1. INDUSTRIAL TEXTILE MANUFACTURING vs. SOFIA REYES FLORZO G.R. No. L-21969 August 31, 1966

SANCHEZ, J.:

Claim for death benefit.

Claimant is respondent Sofia Reyes Florzo. Deceased was her son, Ricardo Florzo. Employer of the deceased was petitioner Itemcop. The Workmen's Compensation Commission ordered Itemcop to pay claimant. Itemcop appealed.

FACTS: Ricardo Florzo was Itemcop's employee for a little less than 4 years up to March 20, 1960 when he died at the age of 25.

He was a beam carrier. Primarily, his job was to replace empty loom beams attached to weaving machines with fully loaded ones. Ricardo worked 8 hours a day, 6 days a week.

Florzo fell ill on March 5, 1960. He did not report for work. Dr. Alfonso Ayesa Itemcop physician, diagnosed his ailment to be diminution of blood cells - the cause of the disease is unknown. Later on, the deceased was discovered to be suffering from "cerebral hemorrhage, secondary to blood dyscracia".

On March 1960, half of Florzo's body became paralyzed. He was taken to the Lourdes Hospital. Six days later, he died. The autopsy on Florzo's body was conducted by Dr. Solis, supervisor, medico-legal office, NBI. Cause of death "anemia, severe, secondary to hemorrhagic gastric ulcer".

Respondent Sofia Reyes Florzo lodged with Regional Office No. 4, Department of Labor, notice of injury and claim for compensation. Thereafter, Itemcop filed the employer's report of accident or sickness and the physician's report of sickness or accident, both dated May 23. 1961.

HELD:

1. Petitioner Itemcop takes the position that the Director of Workmen's Compensation cannot exercise jurisdiction to review and decide compensation cases on appeal from regional offices. Its reason is that the authority granted said director under Reorganization Plan 20-A clashes with Section 46 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Clear then is the grant by Congress to the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission the authority to abolish, create, and transfer functions and positions.

Here is the situation now before us. Instead of one Commission (with a Deputy6 to take his place), three commissioners were created under the plan.7 The powers of the commissioner under Section 46 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and those of the three commissioners under the Reorganization Plan are the same. There was merely a reallocation of "powers already possessed". There was "no assumption of powers not previously vested". There was no violation of the specific authority given the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission and Republic Act 997. We therefore rule that the authority of the Director of Workmen's Compensation, as ex-oficio chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, to decide appealed cases brought up from regional offices is valid and binding.8

2. Planted upon Section 24 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, is petitioner's averment that both the notice of sickness and the claim for compensation were filed beyond the statutory limits. Because death occurred on March 20, 1960, whereas said notice and claim were lodged on May 3, 1961. And Section 24 requires that such notice be made as soon as possible and said claim be filed in three months following death .

The issue raised offers no area for genuine dispute. The recorded facts constitute a roadblock to petitioner's claim. First, petitioner had actual knowledge of the sickness and death. By explicit articulation in Section 27 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, "Failure to [give] or delay in giving notice shall not be a bar to the proceeding ... if it is shown that the employer, his agent or representative had knowledge of the accident ..." 10 Second, petitioner failed to file its employer's report of injury or sickness under Section 37 of the Workmen's Compensation Act "as soon as possible after the occurrence of an injury resulting in absence from work for a day or more" or soon after the death of the employee. Neither did it controvert — under Section 45 of the said Act — the right to compensation by reason of such oath "on or before the fourteenth day after disability or within ten days after he has knowledge of the alleged accident". Said petitioner only challenged the right to compensation after respondent mother of the

deceased filed her claim for compensation. Guilty itself of laches — and to a greater degree — petitioner cannot be heard now to set up the laches of the other party as a defense to the latter's claim for compensation. 11 Indeed, petitioner's failure to so controvert, without giving any cause or reason therefor, by the terms of the statute, constitutes "a renunciation of his right" to challenge the claim. 12

3. Is employee Florzo's death compensable? Florzo suffered bleeding in the stomach. Dr. Pedro P. Solis explained that "even if the stomach is not empty, the frequent stress brought about by lifting heavy objects ... might produce an ulcer in the stomach, and this is known in medicine as stress ulcer". Further, the effect of continuous work on a person with a stomach ulcer, so Dr. Solis added, is that "It will aggravate the deceased condition of the stomach, and most likely, it may produce hemorrhage which could be "uncontrollable or controllable". 13 There is then reason to believe, as the Commission observes, that "the continuous exertion of carrying beams during his (deceased's) employment gradually, if imperceptibly, resulted to his illness causing paralyzation of half of his body and ultimately his death". 14

At any rate, the law presumes, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, that the claim is compensable. 15 The burden to disconnect by substantial evidence, the injury or sickness from employment, is laid at the employer's door. 16 Petitioner failed to discharge this burden. So rigid is the rule that even where the cause of the employee's death is unknown as petitioner claims — the right to compensation subsists. 17 Reason for this is that the Workmen's Compensation Act is a social legislation; it is designed to give relief to the workman; therefore, to effectuate its purpose, it must be liberally construed. 18

AFFIRMED.

2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CARLOS COLINARES Y SOLMERANO G.R. No. 72025 June 30, 1988

PARAS, J.:

That on or about the 29th day of November, 1981, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of one ARMANDO CARDINAS (sic.) Y LUBERIANO, by then and there, stabbing him on the parts of his body with the use of one (1) single-bladed knife, hereby inflicting upon said Armando Cardenas y Luberiano serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the victim in such amount as may be awarded to them.

Basaysay having remained at large, trial proceeded with Colinares after which the trial court rendered a decision 1 finding him guilty as charged, with the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Armando Cardenas in the sum of P30,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and with the accessories provided for by law.

FACTS:

The victim Armando Cardenas just recently arrived from the Visayas, was the nephew of spouses Roberto and Trinidad Lopez, residents of Don Fabian Subdivision, Fairview, Quezon City.

Roberto Lopez testified that a quarrel between his neighbors the de Leon family and the Martinez family ensued in front of his house.

Shortly thereafter, some thirty armed persons among whom was accused Carlos Cardenas, arrived at the residence of the above-named spouses. Inside the house at that time were spouses Roberto and Trinidad Lopez, their son Romeo and the latter's daughter 13 years old Rowena and the victim Armando Cardenas. Some of these thirty persons hit with their guns, mauled and kicked Roberto Lopez, Romeo Lopez and the victim Armando Cardenas. The accused, Carlos Colinares, together with some of his companions chased and continued to maul Armando Cardenas as the latter ran towards the back of the house. Armando Cardenas, sprawled on the ground and bleeding, was picked up and taken to the barangay service jeep by accused Carlos Colinares and the sons of Rosendo de Leon, a neighbor of the Lopezes. After Armando was taken away, Roberto Lopez came out of the cogon grass and together with his wife, Trinidad, rode on a passenger jeepney to find out where Armando was being taken. They saw the barangay service jeep in front of the Commonwealth Barangay Hall, along Don Mariano Marcos Avenue.

As per records, Armando Cardenas was brought to the Quirino Memorial Hospital, Quezon City at about 10:40 o'clock in the morning of November 29, 1981. He was pronounced dead on arrival, per medicolegal necropsy report, dated January 6, 1982 issued by Lt. Col. Gregorio C. Blanco (Exh. "A"). The same Lt. Col. Blanco performed the autopsy on the cadaver of Armando Cardenas at about 12:00 o'clock noon on November 29, 1981 at the Oro Memorial Homes, Cubao, Quezon City. Armando Cardenas died of cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage secondary to the stab wound of the trunk and the hacking wound on the head.

On the other hand, the version of the defense is simply stated as follows:

Accused Carlos Colinares testified that at about 7:00 o'clock A.M. of November 29, 1981, he was putting up an electrical post at Barangay Commonwealth, which task he finished at about 9:00 o'clock A.M. of the same day. He then went home which is about 10 meters away from the barangay hall to get some wires which he brought back to the barangay hall and left these wires with Barangay Tanod Domingo Tuazon. Patrolmen Moris. Dizon and Belen of the Quezon City Police Force, approached and invited him to go to the Quezon City Police Headquarters to see Maj. Romeo San Diego. He was brought to the headquarters in EDSA, Kamuning where he was left to await Major San Diego. Nobody arrived until 3:00 P.M. When the complainants arrived at headquarters, accused was informed that there is a complaint against him but not told of the nature of their complaint. Thereafter, accused was brought at 8:00 o'clock P.M. by Pats. Dario and Balia to the house of a certain Fiscal located at the back of PHHC. Later, he was brought back to the police headquarters and detained at Quezon City Hall. Accused denied having known the victim and his relatives, Roberto, Trinidad, Romeo and Rowena, all surnamed Lopez. Accused also denied knowledge or awareness of the incidents testified to by prosecution witnesses.

ISSUE: W/N accused is guilty.

HELD: The appeal deserves consideration. In finding the accused guilty, the lower court relied heavily on the positive Identification by government witnesses Roberto, Trinidad and Rowena, all surnamed Lopez, of the accused as the perpetrator of the alleged mauling incident equating it also as a positive Identification of the same accused as the one who killed Armando Cardenas. Such inference has no legal and/or factual basis. It is noted that the lower court admitted in its decision that there is "no evidence presented to show where the crime took place and who inflicted the fatal wounds sustained by Armando Cardenas," (p. 6, Decision, Crim. Case No. Q-18289) and yet the same court concluded that the accused committed the crime charged based on the circumstantial evidence that accused was Identified by the prosecution witnesses as the one who mauled the victim and that the victim was last seen alive in his company, among others. Such finding cannot be sustained. To uphold a judgment of conviction on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be "an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion, which points to the defendant to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. (U.S. vs. Villar, 6 Phil. 510; People vs. Subano, 73 Phil. 692). It would have been a different judgment if the prosecution witnesses saw herein accused kill the victim and testified thereon. Such would have been positive evidence because his pointing to said accused as the perpetrator is positive Identification which will defeat the defense of alibi put up by the accused.

