Perspective On Court of Appeals G.R. CR HC No. 00336 Vizconde Massacre With Highlights On Dissenting Opinions of Justices Renato Dacudao and Lucenito Tagle
0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
3K vues10 pages
An interesting look on how the Court of Appeals decided on the Vizconde Massacre. Since the unanimous vote of 3 Justices was not achieved, a special division of 5 was created. A first in Court of Appeals, a Justice who initially inhibited himself, eventually voted on the matter, and got counted. This document also contains highlights on the dissenting opinions of Justices Renato Dacudao and Lucenito Tagle.
Titre original
Perspective on Court of Appeals G.R. CR HC No. 00336 Vizconde Massacre with Highlights on Dissenting Opinions of Justices Renato Dacudao and Lucenito Tagle
An interesting look on how the Court of Appeals decided on the Vizconde Massacre. Since the unanimous vote of 3 Justices was not achieved, a special division of 5 was created. A first in Court of Appeals, a Justice who initially inhibited himself, eventually voted on the matter, and got counted. This document also contains highlights on the dissenting opinions of Justices Renato Dacudao and Lucenito Tagle.
Droits d'auteur :
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
3K vues10 pages
Perspective On Court of Appeals G.R. CR HC No. 00336 Vizconde Massacre With Highlights On Dissenting Opinions of Justices Renato Dacudao and Lucenito Tagle
An interesting look on how the Court of Appeals decided on the Vizconde Massacre. Since the unanimous vote of 3 Justices was not achieved, a special division of 5 was created. A first in Court of Appeals, a Justice who initially inhibited himself, eventually voted on the matter, and got counted. This document also contains highlights on the dissenting opinions of Justices Renato Dacudao and Lucenito Tagle.
Droits d'auteur :
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
- versus -
HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB,
ANTONIO LEJANO,
MICHAEL. A. GATCHALIAN,
HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ,
MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, PETER
ESTRADA, and GERARDO.
BIONG.
CA-G.R. CR B.C. NO. 00336
SPECIAL DIVISION OF FIVE
The Court of Appeals’ Special Division of Five which was created to
resolve the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Accused in the Vizconde case
voted 3-2 to deny the Motion for Reconsideration. Justices Rodrigo Cosico
(Chairman), Regalado Maambong and Normandie Pizarro constituted the
majority of three (3) which voted to deny the Motion for Reconsideration.
Justices Renato Dacudao and Lucenito Tagle comprised the minority of two (2)
who filed their separate dissenting opinions in favor of reconsideration and the
acquittal of all the Accused.
Under the Rules of the Court of Appeals, each Division is composed of
three (3) members who must concur unanimously in rendering a decision or in
resolving motions. If the unanimous vote of three (3) members cannot be
obtained, a division of five is constituted by adding two (2) justices whose
inclusion shall be determined by way of a raffle conducted by the Raffle
Committee, chosen from among the other members of the Court of Appeals. The
Decision in this case was rendered, and the Motion for Reconsideration was firstvoted to grant the Motion, the
the inclusion of Justices Dacudao and Pizarro in the disposition of the Motion for
Reconsideration.
Justices Cosico, Maambong and Pizarro denied the Motion for
Reconsideration mainly on the arguments that (i) the defense of ali
weakest defense and yields to the positive identification of the Accused by
witness Jessica Alfaro; (ii) the duty of appreciating the credibility of witnesses
rests upon the trial court judge, who had the opportunity to observe the conduct
and demeanor of the witnesses testifying before the trial court; therefore, great
weight or reliance is placed upon the trial court's findings of fact and rulings
involving the creditability of witnesses; and (iii) essentially, the Accused Hubert
Webb failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to commit the
crime. In other words, even assuming that the evidence proves that the Accused
Webb left the Philippines on March 9, 1991, and returned on October 26, 1992,
the defense failed to prove that it was impossible for him to return to the
Philippines and commit the crime in between those two (2) dates, and return to
the United States without a trace or public record, considering modern modes of
travel and the resources of the influential Webb Family.
On December 18, 2006, Justice Rodrigo Cosico voluntarily inhibited
himself from the case for reasons stated in his letter addressed to Court of
Appeals Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes. The Rules of the Court of Appeals
allow a justice to voluntarily inhibit himself from sitting in a case for just or valid
reasons. In that event, he shall notify in writing the Raffle Committee and the
Apparently, despite his voluntary inhibitionof Justice Rodrigo Cosico denying the Motion for Reconsideration was counted
as part of the majority ruling against the Accused. At no time in the history of the
Court of Appeals has the vote of a Justice who voluntarily inhibited himself
been counted in the disposition of a case or a pending Motion for
Reconsideration.
