for trial. Finally, they brought up the DNA problem before the Court of Appeals, but only as an error that the trial court made in reaching its judgment. None of the defendants requested that the DNA test be conducted while their appeal was being decided upon by the appeals court. This is true even if the Supreme Court had in the interim adopted regulations that permitted such a test. The State cannot be said to have been given fair notice that it would be required to submit the semen specimen at a later date given the accused's lack of interest in having such a test performed. No. Webb et al are acquitted. Alfaro's evidence is completely disproven by Webb's documented alibi, which includes witness accounts, airline tickets, and two immigration checks. If the court accepts Webb’s alibi that when the crime happened, he was in the U.S then Alfaro’s testimony will not hold together. This is true not only for Alfaro but also for Lejano, Estrada, Fernandez, Gatchalian, Rodriguez, and Biong because the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately released from detention unless they are confined for another lawful cause.