Aside from the fact that there is no evidence presented to show where the crime took place and who inflicted the fatal wounds sustained, the record is not clear as to the time of the mauling incident and the death of the victim. Roberto Lopez testified that the mauling incident happened on November 28, 1981 between 10:00 o'clock A.M. and 11:00 o'clock A.M., Trinidad Lopez testified that it happened on the same day but at 7:30 o'clock A.M. and Rowena Lopez testified that it happened at 10:00 o'clock A.M. Another witness for the prosecution Col. Gregorio C. Blanco after qualifying himself as a medico-legal expert testified that the cadaver of the victim was already in rigor mortis (more than twelve (12) hours dead) when he autopsied it at high noon of November 29, 1981. Taking into consideration this unimpeachable testimony of the doctor and the necropsy report (Exh. "A") which substantially supported the doctor's oral testimony, the death of the victim could be calculated to have occurred at least 12 hours before time of necropsy which is about November 28, 1981 at 12:00 o'clock midnight. Thus the mauling incident of the victim did not happen or could not have happened because the victim was already dead at that time of the alleged mauling incident. There is no inconsistency between the doctor's oral testimony and the Necropsy Report because the time and date of death of the victim appearing on the Necropsy Report as a/1040 H 29 November 1981 pertains to the time and date as reported to the doctor by the authorities concerned since the victim was DOA (Dead on Arrival) at 10:40 o'clock A.M. November 29, 1981 at the Quirino Memorial General Hospital, Quezon City.

The Court hereby ACQUITS him of the crime charged and hereby ORDERS his immediate RELEASE with costs de officio.

Separate Opinions

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.; dissenting

While it may be that there was no eyewitness who testified to having seen appellant inflict the fatal blow, yet, the circumstances above narrated point to no other conclusion but that appellant and companions were responsible for the victim's death (People vs. Lingao, L-28506, January 31, 1977, 75 SCRA 130). Appellant and his companions acted in conspiracy (People vs. Del Rosario, 68 Phil. 720 [1939]) and the act of one must be deemed as the act of all (People vs. Paredes, No. L-19149, August 16, 1968, 24 SCRA 635).

The medico legal expert's testimony as to the hour of death was far from accurate, was merely an estimate ("more than twelve [12] hours") and cannot be made to negate a finding of culpability considering the attendant circumstantial evidence leading to a fair and reasonable conclusion of guilt.

3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. TIMOTEO TOLENTINO y MAPUA alias "TEM". G.R. No. 70836 October 18, 1988

CORTES, J.:

That on or about the 26th day of July, 1982, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and aiding one another, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill, qualified by evident premeditation and treachery, attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of Alfredo Quitoriano y Bayot, by then and there throwing at him stones hitting him on the head and stabbing the said victim thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said Alfredo Quitoriano y Bayot. [Information, Rollo, p. 3.]

In order to determine the Identity of the other accused, the fiscal conducted a reinvestigation and thereafter submitted his resolution to the trial court wherein he noted the failure of the complainant during the investigation to present any witness to establish the Identity of said John Doe. Hence the reinvestigation was terminated with the Identity of said John Doe still undetermined [Original Records, p. 55.1 Accordingly, only the herein accused Tolentino was arraigned and tried. A plea of not guilty was entered by the accused. His application for bail dated August 2, 1982 was denied and so he remained in jail during the trial.

After the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution, accused Tolentino filed a demurrer to the evidence. However, the trial court resolved to defer its resolution thereon, stating in its Order dated May 27, 1983 that "the resolution of this motion to dismiss ... is held in abeyance until the defense shall have presented its evidence and the complete records of the proceedings from the beginning shall be available."

Relying strongly on the merits of his demurrer to the evidence, accused waived his right to present any evidence and moved that the case be submitted for decision on the basis of the evidence presented by the prosecution and his demurrer to the evidence. Thereafter, the trial court rendered its judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused having been proved beyond reasonable doubt is (sic) hereby convicted of the crime of Murder and is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of Alfredo Quitoriano the amount of P15,000.00. [Rollo. p. 22.]

From said decision, Tolentino interposed an appeal to this Court.

ISSUES: The apparent conflict in the evidence introduced by the prosecution brings to the fore the main issue of whether the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In resolving the question, the Court has to determine how much weight should be given to the opinion of the medical expert vis-a-vis that of the other witness.

The prosecution's case is anchored principally upon the sworn statement and testimony ** before the court a quo of the lone eyewitness, Bienvenido Ferrer. While his testimony dwelt on the fact that he saw the appellant throwing stones at the victim, nowhere from said testimony can it be gleaned that the stones allegedly thrown actually hit the victim and caused such injury as will constitute a penal offense. In the light of the absence of any other corroborating testimonies, the sparseness in details of Ferrer's testimony has certainly weakened the prosecution's case.

The testimony of Ferrer, it bears reiteration, merely established the fact that appellant threw stones at the victim. While in his sworn statement, Ferrer alleged that the stones hit the victim's head and caused him to fall, such allegation is belied by the clear and categorical findings of the medicolegal officer who conducted the autopsy on the victim, that such injuries were caused by means other than stoning.

Ferrer's testimony thus finds no corroboration even from the opinion given by the medicolegal officer who was presented by the prosecution itself to testify on the cause of the victim's injuries. In this jurisdiction, expert opinion constitutes one of the few exceptions to the general rule that a mere opinion of a witness regarding a particular matter is not admissible. In this connection, Rule 130, Section 43 provides: "The opinion of a witness regarding a question of science , art or trade, when he is skilled therein, may be received in evidence."

In the field of medicine, opinions of doctors qualified by training and experience as to causation are competent and in many cases controlling and binding upon the court [People v. Castro, G.R. No. L-38989, October 29, 1982, 117 SCRA 101 4; See also Murray v. Industrial Commission, 349 P. 2d 627, 87 Ariz 190 (1960).] In this case, Dr. Blanco's opinion as to the cause of the victim's injuries should be accorded great respect, it being peculiarly within the expertise of medical practitioners.

A careful examination of the findings of the medicolegal officer in his necropsy report, particularly on the wounds found on the victim's head, bolsters the appellant's claim that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Wound No. 1, an abrasion, was located above the victims right eyebrow and therefore, could not have been inflicted by the appellant as Ferrer plainly testified that the appellant was behind the victim when he threw the stones. The same can be said of Wound no. 3, a contusion located near the right cheek of the victim. The infliction of the fatal wound, Wound No. 2, a lacerated wound measuring only 2.5 by 3 cm., located at the back of the victims head cannot likewise be attributed to appellant as, according to the expert opinion of the doctor who examined the wound, it was caused by a sharp instrument like a "balisong." While the doctor's testimony on! record does not preclude the possibility that the wound could have also been caused by a stone, it was incumbent upon the prosecution, for its case against the accused to succeed, to elicit a positive statement to that effect from the doctor. But the prosecution absolutely failed in this task.

In fine, the failure of the prosecution to prove that the act of the appellant produced such injury as will constitute a penal offense is fatal to their case . In criminal cases, the burden of proof as to the offense charged lies on the prosecution [Rule 131, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court.] As the accused has in his favor the constitutional presumption of innocence, the quantum of proof that will warrant a verdict of guilt must be strong enough to erase any reasonable doubt as to his culpability. True, the trial court found the prosecution evidence sufficient for purposes of conviction. As a rule, this Court usually desists from disturbing the conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, in deference to the basic precept that the lower court, having seen and heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor and manner of testifying, is in a better position to appreciate the evidence. But this doctrine must bow to the superior and immutable rule that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, because the law presumes that a defendant is innocent and this presumption must prevail unless overturned by competent and credible proof (People v. Galvez, G.R. Nos. L-26944-45, December 5, 1980, 101 SCRA 544.]

*proof beyond reasonable doubt which requires moral certainty, 'a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it' may the presumption of innocence be overcome. [People v. Clores, G.R. No. 61408, October 12, 1983, 125 SCRA 67, 75 citing People v. Inguito, G.R. No. 53497, October 18,1982,117 SCRA 641, 649.]

Here, the evidence of the prosecution, far from proving the culpability of the appellant for the crime charged, discloses several probabilities, some of which point to his innocence. Moreover, while the established facts do not entirely rule out the possibility that the accused could himself have inflicted the fatal wounds, the Court cannot base its conviction upon mere possibilities. It should be stressed anew that 'possibilities and suspicion are not evidence" [Sacay v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 66497-98, July 10, 1986,142 SCRA 593, 6121 and therefore should not be taken against the accused. Here, what the prosecution managed to establish were mere circumstances which were not sufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. While circumstantial evidence may suffice to support a conviction, it is imperative, though, that the following requisites should concur:

(a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt [Rule 133, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court.]

In this case the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution does not conclusively point to the liability of the accused for the crime charged.

Bearing in mind that circumstantial evidence in order to warrant conviction "must fairly exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence' [Doronado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 57744, August 31, 1987, 153 SCRA 420, 433], the Court concludes that the prosecution has miserably failed to adduce such circumstantial evidence as would produce a moral certainty that the accused committed the crime charged. The accused is not duty-bound to dispel the doubts regarding his innocence. Accordingly, the constitutional presumption of innocence prevails.

ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

4. APRIL JOY ASETRE - versus - JUNEL ASETRE, CHARITY DAINE ALAGBAN, COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 171536 April 7, 2009

QUISUMBING, J.:

This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision[1] dated October 18, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP

No. 78493. Said decision had reversed the Resolution[2] dated December 17, 2002 of the Department of Justice (DOJ) which ordered

the withdrawal of an information for parricide against petitioner April Joy Asetre and for murder against petitioners Benjie Ebcas,

Galinzchel Gamboa and Buenaventura Gamboa.