In criminal cases, a conviction must be predicated on proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. This requires moral certainty on the part of a reasonable and
fair jurist possessed of an unprejudiced mind that indeed the crime was
committed by the Accused, The fact that the Justices who comprised the Special
Division of Five voted 3-2 to deny the Motion for Reconsideration by itself
speaks volumes of the serious doubts entertained by the Court of Appeals on the
supposed guilt of the Accused. Such doubts can be greater appreciated if one
would consider the separate dissenting’ opinions filed by Justices Renato
Dacudao and Lucenito Tagle.HIGBLIGHTS OF THE
SEPARATE DISSENTING OPINION - J. Renato Dacudao
1. “The prosecution's case is inherently weak, built as it is upon
the flagrantly improbable and incredible story woven by a shifty and
shuffling government star witness; and second, because the defense was
able to prove convincingly that it was physically impossible for the
accused-appellant Hubert Webb to have been at the scene of the crime at
the time of its commission.” (pages 1 and 2, Dacudao);
2. The Philippine passport, two (2) certifications and computer
print out issued by the US-INS and other documentary and testimonial
evidence presented by Accused Hubert Webb “irresistibly point to the fact
that he was not in the Philippines at the time the crime was committed.”
(page 2, Dacudao);
“By contrast, the prosecution dismally failed to present convincing
countervailing, evidence to show that in between the period of March 9.
1991 to October 26, 1992 the accused-appellant returned to the Philippines.
Neither was it able to prove that the various pieces of documentary
evidence presented by this accused-appellant to support his alibi were
falsified, or that these were acquired by the accused-appellant with the use
of money, power, influence, or connections, as the trial court seemed to
suggest.” (page 4, Dacudao);i
z The history of drug addiction of star witness Jessica Alfaro,
the consistencies, contradictions and improbabilities in her testimonies,
plus the fact that it took her four (4) years to come forward and testify,
render her testimony untruthful and untrustworthy. (page 5, Dacudao) ;
4. Jessica Alfaro’s narration of the events of the case was “in
many points uncannily similar to that set forth in the extrajudicial
confessions of the “Akyat Bahay Gang” of the Barroso Group,” who
comprised the first batch of suspects arrested and indicted for the
Vizconde Massacre. (page 12, Dacudao);
“It is not at all improbable that the government's “star’ witness”
Jessica Alfaro gained access to the details of the ‘crime’ upon which she
patterned her own version of the story that now constitutes the mainstay
of the prosecution's evidence.” (page 18, Dacudao);
“This leads to the conclusion that the prosecution's star witness had
been tutored before going to the witness box... Ms. Alfaro’s testimony puts
too severe a strain on the credulity of this Court. I think it takes the faith of
twenty (20) men to believe her extraordinary tale.” (page 19, Dacudao);
and finally
5. The Decisions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court
failed to take into account the “testimony of former presidential legal
counsel Atty. Antonio Tirol Carpio - against whom no bias, interest, or
prejudice has been imputed ~ in regard to his overseas conversation withformer Senator Freddie Webb on June 29, 1991 between the hours of 10:00
and 11:00 A.M. Philippine time (or some 12 how
before the commission
of the crime), which showed that the accused appellant Hubert Webb was
at the time, in the United States (at 532 S. Avenida Faro, Anaheim,
California 92807) with his parents; and that Hubert was looking for a job
there. Why must this testimony that came from the lips of a former
presidential counsel who is now a member of the Supreme Court be
ignored offhand?” (page 30, Dacudao)i ll
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DISSENTING OPINION — J. LUCERITO TAGLE.
1. The Philippine Passport of Appellant Webb bears the departure stamp mark
of May 9, 1991 and the arrival stamp mark of October 27, 1992. These were confirmed
by the two (2) immigration officials who testified that these stamp marks were authentic
and accurate. They, in fact, dovetailed with the arrival stamp of the U.S. Immigration
officials regarding the entry and exit from the U.S. of Accused Hubert Webb. (pages 3
and 4).
2. “Notably, no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to controvert the
genuineness of the aforesaid certifications as well as the entries in Webb’s passport. To
disregard these unrebutted documentary evidence is tantamount to accusing a U.S.
agency of complicity in helping Webb ensure his freedom. And, undoubtedly, such
accusation is blatantly groundless having no evidence to buttress it.”
“Significantly, both certifications were requested by no less than the Government
of the Republic of the Philippines and not by the accused or his family. To make
insinuations of any participation on the part of the family of the accused regarding, the
contents of the certifications as well as the erroneous data reflected on the first
certification, to my mind, is such a huge leap. These certifications are official documents
that should be accorded full faith on its face absent any evidence of impropriety on the
part of the officials responsible in its execution and submission. For us to reject the
subsequent certifications simply because of the issuance of the first certification which
turned out to be erroneous, would go against the very essence of justice and fair play as
we are unwittingly ascribing infallibility on the part of the INS. Besides, since when
have we began to disregard the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties based on the supposition that the accused involved in a case belongs to an
“influential family?” (pages 6 and 7, Tagle)”
impossible for the accused Webb to have returned to the Philippines, perpetrate the
criminal act, and travel back to the United States, this, to my mind, is pure conjecture and
speculation. In fact, it is patently loaded with bias and can not serve as basis for a
conclusion that accused-appellant was ‘smuggled’ into the Philippines on or about the
time of the commission of the offense.”
