Webb vs De Leon (1995)

Summary Cases:

● Webb vs. De Leon 247 SCRA 652

Subject:

Probable Cause, Warrant of Arrest, Due Process, Discovery Procedure is available during Preliminary
Investigation stage, Discharge of State Witness, Right to Fair Trial (Prejudicial Publicity)

Facts:

On June 19, 1994, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed with the Department of Justice a
letter-complaint charging petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian, Antonio J. Lejano and six (6)
other persons, with the crime of Rape with Homicide. Forthwith, the Department of Justice formed a
panel of prosecutors headed by Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Jovencio R. Zuño to conduct the
preliminary investigation of those charged with the rape and killing on June 30, 1991 of Carmela N.
Vizconde; her mother Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde, and her sister Anne Marie Jennifer in their home at BF
Homes, Parañaque, Metro Manila.

Held:

Probable Cause

1. The court ruled that the DOJ Panel did not gravely abuse its discretion when it found probable cause
against the petitioners. A probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than
not, a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects. Probable cause need not be
based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond
reasonable doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing certainty of guilt.

2. Section 2, Article III of the Constitution deals with the requirements of probable cause both with
respect to issuance of warrants of arrest and search warrants. It is generally assumed that the same
quantum of evidence is required whether one is concerned with probable cause to arrest or probable
cause to search. But each requires a showing of probabilities as to somewhat different facts and
circumstances, and thus one can exist without the other.

3. In search cases, two conclusions must be supported by substantial evidence: (a) that the items sought
| Page 1 of 4
are in fact seizable by virtue of being connected with criminal activity, and (b) that the items will be found
in the place to be searched.

4. In arrest cases there must be probable cause (a) that a crime has been committed and (b) that the
person to be arrested committed it, which of course can exist without any showing that evidence of the
crime will be found at premises under that person’s control.

Warrant of Arrest

5. The Constitution, the Rules of Court, and our case law repudiate the submission of petitioners that
respondent judges should have conducted "searching examination of witnesses" before issuing warrants
of arrest against them.

6. Section 6 of Rule 112 simply provides that “upon filing of information, the Regional Trial Court may
issue a warrant for the accused.

7. The court also rejects petitioners' contention that a judge must first issue an order of arrest before
issuing a warrant of arrest. There is no law or rule requiring the issuance of an Order of Arrest prior to a
warrant of arrest.

8. In arrest cases, there must be a probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the person
to be arrested committed it. The recital and analysis of the parties' evidence made in the DOJ Panel
Report satisfied both judges that there is probable cause to issue warrants of arrest against petitioners.

9. Before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine personally the probability, not the certainty
of guilt of an accused. In doing so, judges do not conduct a de novo hearing to determine the
existence of probable cause. They just personally review the initial determination of the
prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence. The
sufficiency of the review process cannot be measured by merely counting minutes and hours.

Due Process

10. The records show that the DOJ Panel did not conduct the preliminary investigation with indecent
| Page 2 of 4
haste. Petitioners were given fair opportunity to prove lack of probable cause against them.

11. Petitioners cannot also assail as premature the filing of the Information in court against them for rape
with homicide on the ground that they still have the right to appeal the adverse resolution of the DOJ
Panel to the Secretary of Justice. The filing of said Information is in accord with Department of Justice
Order No. 223, series of 1993, dated June 25, 1993 which allows the filing of an Information in court after
the consummation of the preliminary investigation even if the accused can still exercise the right to seek
a review of the prosecutor's recommendation with the Secretary of Justice.

Discovery Procedure is available during Preliminary Investigation stage

12. Failure to provide discovery procedure during preliminary investigation does not, however, negate its
use by a person under investigation when indispensable to protect his constitutional right to life, liberty
and property.

13. Preliminary investigation is not too early a stage to guard against any significant erosion of the
constitutional right to due process of a potential accused.

14. The object of a preliminary investigation is to determine the probability that the suspect committed a
crime. We hold that the finding of a probable cause by itself subjects the suspect's life, liberty and
property to real risk of loss or diminution. In the case at bar, petitioners are charged with the crime of
rape with homicide, a non-bailable offense when the evidence of guilt is strong.

Discharge of State Witness

15. The power of the court to discharge a state witness under Section 9, Rule 119 is a part of the
exercise of jurisdiction but is not a recognition of an inherent judicial function. Under this provision, the
court is given the power to discharge a state witness only because it has already acquired jurisdiction
over the crime and the accused.

16. Petitioners fault the DOJ Panel for not including Jessica Alfaro in the Information considering her
alleged conspiratorial participation in the crime of rape with homicide. The non-inclusion of Alfaro is
anchored on Republic Act No. 6981 (Witness Protection Program) enacted on April 24, 1991.

| Page 3 of 4
17. Alfaro qualified under Section 10 of said law which provides:

Sec. 10. State Witness. — Any person who has participated in the commission of a crime and
desires to a witness for the State, can apply and, if qualified as determined in this Act and by the
Department, shall be admitted into the Program whenever the following circumstances are present:

(a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the R.P.C. or
its equivalent under special laws;

(b) there is absolute necessity for his testimony;

(c) there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed;

(d) his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points;

(e) he does not appear to be most guilty; and

(f) he has not at anytime been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude

Right to Fair Trial; Prejudicial Publicity

19. The pervasive and prejudicial publicity under certain circumstances can deprive an accused of his
due process right to fair trial.

20. To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity there must be an allegation and proof that the judges
have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by the barrage of publicity.

21. In the case at bar, nothing in the records that will prove that the tone and content of the publicity that
attended the investigation of petitioners fatally infected the fairness and impartiality of the DOJ Panel.
Petitioners cannot just rely on the subliminal effects of publicity on the sense of fairness of the DOJ
Panel, for these are basically unbeknown and beyond knowing.

| Page 4 of 4