FACTS:

On December 27, 2000, Hanz Dietrich Asetre was found dead in his residence, which also housed his printing press

business. He was 26 years old. Petitioner April Joy Gonzaga-Asetre, Hanzs wife, alleged that her husband committed suicide by

hanging himself using bedcovers. She said Hanz was depressed, suicidal, a drug dependent, an alcoholic and violent even before they

got married.

However, respondent Junel Asetre, Hanzs brother, claimed that the mark on Hanzs neck was not that of bedspreads but of

a rope. He claimed that petitioner Buenaventura Gamboa knew who killed Hanz, but was reluctant to divulge it lest he be charged or

harmed by Aprils father.

On her part, respondent Charity Asetre-Alagban, Hanzs sister, claimed that Hanz confided to her a few days before his

death that April issued checks without his knowledge, and that Hanz died without reconciling his differences with April.[4

Office of the City Prosecutor of Bacolod found probable cause against April, Hanzs first cousins Galinzchel and Buenaventura

Gamboa, and printing press worker Benjie Ebcas.

o from the evidence adduced by the parties, herein petitioners were physically and actively interacting with Hanz

shortly before he was found dead.

o the prosecutor rejected petitioners suicide theory because it is inconsistent with the medico-legal findings that

while Hanz might have wanted to end his life, the circumstances of his death proved he could not have done it

himself

o The prosecutor explained that the possibility of murder is not negated even if Hanz sustained no wounds or

injuries, since he had been drinking shortly before his death which could have rendered him too drunk to be aware

that he was being strangled.

DOJ for a review of the prosecutors findings -absolved petitioners and reversed the investigating prosecutors resolution,

o because she did not find sufficient evidence to sustain the theory of the prosecution of conspiracy to commit

murder.

o while there is overwhelming proof that Hanz might not have committed suicide, there is no direct or circumstantial

evidence that could link petitioners as the authors of the crime. She reasoned in this wise:

(1) the prosecution failed to establish petitioners motive to kill Hanz;

(2) the alleged quarrel incident of the spouses was not substantiated;

(3) Aprils actuations during the incident should not be taken against her as there is no standard human

behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or frightful experience;

(4) even her actuations after the incident, like burning the bed sheets and alleged suicide letters of Hanz,

and her opposition to the exhumation/autopsy of Hanzs body because they could only traumatize her and her

children, could not cast doubt on Aprils innocent intentions.

An ordinary person like her could believe that the police investigation done at the time of the incident and

the initial post-mortem examination on Hanzs body were more than enough to conclude and close the

investigation; (5) even the apparent inconsistent testimonies of the other petitioners on their participation during

the incident could not be taken against them because witnesses to a stirring incident could see differently some

details thereof due in large part to excitement and confusion that such an incident usually brings.

MR- DENIED by DOJ

CA (Certiorari and Mandamus) - DOJ Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of

jurisdiction in reversing the investigating prosecutors finding of probable cause.

o the congruence of facts and circumstances of the case strongly shows a reasonable ground of suspicion that

crimes of murder and parricide had been committed by the petitioners.

o It agreed with the investigating prosecutor that the physical evidence at hand negates the suicide theory of

petitioners. It further held that the medical findings of the three medical doctors that it was improbable for

Hanz to have committed suicide were credible, impartial and unbiased. It added that when an information has

already been filed in court, the latter acquires jurisdiction over the case until its termination, and any relief

desired by any party should be addressed to the trial court.

CA on MR – DENIED

ISSUES: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the ruling of the DOJ Secretary and in finding probable cause to

indict petitioners for murder and parricide.

*Petitioners also argue that there are forensic yardsticks in this case consistent with suicide: total absence of stains,

injuries, defense wounds on the bodies of Hanz and petitioners; a chair in the premises where Hanz committed suicide; no sign of

struggle in Hanzs body; Hanz attempted suicide twice sometime in the middle of 2000.

*Private respondents argue that the petition, filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, should be limited to questions of

law but petitioners raised pure questions of fact. They argue that the evidentiary weight of the opinion of expert witnesses, the

weighing of facts to determine probable cause, and the determination of whether there is sufficient evidence to support the same

are all factual questions.[22]

They enumerated circumstantial evidence which warrant the finding of probable cause against the petitioners, to wit: (a)

the victim died at around 2:00 p.m. on December 27, 2000; (b) the victim was brought to the hospital dead; (c) respondent Junel

Asetre was not informed of the victims death and became aware of it through a friend; (d) at the hospital,

HELD:

A preliminary investigation falls under the authority of the state prosecutor who is given by law the power to direct and

control criminal actions. He is, however, subject to the control of the Secretary of Justice. (Sec. 4 Rule112)

The Secretary of Justice, upon petition by a proper party, can reverse his subordinates (provincial or city prosecutors and

their assistants) resolutions finding probable cause against suspects of crimes.

The full discretionary authority to determine probable cause in a preliminary investigation to ascertain sufficient ground

for the filing of information rests with the executive branch. Hence, judicial review of the resolution of the Secretary of Justice is

limited to a determination whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Courts

cannot substitute the executive branchs judgment.[25]

Grave abuse of discretion is defined as such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of

jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of

passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to

perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law.

The determination of probable cause to warrant the prosecution in court should be consigned and entrusted to the DOJ,

as reviewer of the findings of the public prosecutors; to do otherwise is to usurp a duty that exclusively pertains to an executive

official.

As department head, the Secretary of Justice has the power to alter, modify, nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer

had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.

It is only where the decision of the Justice Secretary is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess

of jurisdiction that the Court of Appeals may take cognizance of the case in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised

Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeals decision may then be appealed to this Court by way of a petition for review on

certiorari.[32]

In this case, however, the Secretary of Justice committed no grave abuse of discretion. Based on the totality of the

evidence presented by both parties, it is clear that there is a dearth of proof to hold petitioners for trial.

The disquisition of the Secretary of Justice deserves more credence than that of the Court of Appeals, because of the

following reasons:

All circumstances considered, we find that the DOJ Secretary correctly held that the circumstantial evidence presented by

private respondents to prove probable cause against petitioners, does not support the theory of conspiracy to commit murder. Such

circumstantial evidence in our view, would not sufficiently warrant a conclusion that private respondents are responsible for the death

of Hanz.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 18, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No.

78493 is REVERSED and the Resolution dated December 17, 2002 of the Department of Justice is AFFIRMED.

5. VISAYAN STEVEDORE & TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, vs.WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and JULIETA S. LABIYO respondents G.R. No. L-26657 September 12, 1974

MAKALINTAL, C.J.:p

Appeal from the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission requiring petitioner Visayan Stevedore & Transportation Company to pay respondent Julieta S. Labiyo compensation benefits, burial expenses and costs in connection with the death of her husband Eduardo Labiyo.

FACTS: The deceased, employed as engineer by Visayan Stevedore & Transportation Company with a monthly salary of P235.00 was part of a 3-man crew of the tugboat "M/T DILIS." His main duty consisted in his starting the engine and seeing to it that it functioned properly during the voyage, with the actual navigation of the tugboat being the responsibility of his 2 other companions, the "Patron" who controlled the wheel and a helper (timonel) who operated the rudder.

A subsequent autopsy of the deceased's remains conducted by Dr. Raymundo L. Torres, the assistant medicolegal officer of the Iloilo City Police Department, — traced the cause of Eduardo Labiyo's death to "bangungot

Respondent Julieta Labiyo, the widow, filed a claim for compensation with the Department of Labor, Regional Office No. VII, Iloilo City.

Workmen's Compensation Unit in Iloilo City (acting referee) - dismissed the case upon a finding that "the cause of death of Eduardo Labiyo did not arise out of and was aggravated by the nature of his employment."

Workmen's Compensation Commission (on Review) – SET ASIDE WCU decision dated June 16, 1966, ordering at the same time the petitioner to pay compensation benefits, burial expenses and costs.

Commission enbanc (MR) - denied the motion.

The decision appealed from states:

..., there is no question that Eduardo Labiyo, together with the Patron and Quartermaster were at work twenty-four (24) hours a day. That although they could rest and sleep for sometime still they were always ready to be called to duty anytime, for busy or not busy they remained in the tugboat, the premises of their employment subject to call anytime. That the nature of their work had prevented them from leaving the tugboat.. The theory of the Medico-Legal Officer who autopsied his body was that the cause was due to 'bangungot.' To this view we cannot subscribe. In the first place we have already learned that there is no such thing as 'bangungot;' that is, at least as of this moment, the term has not as yet been clearly explained, particularly its cause and effect. This Commission, after considering the evidence and the facts, is of the view that Eduardo Labiyo must have died due to over fatigue or over exertion. Or that there must have been heart failure due to some factors.

*Petitioner now assails the Commission's finding that Eduardo Labiyo "must have died due to over fatigue or over exertion," arguing that said conclusion is not at all supported by the result of the autopsy which traced the cause of the deceased's death to "bangungot." In taking issue with the Commission's conclusion, it is pointed out, first, that the deceased could not have over exerted himself since he was not performing any physical or manual labor previous to his death; and second, that the nature of the deceased's work gave him more than ample time to rest and sleep.

ISSUE: Is the victims death compensable?

HELD:

We do not think that the main point pressed by petitioner, namely, that death caused by "bangungot" is not compensable, is at all decisive in the case at bar. What is not denied, and this is crucial insofar as the compensability of Eduardo Labiyo's death is concerned, is that when death came to the deceased he was in active duty as an engineer-employee of the petitioner. This being the case, the need to pinpoint the cause of his death as work — connected in Order to render it compensable assumes very little importance. "(It) is to be presumed, under section 44 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended, that the employee's death, supervening at the time of his employment, either arose out of, or was at least aggravated by said employment. With this legal presumption the burden of proof shifts to the employer, and the employee is relieved of the burden to show causation. ...