"Yet , no evidence whatsoever was adduced showing that appellant Webb was
smuggled into the country around the time of the commission of the offense.’ (page 9,
Tagle).
“Corollary, there is no proof that ‘human smuggling’ occurs in the United States.
And, for that matter, there is no evidence showing that appellant Webb was smuggled
outside the United States.”
“Absent any competent evidence showing that he was able to enter and exit the
Philippines undetected and without any trace, it was error on our part to affirm the lower
court’s finding that it was not physically impossible for appellant Webb to have been in
the country, perpetrate the crime and then, head back to the United States. Said
conclusion of the lower court is pure guesswork.” (page 10, Tagle).
4. “No less than a Supreme Court Justice, Antonio T. Carpio testified in open
court that in the morning of June 29, 1991, he had an overseas conversation with
Congressman Webb. It was during this conversation that he was informed that the said
Congressman, along with his wife and son, Hubert were in the Unites States.” (page 14,
Tagle; testimony of witness Antonio Carpio is quoted on page 14).
5. “This Court in agreement with the trial court banked upon the presence of
the accused-appellants at the crime scene as well as their alleged utterances in ruling that
conspiracy was extant. The finding of conspiracy is actually founded on circumstantial
evidence.” (page 17, Tagle).ling that ‘it was not physically
impossible for the accused Webb to have retuned to the Philippines, perpetrate the
criminal act, and travel back to the United States, this, to my mind, is pure conjecture and
speculation. In fact, it is patently loaded with bias and can not serve as basis for a
conclusion that accused-appellant was ‘smuggled’ into the Philippines on or about the
time of the commission of the offense.”
“Yet , no evidence whatsoever was adduced showing that appellant Webb was
smuggled into the country around the time of the commission of the offense.’ (page 9,
Tagle).
“Corollary, there is no proof that ‘human smuggling’ occurs in the United States.
And, for that matter, there is no evidence showing that appellant Webb was smuggled
outside the United States.”
“Absent any competent evidence showing that he was able to enter and exit the
Philippines undetected and without any trace, it was error on our part to affirm the lower
court’s finding that it was not physically impossible for appellant Webb to have been in
the country, perpetrate the crime and then, head back to the United States. Said
conclusion of the lower court is pure guesswork.” (page 10, Tagle).
4, “No less than a Supreme Court Justice, Antonio T. Carpio testified in open
court that in the morning of June 29, 1991, he had an overseas conversation with
Congressman Webb. It was during this conversation that he was informed that the said
Congressman, along with his wife and son, Hubert were in the Unites States.” (page 14,
Tagle; testimony of witness Antonio Carpio is quoted on page 14).
5. “This Court in agreement with the trial court banked upon the presence of
the accused-appellants at the crime scene as well as their alleged utterances in ruling that
conspiracy was extant. The finding of conspiracy is actually founded on circumstantial
evidence.” (page 17, Tagle).so found the evidence of
conspiracy against the Accused Michael Gatchalian, Pyke Fernandez, Peter Estrada and
Tony Boy Lejano as a weak, incredible and therefore unreliable (pages 28, 29, 32, 35 and
36, Tagle); and finally,
7. Justice Tagle found it unjust that the motions of Accused Lejano and Webb
for a DNA test were “denied by the RTC ratiocinating that at that time, there is no one in
the country who had the necessary knowledge and expertise to testify on DNA
examination. Also, the Order of denial predicated on the presumption that the specimen
semen found on Carmela’s body may have already been tampered with or contaminated
is grossly erroneous. That the specimen semen was tampered with is not conclusive in
the light of the certification issued by the NBI that the specimen semen remained intact,
Hence, the trial court should have not ruled on such matter based on a mere conjecture
and in total disregard of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duty.” (pages 33-34, Tagle).
Consolidated Comment With Partial Manifestation Given by The Office of The Solictor General On The Petitions Against The Cybercrime Prevention Act - Republic Act 10175
Revised Schedule of Administrative Fines For Violations of The Consumer Act of The Philippines and Some Trade and Industry Laws - DTI DAO 6 Series of 2007
Guidelines On The Issuance, Use, Redemption of Gift Check, Certificates, Gift Cards, in Accordance With RA 7394 Consumer Act of The Philippines DTI-DAO 10-04 Series of 2010
DTI DAO 10-02 Series of 2010: Addenda To DAO 2 Series of 1993 or The Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act 7394, Otherwise Known As The Consumer Act of The Philippines
DTI Department Administrative Order Number 8 - Prescribing Guidelines For The Protection of Personal Data in Information and Communications System in The Private Sector
Joint DTI-DOH-DA Administrative Order #1 Rules and regulations for consumer protection in a transaction covered by the Consumer Act of the Philippines (R.A. 7394) through electronic means under the E-Commerce Act (R.A. 8792)