THE FACTS
THE ISSUES
police authorities just hours after the incident took place. Appellants
make much of a few inconsistencies in his statement and testimony, with
respect to the number of assailants and his reaction when he was ordered
to get down in his guard post. But such inconsistencies have already been
explained by Alejo during cross-examination by correcting his earlier
statement in using number four (4) to refer to those persons actually
standing around the car and two (2) more persons as lookouts, and that
he got nervous only when the second lookout shouted at him to get down,
because the latter actually poked a gun at him. It is settled that
affidavits, being ex-parte, are almost always incomplete and often
inaccurate, but do not really detract from the credibility of witnesses. The
discrepancies between a sworn statement and testimony in court do not
outrightly justify the acquittal of an accused, as testimonial evidence
carries more weight than an affidavit.
5. YES, the out-of-court identification of the accusedappellants made by the eyewitness, security guard Alejo, in a
police line-up was reliable.
Applying the totality-of-circumstances test, we reiterate that Alejos
out-court-identification
[of
the
accused]
is
reliable,
for
reasons that, first, he was very near the place where Abadilla was shot
and thus had a good view of the gunmen, not to mention that the two (2)
lookouts directly approached him and pointed their guns at
them; second, no competing event took place to draw his attention from
the event; third, Alejo immediately gave his descriptions of at least two
(2) of the perpetrators, while affirming he could possibly identify the
others if he would see them again, and the entire happening that he
witnessed; and finally, there was no evidence that the police had
supplied or even suggested to Alejo that appellants were the suspects,
except for Joel de Jesus whom he refused to just pinpoint on the basis of a
photograph shown to him by the police officers, insisting that he would
like to see said suspect in person. More importantly, Alejo during the
trial had positively identified appellant Joel de Jesus independently of the
previous identification made at the police station. Such in-court
identification was positive, straightforward and categorical.
6. NO, the results of the ballistic and fingerprint tests were
NOT conclusive of the innocence of the accused-appellants.
[T]he negative result of ballistic examination was inconclusive, for
there is no showing that the firearms supposedly found in appellants
possession were the same ones used in the ambush-slay of Abadilla. The
fact that ballistic examination revealed that the empty shells and slug
were fired from another firearm does not disprove appellants guilt, as it
was possible that different firearms were used by them in shooting
Abadilla. Neither will the finding that the empty shells and slug matched
14 December 2010
FACTS:
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 crossexamination 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
ISSUE:
Whether or not Webbs documented alibi of his U.S. travel should be
given more credence by the Court than the positive identification by
Alfaro.
RULING:
For a positive identification to be acceptable, it must meet at least two
criteria:
The positive identification of the offender must come from a credible
witness; and
The witness story of what she personally saw must be believable, not
inherently contrived.
The Supreme Court found that Alfaro and her testimony failed to meet the
above criteria. She did not show up at the NBI as a spontaneous witness
bothered by her conscience. She had been hanging around the agency
for sometime as a stool pigeon, one paid for mixing up with criminals and
squealing on them. And although her testimony included details, Alfaro
had prior access to the details that the investigators knew of the case.
She took advantage of her familiarity with these details to include in her
testimony the clearly incompatible acts of Webb hurling a stone at the
front door glass frames, for example, just so she can accommodate the
crime scene feature.
To establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, clear and
satisfactory evidence that:
He was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the
crime, and
That it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.
The Supreme Court gave very high credence to the compounded
documentary alibi presented by Webb. This alibi altogether impeaches
Alfaros testimony not only with respect to him, but also with respect to
the other accused. For, if the Court accepts the proposition that Webb
was in the US when the crime took place, Alfaros testimony will not hold
altogether. Webbs participation is the anchor of Alfaros story.