The mere opinion of doctors presented by petitioner as evidence cannot prevail over the presumption established by law." (Abana vs. Quisumbing, 22 SCRA 1278, 1282)

The liberal attitude displayed by this Court in considering as compensable the death by heart attack of an off-duty employee helping in the loading operation of a vessel (William Lines, Inc. vs. Sanopal, 42 SCRA 48), or the disappearance of an off-duty crew member of a vessel who has no choice but to be in the vessel during the voyage (Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. Pepito, 18 SCRA 1028), or the death by drowning of an employee whose duty was to watch over and take charge of a barge in the absence of the patron (Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, 10 SCRA 207), proceeds from an awareness of the fact that when an employee undertakes to satisfy, in the course of employment, certain human wants, i.e. eating, freshening up, sleeping and the like, "and something takes place that may cause injury, harm or death to the employee or laborer, it is fair and logical that the happening be considered as one occurring in the course of employment for under the circumstances it cannot be undertaken in any other way" (Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, supra), unless it can be clearly shown that the mishap occurred because the employee acted beyond his duty or outside the course of employment, which is not so in the case at bar. For aside from the conclusion arrived at by the medicolegal officer who conducted the autopsy that "bangungot" was the cause of Eduardo Labiyo's death, * there was hardly anything else that would disconnect the deceased's death from his employment, In other words, petitioner had not proved that death was not and could not be caused or aggravated by the deceased's work as engineer who, at the time of his death, was practically on 24-hour continuous duty.

The theory that "bangungot" could have caused the deceased's death appeared to be tenuous, there being competent contrary evidence that excessive exertion and physical strain accounted for the deceased's heart failure, In fact, in the very same case doubt was expressed as to the soundness of the theory that "bangungot" by itself can be the cause of death, thus:

Although the enlightening points ... brought out about the dreaded disease are worthy of note, still the inescapable conclusion is that 'bangungot' is still a theoretical disease — whose remote and immediate cause, pathology and cure have not as yet been accurately determined and scientifically established and confirmed. Whether it is a natural phenomenon that by itself can destroy or snuff the life out of a human being is still a question to which medical science has yet to give a more definite and conclusive answer. That 'bangungot' is still veiled in its own mystery is openly admitted by Dr. Santa Cruz who, on the witness stand, declared that 'until now, the real cause of bangungot is not known and that its pathology cannot be found in any textbook on medicine.

AFFIRMED

6. G.R. No. L-31284 June 11, 1975

SEVEN-UP BOTTLING COMPANY, INC., ILOILO vs. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and HENRIETTA VDA. DE PENAFLORIDA for herself and in behalf of her minor child WILLENETTE PENAFLORIDA, respondents.

MAKALINTAL, C.J.:

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commission dated August 26, 1969 in its WCC Case No. R07-8957.

On October 2, 1962, a hand grenade exploded inside the office of the Seven-Up Bottling Company, Iloilo Plant, in Iloilo City, instantly killing William Peñaflorida, a stock clerk of the company, and Felixberto Herrera, the branch cashier. Another employee, Victorino Trespeces, was wounded seriously.

Within the reglementary period the Seven-Up Bottling Company filed with the Workmen's Compensation Unit in Iloilo City its Employer's Report of Accident or Sickness regarding the death of William Peñaflorida and indicating therein its intention to controvert any claim for compensation. On November 2, 1962 the deceased employee's widow, Henrietta Vda. de Peñaflorida, filed a notice and claim for compensation in her own behalf and that of her minor child. In answer, the employer disclaimed any liability.

When the case was heard the employer presented Victorino Trespeces, who testified that the late William Peñaflorida was intoxicated at the time of the fatal incident and was himself the one who exploded the hand grenade. It also submitted the police investigation report tending to corroborate the testimony of said witness. In view of the extended stay in Manila of the claimants' rebuttal witness, Dr. Teodoro Centeno, the medico-legal officer of the Iloilo Police Department at the time of the incident, the case was submitted for decision without his testimony.

*Acting Referee - the claim was not compensable:

it is the considered opinion of this Office that the claim is not compensable, it not having arisen out of and in the course of employment. Granting arguendo, that the deceased died during his working hours the claim arising therefrom could not be automatically construed as compensable inasmuch as it lacks the vital element of causal relationship between the death of the employee concerned and his employment. Stated otherwise, his death must be service-connected in order that the claim could well prosper.

*claimants moved to reopen the case to enable Dr. Teodoro Centeno to testify but were turned down.

*Their subsequent petition for review was also denied for having been filed allegedly out of time.

Petition with the Workmen's Compensation Commission for it to require the Acting Referee to give due course to their appeal. By order of January 26, 1965 the Commission directed that the record of the case be elevated to it, but on June 9, 1967 remanded the case back to the office of origin for the reception of additional evidence.

- Pursuant to said order the Acting Referee received the testimony of Dr. Teodoro Centeno to the effect that he did not find any trace of liquor in the body of the late William Peñaflorida and that the hand grenade "could have been thrown from somewhere."

Finding that William Peñaflorida's death arose out of and in the course of his employment, the Workmen's Compensation Commission in its decision dated August 26, 1969 reversed that of the Acting Referee and awarded compensation to the claimants.

In dismissing the case at bar, the referee had relied so much on the police report which pictured the deceased William Peñaflorida in the state of intoxication, holding a live grenade and threatening the cashier, Mr. Felixberto Herrera to let off said grenade should his (Peñaflorida's) request for a loan of P5.00 be denied. Without the least casting any aspersion on the good standing of the police department that investigated the fatal accident, we say that its report on the matter should not, hook, line and sinker, be taken into account lest, a grave injustice is (sic) committed against the dependents of the deceased Peñaflorida. For while it is stated in said report that

Peñaflorida was drunk at the time of the explosion, the medico-legal officer (Dr. Teodoro Centeno) of same department who, together with the Chief of Police and Assistant Fiscal, went immediately to the scene of the accident and autopsied the prostrate corpse of the deceased Peñaflorida, did not find traces of liquor in the latter's body. This bluntly belies Trespeces' (respondent's witness) allegation or testimony that Peñaflorida was intoxicated at the time of the fatal accident.

Whether or not the deceased Peñaflorida was drunk is a matter for the medico-legal officer to determine. For this reason, we are more inclined to give more weight to Dr. Centeno's finding than to that of the police report on the matter. And if the deceased was not in a state of inebriety, then necessarily a denial of compensation predicated on the theory of intoxication is believed not in order.

But drunkenness does not seem to be the only ground relied on by the referee in dismissing the claim. For it has been intimated all the while that the deceased being the aggressor, as he was the one holding the grenade and threatening the cashier, the claim could not proper even under the most liberal rule on "horseplay". Having lied in one, he must lied (sic) in all, falsus in unosfalsus in omnibus, runs an old Latin Maxim. Trespeces, as shown by Dr. Centeno's finding, had lied on Peñaflorida's condition at the time of the incident. If, he, without rancor and compunction, could lie on so important a point as the deceased's mental condition (drunkenness), then it is not really difficult to imagine how he could have again twisted the facts by so stating that the deceased Peñaflorida was the one holding and toying with the life hand grenade. Dr. Centeno had advanced the theory which we are inclined to adopt as our own, and with reason, that the grenade must have been thrown by someone from somewhere, judging by the positions of Peñaflorida's (right on his back on the floor) and Herrera's (stooping) bodies; and that Peñaflorida's wounds were on his abdomen and face.

Granting, arguendo, that in the face of the foregoing conflicting versions of the incident, no one could really tell, with certain degree of accuracy, who was lying or not, we still believe the scale of justice should be tipped on the side of the claimants, if only to lend substance to the words of the late President Ramon Magsaysay that "he who has less in life should have more in law". After all, the Workmen's Compensation Act is a social legislation, which, in case of doubt, should be construed in favor of the injured or his dependents. We therefore find that William Peñaflorida's death arose out of and in the course of his employment.

*reversal of the decision of the respondent Commission the petitioner contends that it is not only unsupported by substantial evidence but also entirely contrary to the evidence presented during the hearing of the case.

ISSUE: whether or not Dr. Centeno's testimony may be considered "substantial evidence."

the medico-legal officer arrived at the conclusion that there was no trace of liquor in the body of the late William Peñaflorida because of the absence of alcoholic odor in his breath. There is no showing that the deceased's stomach or intestines were opened and their contents analyzed for possible alcohol contents. Since he was already dead it was impossible to detect the presence of alcohol in his breath. The means employed by the doctor in arriving at his conclusion was inherently unreliable, and his testimony does not meet the test of substantiality of the evidence, let alone its sufficiency to contradict the police investigation report and the positive testimony of Victorino Trespeces.

At best Dr. Centeno's testimony on this point is merely a conjecture, an inference without logical basis. Again it cannot be given any weight in the face of the testimony of Trespeces. Even in itself alone it cannot be considered substantial evidence.

WHEREFORE, the decision and the resolution of the Workmen's Compensation Commission dated August 26, 1969 and October 24, 1969, respectively, are hereby set aside and in lieu thereof judgment is rendered reinstating the decision of the Acting Referee, dated September 11, 1964, dismissing the claim for compensation.

WORKMENS COMPENSATION COMMISSION DECISION IS SET ASID

ACTING REFEREE – REINSTATED

CLAIM DISMISSED

7. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RONALD DE VERA, accused-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

VITUG, J.:

Ronald De Vera was charged with the crime of parricide:

The above-named accused, with evident premeditation, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of one IRMA ASPURIAS DE VERA, his wife, by then and there strangling her neck with a sash, thereby causing her instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of the heir of the said Irma Aspurias de Vera.

He pleaded not guilty to the accusation.

