Hubert Webb vs. Hon. Raul E.

De Leon
G.R. No. 121234 August 23, 1995

Story Line:

Box 1: (Scene At a press conference DOJ announces that it will

form a Panel which will conduct the preliminary investigation for the
Vizconde Massacre Case)

Media Man: Sir, how will the DOJ resolve this sensational case of the
Vizconde Massacre? (talking to the Secretary of Justice).

DOJ Secretary: The DOJ will form a Panel that will conduct a preliminary
investigation on this case. We will present Ms. Jessica Alfaro a co-conspirator
as witness to the commission of the crime.

Box 2: (Scene During the Preliminary Investigation Jessica Alfaro

testifies against Hubert Webb et al. on the alleged rape and killing of
the Vizcondes)

Investigating Officer: Ms. Alfaro, can you tell us exactly what you saw on the
day of the commission of the crime?

Jessica Alfaro: Nakita ko po sila Hubert Webb at dalawa pa niyang kasama

na pumasok sa bukas na gate ng mga Vizconde. Pag silip ko po sa pintuan,
nakita ko po na ginagahasa ni Hubert si Carmela Vizconde. Sa kabilang
kwarto naman po, nakita ko na patay si Mrs. Vizconde at yung bunsong anak
niya.

Counsel of Hubert Webb: My client denies the commission of the said crime
as it was impossible for him to do so because on the date of the commission
he was in the US. We are presenting these documentary evidence as proof
that my client was in US on the said date.

Box 3: (Scene - DOJ Panel finds probable cause that Hubert Webb et
al. committed the crime of rape with homicide.)

DOJ Panel: We are issuing a 26-page resolution "finding probable cause to

hold respondents for trial" and recommending that an Information for rape
with homicide be filed against petitioners and their co-respondents.

Counsel for Hubert Webb: *Whispering to himself* Patay! Yari na!

Box 4: (Scene - Judge issues a warrant of arrest against Hubert
Webb et al for the commission of the crime of rape with homicide.)

Judge: *Presenting a warrant of arrest to the police officers who will conduct
the arrest of the accused*

Box 5: (Scene At the Supreme Court, counsel for the accused

presents a petition, that the DOJ and the Judge who issued the
warrant of arrest committed grave abuse of discretion in doing so.)

Counsel for Accused: Your Honor, we are presenting a petition for certiorari
on the ground that the DOJ Panel gravely abused its discretion when it found
probable cause despite it not being able to conduct a preliminary
examination as well as the Judges who issued the warrant of arrest.

SC Justice: This petition is bereft of merit! 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 absolute certainty of guilt. This petition is hereby dismissed for
lack of merit.

Accused: Huhuhu! Attorney paano na ko nito?!

Counsel for the Accused: Sorry Bes! Ginawa ko na lahat.

Doctrinal Digest:

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, where the accused who is charged
with the crime of rape with homicide, and who questions the DOJs finding of
probable cause as it failed to conduct any preliminary examination before
recommending the filing of information against them and thereby issuing
warrants of arrest against them, it 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 absolute certainty of guilt.

It likewise ruled that the judges who issued the warrant of arrest, did not
gravely abused their discretion in doing so. In arrest cases, there must be a
probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the person to be
arrested committed it. Section 6 of Rule 112 simply provides that upon
filing of an information, the Regional Trial Court may issue a warrant for the
accused. Clearly the, our laws repudiate the submission of petitioners that
respondent judges should have conducted searching examination of
witnesses before issuing warrants of arrest against them.