The prosecutions account of the incident may be narrated, as follows:

In the afternoon of 30 September 1990, Irma Aspurias De Vera, the young housewife of the accused, was at home with household helper Francisca Eugenio (Francing), their tenant Lorna Anteola, the accuseds sister Rowena de Vera Jesuitas and the latters husband Arnel Jesuitas. At about 3:00 p.m., Irmas husband, accused Ronald De Vera, arrived. Ronald asked Irma, who was then at the kitchen with Francing and Lorna, to join him in the bedroom upstairs in order to discuss an important matter. Within minutes, Lorna heard a commotion in the couples bedroom. She could hear that the two were engaged in a shouting match. Then, there was complete silence. After a while, sensing that all was well again, Lorna went upstairs. To her surprise, she saw Ronald, assisted by Arnel, carrying a disabled Irma out of the room. The latter was brought to the Quezon City Medical Center where she was pronounced dead on arrival. Looking over at the couples bedroom, Lorna and Francing saw that the place was in disarray.

The Quezon City Police conducted that evening an investigation of the incident. SPO1 Jose Gil Gregorio made an ocular inspection. He reported that the built-in cabinets in the couples bedroom were open, the bedsheets were crumpled, and clothes and perfume bottles were scattered all over the place.

In the medico-legal examination conducted on 04 October 1990, by the police, the cause of death was said to be asphyxia by hanging.

National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), at the request of the Commission on Human Rights,[3] undertook its own investigation of the case. Irmas body was exhumed, and a second autopsy was conducted. This time, the cause of death was found to be asphyxia compatible with strangulation.

Defense sought to convince the trial court that Irma took her own life.

TRIAL COURT - accused Ronald De Vera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide

In his appeal to this Court, accused-appellant makes the following submissions: That

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT IRMAS DEATH WAS CAUSED BY ASPHYXIA THROUGH HOMICIDAL STRANGULATION.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RELYING ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION THAT RONALD CAUSED IRMAS DEATH THROUGH STRANGULATION.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.[9]

Dr. Renato Bautista, the Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI, concluded that the cause of death was asphyxia compatible with strangulation. It would appear that the post-mortem investigation on the cadaver conducted by the NBI was decidedly more extensive and exhaustive than the cursory examination previously made by the police.

It might be stressed that Dr. Bautista, in making his examination and in identifying the cause of death, did not fail to take into account the wounds which were apparently inflicted after Irmas death, such as the incise wound on the other right side of her neck and the wound on the wrist of the left side or the antero-lateral aspect.[12]

The court a quo has found no reason to distrust the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies. Just as it is often done that an appellate court would defer to the sound judgment of the trial court in assessing the credibility of witnesses, so, also, this Court in this appeal must duly and rightly accord that same respect.[13]

The Rules of Court, on circumstantial evidence, provides:

SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. -- Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[14]

In this case, the Solicitor General aptly enumerated these circumstances to be

First, the existence of a motive to kill her wife. Appellant clearly testified that his purpose for demanding from the victim to talk inside their room was due to their non-appearance on the wedding day of Rowena (appellants sister), who incidentally was not in speaking terms with the victim, and the hurt feelings generated on appellants friends and relatives on account of their non-attendance (pp. 23-25, tsn, September 10, 1993; pp. 4-5, tsn, August 12, 1993).

Second, the fact that appellant and the victim proceeded upstairs inside their bedroom and were alone at the time the incident occurred (p. 9, tsn, August 12, 1993).

Third, the violent commotion inside the bedroom of the appellant and the victim exemplified by loud thuds or kalabog and shouts of anger of the victim to the appellant which the latter even acknowledged

Fourth, the duration of the violent commotion which lasted for approximately ten minutes evinces that a violent struggle took place (pp. 5, 13-14, tsn, August 12, 1993).

Fifth, the fact that the appellant was seen together with his brother-in-law carrying the victim downstairs immediately after the said commotion took place (p. 5, tsn, August 12, 1993).

Sixth, the physical condition of the room evincing that a violent struggle took place characterized by the presence of a bolo on top of the table in the room with its bedsheets and pillows disarrayed, the built-in cabinet doors open, clothes and perfume bottles scattered (p. 13, tsn, August 16, 1993; p. 6, August 12, 1993; p. 13, tsn, August 6, 1993).

Seventh, the corpus delicti indicating that the victim was strangled to death exemplified by contuse-abrasions on the victims neck and other parts of the body characterized by marked congestions on the superior part of the first portion of the trachea and the thyroid cartilage which was even detected by the NBI Medico Legal Officer Dr. Bautista at the time he conducted an autopsy on the victims body (p. 10, tsn, August 6, 1993, p. 20, tsn, June 21, 1993; Exhibits F, F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4).

Eighth, the attempt on the part of the appellant to mislead the police investigators and cover-up the corpus delicti by making it to appear in his Sinumpaang Salaysay (Exhibit N) that the victim died due to suicidal hanging (p. 8, tsn, September 10, 1993).[15]

All the above, taken collectively, sufficiently constituted an unbroken chain of events that indeed would point to accused-appellant, to the exclusion of all others, to be the author of the crime.[16]

AFFIRMED

8. G.R. No. 176389 December 14, 2010

ANTONIO LEJANO, Petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

G.R. No. 176864

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs.HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, ANTONIO LEJANO, MICHAEL A. GATCHALIAN, HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, PETER ESTRADA and GERARDO BIONG, Appellants.

ABAD, J.:

FACTS:

On June 30, 1991 Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela, nineteen years old, and Jennifer, seven, were brutally slain at their home in Parañaque City. Following an intense 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. Thus, the identities of the real perpetrators remained a mystery especially to the public whose interests were aroused by the gripping details of what everybody referred to as the Vizconde massacre.

Four years later in 1995, the National Bureau of Investigation or NBI announced that it had solved the crime. It presented star-witness Jessica M. Alfaro, one of its informers, who claimed that 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.1

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.

But impressed by Alfaro’s detailed narration of the crime and the events surrounding it, the trial court found a credible witness in her. It noted her categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank testimony, undamaged by grueling cross-examinations. The trial court remained unfazed by significant discrepancies between Alfaro’s April 28 and May 22, 1995 affidavits, accepting her explanation that she at first wanted to protect her former boyfriend, accused Estrada, and a relative, accused Gatchalian; that no lawyer assisted her; that she did not trust the investigators who helped her prepare her first affidavit; and that she felt unsure if she would get the support and security she needed once she disclosed all about the Vizconde killings.

In contrast, the trial court thought little of the denials and alibis that Webb, Lejano, Rodriguez, and Gatchalian set up for their defense. They paled, according to the court, compared to Alfaro’s testimony that other witnesses and the physical evidence corroborated. Thus, on January 4, 2000, after four years of arduous hearings, the trial court rendered judgment, finding all the accused guilty as charged and imposing on Webb, Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, and Rodriguez the penalty of reclusion perpetua and on Biong, an indeterminate prison term of eleven years, four months, and one day to twelve years. The trial court also awarded damages to Lauro Vizconde.3

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, modifying the penalty imposed on Biong to six years minimum and twelve years maximum and increasing the award of damages to Lauro Vizconde.4 The appellate court did not agree that the accused were tried by publicity or that the trial judge was biased. It found sufficient evidence of conspiracy that rendered Rodriguez, Gatchalian, Fernandez, and Estrada equally guilty with those who had a part in raping and killing Carmela and in executing her mother and sister.

On motion for reconsideration by the accused, the Court of Appeals' Special Division of five members voted three against two to deny the motion,5 hence, the present appeal.

On April 20, 2010, as a result of its initial deliberation in this case, the Court issued a Resolution granting the request of Webb to submit for DNA analysis the semen specimen taken from Carmela’s cadaver, which specimen was then believed still under the safekeeping of the NBI. The Court granted the request pursuant to section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence6 to give the accused and the prosecution access to scientific evidence that they might want to avail themselves of, leading to a correct decision in the case.

Unfortunately, on April 27, 2010 the NBI informed the Court that it no longer has custody of the specimen, the same having been turned over to the trial court. The trial record shows, however, that the specimen was not among the object evidence that the prosecution offered in evidence in the case.

This outcome prompted accused Webb to file an urgent motion to acquit on the ground that the government’s failure to preserve such vital evidence has resulted in the denial of his right to due process.

Issues Presented

Accused Webb’s motion to acquit presents a threshold issue: whether or not the Court should acquit him outright, given the government’s failure to produce the semen specimen that the NBI found on Carmela’s cadaver, thus depriving him of evidence that would prove his innocence.

In the main, all the accused raise the central issue of whether or not Webb, acting in conspiracy with Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, Rodriguez, Ventura, and Filart, raped and killed Carmela and put to death her mother and sister. But, ultimately, the controlling issues are:

1. Whether or not Alfaro’s testimony as eyewitness, describing the crime and identifying Webb, Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, Rodriguez, and two others as the persons who committed it, is entitled to belief; and

2. Whether or not Webb presented sufficient evidence to prove his alibi and rebut Alfaro’s testimony that he led the others in committing the crime.

The issue respecting accused Biong is whether or not he acted to cover up the crime after its commission.

The Right to AcquittalDue to Loss of DNA Evidence

Webb claims, citing Brady v. Maryland,7 that he is entitled to outright acquittal on the ground of violation of his right to due process given the State’s failure to produce on order of the Court either by negligence or willful suppression the semen specimen taken from Carmela.

The medical evidence clearly established that Carmela was raped and, consistent with this, semen specimen was found in her. It is true that Alfaro identified Webb in her testimony as Carmela’s rapist and killer but serious questions had been raised about her credibility. At the very least, there exists a possibility that Alfaro had lied. On the other hand, the semen specimen taken from Carmela cannot possibly lie. It cannot be coached or allured by a promise of reward or financial support. No two persons have the same DNA fingerprint, with the exception of identical twins.8 If, on examination, the DNA of the subject specimen does not belong to Webb, then he did not rape Carmela. It is that simple. Thus, the Court would have been able to determine that Alfaro committed perjury in saying that he did.

Still, Webb is not entitled to acquittal for the failure of the State to produce the semen specimen at this late stage. For one thing, the ruling in Brady v. Maryland9 that he cites has long be overtaken by the decision in Arizona v. Youngblood,10 where the U.S. Supreme

Court held that due process does not require the State to preserve the semen specimen although it might be useful to the accused unless the latter is able to show bad faith on the part of the prosecution or the police. Here, the State presented a medical expert who testified on the existence of the specimen and Webb in fact sought to have the same subjected to DNA test.

For, another, when Webb raised the DNA issue, the rule governing DNA evidence did not yet exist, the country did not yet have the technology for conducting the test, and no Philippine precedent had as yet recognized its admissibility as evidence. Consequently, the idea of keeping the specimen secure even after the trial court rejected the motion for DNA testing did not come up. Indeed, neither Webb nor his co-accused brought up the matter of preserving the specimen in the meantime.

Parenthetically, after the trial court denied Webb’s application for DNA testing, he allowed the proceeding to move on when he had on at least two occasions gone up to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to challenge alleged arbitrary actions taken against him and the other accused.11 They raised the DNA issue before the Court of Appeals but merely as an error committed by the trial court in rendering its decision in the case. None of the accused filed a motion with the appeals court to have the DNA test done pending adjudication of their appeal. This, even when the Supreme Court had in the meantime passed the rules allowing such test. Considering the accused’s lack of interest in having such test done, the State cannot be deemed put on reasonable notice that it would be required to produce the semen specimen at some future time.

Now, to the merit of the case.

Alfaro’s Story

Based on the prosecution’s version, culled from the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, on June 29, 1991 at around 8:30 in the evening, Jessica Alfaro drove her Mitsubishi Lancer, with boyfriend Peter Estrada as passenger, to the Ayala Alabang Commercial Center parking lot to buy shabu from Artemio "Dong" Ventura. There, Ventura introduced her to his friends: Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio "Tony Boy" Lejano, Miguel "Ging" Rodriguez, Hospicio "Pyke" Fernandez, Michael Gatchalian, and Joey Filart. Alfaro recalled frequently seeing them at a shabu house in Parañaque in January 1991, except Ventura whom she had known earlier in December 1990.

As Alfaro smoked her shabu, Webb approached and requested her to relay a message for him to a girl, whom she later identified as Carmela Vizconde. Alfaro agreed. After using up their shabu, the group drove to Carmela’s house at 80 Vinzons Street, Pitong Daan Subdivision, BF Homes, Parañaque City. Riding in her car, Alfaro and Estrada trailed Filart and Rodriguez who rode a Mazda pick-up and Webb, Lejano, Ventura, Fernandez, and Gatchalian who were on a Nissan Patrol car.

On reaching their destination, Alfaro parked her car on Vinzons Street, alighted, and approached Carmela’s house. Alfaro pressed the buzzer and a woman came out. Alfaro queried her about Carmela. Alfaro had met Carmela twice before in January 1991. When Carmela came out, Alfaro gave her Webb’s message that he was just around. Carmela replied, however, that she could not go out yet since she had just arrived home. She told Alfaro to return after twenty minutes. Alfaro relayed this to Webb who then told the group to drive back to the Ayala Alabang Commercial Center.

The group had another shabu session at the parking lot. After sometime, they drove back but only Alfaro proceeded to Vinzons Street where Carmela lived. The Nissan Patrol and the Mazda pick-up, with their passengers, parked somewhere along Aguirre Avenue. Carmela was at their garden. She approached Alfaro on seeing her and told the latter that she (Carmela) had to leave the house for a while. Carmela requested Alfaro to return before midnight and she would leave the pedestrian gate, the iron grills that led to the kitchen, and the kitchen door unlocked. Carmela also told Alfaro to blink her car’s headlights twice when she approached the pedestrian gate so Carmela would know that she had arrived.

Alfaro returned to her car but waited for Carmela to drive out of the house in her own car. Alfaro trailed Carmela up to Aguirre Avenue where she dropped off a man whom Alfaro believed was Carmela’s boyfriend. Alfaro looked for her group, found them, and relayed Carmela’s instructions to Webb. They then all went back to the Ayala Alabang Commercial Center. At the parking lot, Alfaro told the group about her talk with Carmela. When she told Webb of Carmela’s male companion, Webb’s mood changed for the rest of the evening ("bad trip").

Webb gave out free cocaine. They all used it and some shabu, too. 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." They all left the parking lot in a convoy of three vehicles and drove into Pitong Daan Subdivision for the third time. They arrived at Carmela’s house shortly before midnight.

Alfaro parked her car between Vizconde’s house and the next. While waiting for the others to alight from their cars, Fernandez approached Alfaro with a suggestion that they blow up the transformer near the Vizconde’s residence to cause a brownout ("Pasabugin kaya natin ang transformer na ito"). But Alfaro shrugged off the idea, telling Fernandez, "Malakas lang ang tama mo." When Webb, Lejano, and Ventura were already before the house, Webb told the others again that they would line up for Carmela but he would be the first. The others replied, "O sige, dito lang kami, magbabantay lang kami."

Alfaro was the first to pass through the pedestrian gate that had been left open. Webb, Lejano, and Ventura followed her. On entering the garage, Ventura using a chair mounted the hood of the Vizcondes’ Nissan Sentra and loosened the electric bulb over it ("para daw walang ilaw"). The small group went through the open iron grill gate and passed the dirty kitchen. 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. As she eased her way out through the kitchen door, she saw Ventura pulling out a kitchen drawer. Alfaro smoked a cigarette at the garden. After about twenty minutes, she was surprised to hear a woman’s voice ask, "Sino yan?" Alfaro immediately walked out of the garden to her car. She found her other companions milling around it. Estrada who sat in the car asked her, "Okay ba?"

After sitting in the car for about ten minutes, Alfaro returned to the Vizconde house, using the same route. The interior of the house was dark but some light filtered in from outside. In the kitchen, Alfaro saw Ventura searching a lady’s bag that lay on the dining table. When she asked him what he was looking for, he said: "Ikaw na nga dito, maghanap ka ng susi." She asked him what key he wanted and he replied: "Basta maghanap ka ng susi ng main door pati na rin ng susi ng kotse." When she found a bunch of keys in the bag, she tried them on the main door but none fitted the lock. She also did not find the car key.

Unable to open the main door, Alfaro returned to the kitchen. While she was at a spot leading to the dining area, she heard a static noise (like a television that remained on after the station had signed off). Out of curiosity, she approached the master’s bedroom from where the noise came, opened the door a little, and peeked inside. The unusual sound grew even louder. 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. She entered her car and turned on the engine but she did not know where to go. Webb, Lejano, and Ventura came out of the house just then. Webb suddenly picked up a stone and threw it at the main door, breaking its glass frame.

As the three men approached the pedestrian gate, Webb told Ventura that he forgot his jacket in the house. But Ventura told him that they could not get in anymore as the iron grills had already locked. They all rode in their cars and drove away until they reached Aguirre Avenue. As they got near an old hotel at the Tropical Palace area, Alfaro noticed the Nissan Patrol slow down. Someone threw something out of the car into the cogonal area.

The convoy of cars went to a large house with high walls, concrete fence, steel gate, and a long driveway at BF Executive Village. They entered the compound and gathered at the lawn where the "blaming session" took place. It was here that Alfaro and those who remained outside the Vizconde house learned of what happened. The first to be killed was Carmela’s mother, then Jennifer, and finally, Carmella. Ventura blamed Webb, telling him, "Bakit naman pati yung bata?" Webb replied that the girl woke up and on seeing him molesting Carmela, she jumped on him, bit his shoulders, and pulled his hair. Webb got mad, grabbed the girl, pushed her to the wall, and repeatedly stabbed her. Lejano excused himself at this point to use the telephone in the house. Meanwhile, Webb called up someone on his cellular phone.

At around 2:00 in the morning, accused Gerardo Biong arrived. Webb ordered him to go and clean up the Vizconde house and said to him, "Pera lang ang katapat nyan." Biong answered, "Okay lang." Webb spoke to his companions and told them, "We don’t know each other. We haven’t seen each other…baka maulit yan." Alfaro and Estrada left and they drove to her father’s house.12

1. The quality of the witness

Was Alfaro an ordinary subdivision girl who showed up at the NBI after four years, bothered by her conscience or egged on by relatives or friends to come forward and do what was right? No. She was, at the time she revealed her story, working for the NBI as

an "asset," a stool pigeon, one who earned her living by fraternizing with criminals so she could squeal on them to her NBI handlers. She had to live a life of lies to get rewards that would pay for her subsistence and vices.

According to Atty. Artemio Sacaguing, former head of the NBI Anti-Kidnapping, Hijacking, and Armed Robbery Task Force (AKHAR) Section, Alfaro had been hanging around at the NBI since November or December 1994 as an "asset." She supplied her handlers with information against drug pushers and other criminal elements. Some of this information led to the capture of notorious drug pushers like Christopher Cruz Santos and Orlando Bacquir. Alfaro’s tip led to the arrest of the leader of the "Martilyo gang" that killed a police officer. Because of her talent, the task force gave her "very special treatment" and she became its "darling," allowed the privilege of spending nights in one of the rooms at the NBI offices.

When Alfaro seemed unproductive for sometime, however, they teased her about it and she was piqued. One day, she unexpectedly told Sacaguing that she knew someone who had the real story behind the Vizconde massacre. Sacaguing showed interest. Alfaro promised to bring that someone to the NBI to tell his story. When this did not happen and Sacaguing continued to press her, she told him that she might as well assume the role of her informant. Sacaguing testified thus:

ATTY. ONGKIKO:

Q. Atty. Sacaguing, how did Jessica Alfaro become a witness in the Vizconde murder case? Will you tell the Honorable Court?

x x x x

A. She told me. Your Honor, that she knew somebody who related to her the circumstances, I mean, the details of the massacre of the Vizconde family. That’s what she told me, Your Honor.

ATTY. ONGKIKO:

Q. And what did you say?

x x x x

A. I was quite interested and I tried to persuade her to introduce to me that man and she promised that in due time, she will bring to me the man, and together with her, we will try to convince him to act as a state witness and help us in the solution of the case.

x x x x

Q. Atty. Sacaguing, were you able to interview this alleged witness?

WITNESS SACAGUING:

A. No, sir.

ATTY. ONGKIKO:

Q. Why not?

WITNESS SACAGUING:

A. Because Jessica Alfaro was never able to comply with her promise to bring the man to me. She told me later that she could not and the man does not like to testify.

ATTY. ONGKIKO:

Q. All right, and what happened after that?

WITNESS SACAGUING:

A. She told me, "easy lang kayo, Sir," if I may quote, "easy lang Sir, huwag kayong…"

COURT:

How was that?

WITNESS SACAGUING:

A. "Easy lang, Sir. Sir, relax lang, Sir, papapelan ko, papapelan ko na lang ‘yan."

x x x x

ATTY. ONGKIKO:

Q. All right, and what was your reaction when Ms. Alfaro stated that "papapelan ko na lang yan?"

WITNESS SACAGUING:

A. I said, "hindi puwede yan, kasi hindi ka naman eye witness."

ATTY. ONGKIKO:

Q. And what was the reply of Ms. Alfaro?

WITNESS SACAGUING:

A. Hindi siya nakakibo, until she went away.

(TSN, May 28, 1996, pp. 49-50, 58, 77-79)

Quite significantly, Alfaro never refuted Sacaguing’s above testimony.

2. The suspicious details

But was it possible for Alfaro to lie with such abundant details some of which even tallied with the physical evidence at the scene of the crime? No doubt, yes.

Firstly, the Vizconde massacre had been reported in the media with dizzying details. Everybody was talking about what the police found at the crime scene and there were lots of speculations about them.

Secondly, the police had arrested some "akyat-bahay" group in Parañaque and charged them with the crime. The police prepared the confessions of the men they apprehended and filled these up with details that the evidence of the crime scene provided. Alfaro’s NBI handlers who were doing their own investigation knew of these details as well. Since Alfaro hanged out at the NBI offices and practically lived there, it was not too difficult for her to hear of these evidentiary details and gain access to the documents.

Not surprisingly, the confessions of some members of the Barroso "akyat bahay" gang, condemned by the Makati RTC as fabricated by the police to pin the crime on them, shows how crime investigators could make a confession ring true by matching some of its details with the physical evidence at the crime scene. Consider the following:

a. The Barroso gang members said that they got into Carmela’s house by breaking the glass panel of the front door using a stone wrapped in cloth to deaden the noise. Alfaro could not use this line since the core of her story was that Webb was Carmela’s boyfriend. Webb had no reason to smash her front door to get to see her.

Consequently, to explain the smashed door, Alfaro had to settle for claiming that, on the way out of the house, Webb picked up some stone and, out of the blue, hurled it at the glass-paneled front door of the Vizconde residence. His action really made no sense. From Alfaro’s narration, Webb appeared rational in his decisions. It was past midnight, the house was dark, and they wanted to get away quickly to avoid detection. Hurling a stone at that glass door and causing a tremendous noise was bizarre, like inviting the neighbors to come.

b. The crime scene showed that the house had been ransacked. The rejected confessions of the Barroso "akyat-bahay" gang members said that they tried to rob the house. To explain this physical evidence, Alfaro claimed that at one point Ventura was pulling a kitchen drawer, and at another point, going through a handbag on the dining table. He said he was looking for the front-door key and the car key.

Again, this portion of Alfaro’s story appears tortured to accommodate the physical evidence of the ransacked house. She never mentioned Ventura having taken some valuables with him when they left Carmela’s house. And why would Ventura rummage a bag on the table for the front-door key, spilling the contents, when they had already gotten into the house. It is a story made to fit in with the crime scene although robbery was supposedly not the reason Webb and his companions entered that house.

c. It is the same thing with the garage light. The police investigators found that the bulb had been loosened to turn off the light. The confessions of the Barroso gang claimed that one of them climbed the parked car’s hood to reach up and darken that light. This made sense since they were going to rob the place and they needed time to work in the dark trying to open the front door. Some passersby might look in and see what they were doing.

Alfaro had to adjust her testimony to take into account that darkened garage light. So she claimed that Ventura climbed the car’s hood, using a chair, to turn the light off. But, unlike the Barroso "akyat-bahay" gang, Webb and his friends did not have anything to do in a darkened garage. They supposedly knew in advance that Carmela left the doors to the kitchen open for them. It did not make sense for Ventura to risk standing on the car’s hood and be seen in such an awkward position instead of going straight into the house.

And, thirdly, Alfaro was the NBI’s star witness, their badge of excellent investigative work.lavvphil After claiming that they had solved the crime of the decade, the NBI people had a stake in making her sound credible and, obviously, they gave her all the preparations she needed for the job of becoming a fairly good substitute witness. She was their "darling" of an asset. And this is not pure speculation. As pointed out above, Sacaguing of the NBI, a lawyer and a ranking official, confirmed this to be a cold fact. Why the trial court and the Court of Appeals failed to see this is mystifying.

At any rate, did Alfaro at least have a fine memory for faces that had a strong effect on her, given the circumstances? Not likely. She named Miguel "Ging" Rodriguez as one of the culprits in the Vizconde killings. But when the NBI found a certain Michael Rodriguez, a drug dependent from the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center, initially suspected to be Alfaro’s Miguel Rodriguez and showed him to Alfaro at the NBI office, she ran berserk, slapping and kicking Michael, exclaiming: "How can I forget your face. We just saw each other in a disco one month ago and you told me then that you will kill me." As it turned out, he was not Miguel Rodriguez, the accused in this case.13

Two possibilities exist: Michael was really the one Alfaro wanted to implicate to settle some score with him but it was too late to change the name she already gave or she had myopic vision, tagging the wrong people for what they did not do.

3. The quality of the testimony

There is another thing about a lying witness: her story lacks sense or suffers from inherent inconsistencies. An understanding of the nature of things and the common behavior of people will help expose a lie. And it has an abundant presence in this case.

One. In her desire to implicate Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, Rodriguez, and Filart, who were supposed to be Webb’s co-principals in the crime, Alfaro made it a point to testify that Webb proposed twice to his friends the gang-rape of Carmela who had hurt him. And twice, they (including, if one believes Alfaro, her own boyfriend Estrada) agreed in a chorus to his proposal. But when they got to Carmela’s house, only Webb, Lejano, Ventura, and Alfaro entered the house.

Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, and Rodriguez supposedly stayed around Alfaro’s car, which was parked on the street between Carmela’s house and the next. Some of these men sat on top of the car’s lid while others milled on the sidewalk, visible under the street light to anyone who cared to watch them, particularly to the people who were having a drinking party in a nearby house. Obviously, the behavior of Webb’s companions out on the street did not figure in a planned gang-rape of Carmela.

Two. Ventura, Alfaro’s dope supplier, introduced her for the first time in her life to Webb and his friends in a parking lot by a mall. So why would she agree to act as Webb’s messenger, using her gas, to bring his message to Carmela at her home. More inexplicably, what motivated Alfaro to stick it out the whole night with Webb and his friends?

They were practically strangers to her and her boyfriend Estrada. When it came to a point that Webb decided with his friends to gang-rape Carmela, clearly, there was nothing in it for Alfaro. Yet, she stuck it out with them, as a police asset would, hanging in there until she had a crime to report, only she was not yet an "asset" then. If, on the other hand, Alfaro had been too soaked in drugs to think clearly and just followed along where the group took her, how could she remember so much details that only a drug-free mind can?

Three. When Alfaro went to see Carmela at her house for the second time, Carmella told her that she still had to go out and that Webb and his friends should come back around midnight. Alfaro returned to her car and waited for Carmela to drive out in her own car. And she trailed her up to Aguirre Avenue where she supposedly dropped off a man whom she thought was Carmela’s boyfriend. Alfaro’s trailing Carmela to spy on her unfaithfulness to Webb did not make sense since she was on limited errand. But, as a critical witness, Alfaro had to provide a reason for Webb to freak out and decide to come with his friends and harm Carmela.

Four. According to Alfaro, when they returned to Carmela’s house the third time around midnight, she led Webb, Lejano, and Ventura through the pedestrian gate that Carmela had left open. Now, this is weird. Webb was the gang leader who decided what they were going to do. He decided and his friends agreed with him to go to Carmela’s house and gang-rape her. Why would Alfaro, a woman, a stranger to Webb before that night, and obviously with no role to play in the gang-rape of Carmela, lead him and the others into her house? It made no sense. It would only make sense if Alfaro wanted to feign being a witness to something she did not see.

Five. Alfaro went out of the house to smoke at the garden. After about twenty minutes, a woman exclaimed, "Sino yan?" On hearing this, Alfaro immediately walked out of the garden and went to her car. Apparently, she did this because she knew they came on a sly. Someone other than Carmela became conscious of the presence of Webb and others in the house. Alfaro walked away because, obviously, she did not want to get involved in a potential confrontation. This was supposedly her frame of mind: fear of getting involved in what was not her business.

But if that were the case, how could she testify based on personal knowledge of what went on in the house? Alfaro had to change that frame of mind to one of boldness and reckless curiosity. So that is what she next claimed. She went back into the house to watch as Webb raped Carmela on the floor of the master’s bedroom. He had apparently stabbed to death Carmela’s mom and her young sister whose bloodied bodies were sprawled on the bed. Now, Alfaro testified that she got scared (another shift to fear) for she hurriedly got out of the house after Webb supposedly gave her a meaningful look.

Alfaro quickly went to her car, not minding Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, Rodriguez, and Filart who sat on the car or milled on the sidewalk. She did not speak to them, even to Estrada, her boyfriend. She entered her car and turned on the engine but she testified that she did not know where to go. This woman who a few minutes back led Webb, Lejano, and Ventura into the house, knowing that they were decided to rape and harm Carmela, was suddenly too shocked to know where to go! This emotional pendulum swing indicates a witness who was confused with her own lies.

4. The supposed corroborations

Intending to provide corroboration to Alfaro’s testimony, the prosecution presented six additional witnesses:

Dr. Prospero A. Cabanayan, the NBI Medico-Legal Officer who autopsied the bodies of the victims, testified on the stab wounds they sustained14 and the presence of semen in Carmela’s genitalia,15 indicating that she had been raped.

Normal E. White, Jr., was the security guard on duty at Pitong Daan Subdivision from 7 p.m. of June 29 to 7 a.m. of June 30, 1991. He got a report on the morning of June 30 that something untoward happened at the Vizconde residence. He went there and saw the dead bodies in the master’s bedroom, the bag on the dining table, as well as the loud noise emanating from a television set.16

White claimed that he noticed Gatchalian and his companions, none of whom he could identify, go in and out of Pitong Daan Subdivision. He also saw them along Vinzons Street. Later, they entered Pitong Daan Subdivision in a three-car convoy. White could not, however, describe the kind of vehicles they used or recall the time when he saw the group in those two instances. And he did not notice anything suspicious about their coming and going.

But White’s testimony cannot be relied on. His initial claim turned out to be inaccurate. He actually saw Gatchalian and his group enter the Pitong Daan Subdivision only once. They were not going in and out. Furthermore, Alfaro testified that when the convoy of cars went back the second time in the direction of Carmela’s house, she alone entered the subdivision and passed the guardhouse without stopping. Yet, White who supposedly manned that guardhouse did not notice her.

Surprisingly, White failed to note Biong, a police officer, entering or exiting the subdivision on the early morning of June 30 when he supposedly "cleaned up" Vizconde residence on Webb’s orders. What is more, White did not notice Carmela arrive with her mom before Alfaro’s first visit that night. Carmela supposedly left with a male companion in her car at around 10:30 p.m. but White did not notice it. He also did not notice Carmela reenter the subdivision. White actually discredited Alfaro’s testimony about the movements of the persons involved.

Further, while Alfaro testified that it was the Mazda pick-up driven by Filart that led the three-vehicle convoy,17 White claimed it was the Nissan Patrol with Gatchalian on it that led the convoy since he would not have let the convoy in without ascertaining that Gatchalian, a resident, was in it. Security guard White did not, therefore, provide corroboration to Alfaro’s testimony.1avvphi1

Justo Cabanacan, the security supervisor at Pitong Daan Subdivision testified that he saw Webb around the last week of May or the first week of June 1991 to prove his presence in the Philippines when he claimed to be in the United States. He was manning the guard house at the entrance of the subdivision of Pitong Daan when he flagged down a car driven by Webb. Webb said that he would see Lilet Sy. Cabanacan asked him for an ID but he pointed to his United BF Homes sticker and said that he resided there. Cabanacan replied, however, that Pitong Daan had a local sticker.

Cabanacan testified that, at this point, Webb introduced himself as the son of Congressman Webb. Still, the supervisor insisted on seeing his ID. Webb grudgingly gave it and after seeing the picture and the name on it, Cabanacan returned the same and allowed Webb to pass without being logged in as their Standard Operating Procedure required.18

But Cabanacan's testimony could not be relied on. Although it was not common for a security guard to challenge a Congressman’s son with such vehemence, Cabanacan did not log the incident on the guardhouse book. Nor did he, contrary to prescribed procedure, record the visitor’s entry into the subdivision. It did not make sense that Cabanacan was strict in the matter of seeing Webb’s ID but not in recording the visit.

Mila Gaviola used to work as laundry woman for the Webbs at their house at BF Homes Executive Village. She testified that she saw Webb at his parents’ house on the morning of June 30, 1991 when she got the dirty clothes from the room that he and two brothers occupied at about 4.a.m. She saw him again pacing the floor at 9 a.m. At about 1 p.m., Webb left the house in t-shirt and shorts, passing through a secret door near the maid’s quarters on the way out. Finally, she saw Webb at 4 p.m. of the same day.19

On cross-examination, however, Gaviola could not say what distinguished June 30, 1991 from the other days she was on service at the Webb household as to enable her to distinctly remember, four years later, what one of the Webb boys did and at what time. She could not remember any of the details that happened in the household on the other days. She proved to have a selective photographic memory and this only damaged her testimony.

Gaviola tried to corroborate Alfaro’'s testimony by claiming that on June 30, 1991 she noticed bloodstains on Webb's t-shirt.20 She did not call the attention of anybody in the household about it when it would have been a point of concern that Webb may have been hurt, hence the blood.

Besides, Victoria Ventoso, the Webbs' housemaid from March 1989 to May 1992, and Sgt. Miguel Muñoz, the Webbs' security aide in 1991, testified that Gaviola worked for the Webbs only from January 1991 to April 1991. Ventoso further testified that it was not Gaviola's duty to collect the clothes from the 2nd floor bedrooms, this being the work of the housemaid charged with cleaning the rooms.

What is more, it was most unlikely for a laundrywoman who had been there for only four months to collect, as she claimed, the laundry from the rooms of her employers and their grown up children at four in the morning while they were asleep.

And it did not make sense, if Alfaro’s testimony were to be believed that Webb, who was so careful and clever that he called Biong to go to the Vizconde residence at 2 a.m. to clean up the evidence against him and his group, would bring his bloodied shirt home and put it in the hamper for laundrywoman Gaviola to collect and wash at 4 a.m. as was her supposed habit.

Lolita De Birrer was accused Biong’s girlfriend around the time the Vizconde massacre took place. Birrer testified that she was with Biong playing mahjong from the evening of June 29, 1991 to the early morning of June 30, when Biong got a call at around 2 a.m. This prompted him, according to De Birrer, to leave and go to BF. Someone sitting at the backseat of a taxi picked him up. When Biong returned at 7 a.m. he washed off what looked like dried blood from his fingernails. And he threw away a foul-smelling handkerchief. She also saw Biong take out a knife with aluminum cover from his drawer and hid it in his steel cabinet.21

The security guard at Pitong Daan did not notice any police investigator flashing a badge to get into the village although Biong supposedly came in at the unholy hour of two in the morning. His departure before 7 a.m. also remained unnoticed by the subdivision guards. Besides, if he had cleaned up the crime scene shortly after midnight, what was the point of his returning there on the following morning to dispose of some of the evidence in the presence of other police investigators and on-lookers? In fact, why would he steal valuable items from the Vizconde residence on his return there hours later if he had the opportunity to do it earlier?

At most, Birrer’s testimony only established Biong’s theft of certain items from the Vizconde residence and gross neglect for failing to maintain the sanctity of the crime scene by moving around and altering the effects of the crime. Birrer’s testimony failed to connect Biong's acts to Webb and the other accused.

Lauro Vizconde testified about how deeply he was affected by the loss of her wife and two daughters. Carmella spoke to him of a rejected suitor she called "Bagyo," because he was a Parañaque politician’s son. Unfortunately, Lauro did not appear curious enough to insist on finding out who the rejected fellow was. Besides, his testimony contradicts that of Alfaro who testified that Carmela and Webb had an on-going relation. Indeed, if Alfaro were to be believed, Carmela wanted Webb to come to her house around midnight. She even left the kitchen door open so he could enter the house.

5. The missing corroboration

There is something truly remarkable about this case: the prosecution’s core theory that Carmela and Webb had been sweethearts, that she had been unfaithful to him, and that it was for this reason that Webb brought his friends to her house to gang-rape her is totally uncorroborated!

For instance, normally, if Webb, a Congressman’s son, courted the young Carmela, that would be news among her circle of friends if not around town. But, here, none of her friends or even those who knew either of them came forward to affirm this. And if Webb hanged around with her, trying to win her favors, he would surely be seen with her. And this would all the more be so if they had become sweethearts, a relation that Alfaro tried to project with her testimony.

But, except for Alfaro, the NBI asset, no one among Carmela’s friends or her friends’ friends would testify ever hearing of such relationship or ever seeing them together in some popular hangouts in Parañaque or Makati. Alfaro’s claim of a five-hour drama is like an alien page, rudely and unconnectedly inserted into Webb and Carmela’s life stories or like a piece of jigsaw puzzle trimmed to fit into the shape on the board but does not belong because it clashes with the surrounding pieces. It has neither antecedent nor concomitant support in the verifiable facts of their personal histories. It is quite unreal.

What is more, Alfaro testified that she saw Carmela drive out of her house with a male passenger, Mr. X, whom Alfaro thought the way it looked was also Carmela’s lover. This was the all-important reason Webb supposedly had for wanting to harm her. Again, none of Carmela’s relatives, friends, or people who knew her ever testified about the existence of Mr.X in her life. Nobody has come forward to testify having ever seen him with Carmela. And despite the gruesome news about her death and how Mr. X had played a role in it, he never presented himself like anyone who had lost a special friend normally would. Obviously, Mr. X did not exist, a mere ghost of the imagination of Alfaro, the woman who made a living informing on criminals.

Webb’s U.S. Alibi

Among the accused, Webb presented the strongest alibi.

a. The travel preparations

Webb claims that in 1991 his parents, Senator Freddie Webb and his wife, Elizabeth, sent their son to the United States (U.S.) to learn the value of independence, hard work, and money.22 Gloria Webb, his aunt, accompanied him. Rajah Tours booked their flight to San Francisco via United Airlines. Josefina Nolasco of Rajah Tours confirmed that Webb and his aunt used their plane tickets.

Webb told his friends, including his neighbor, Jennifer Claire Cabrera, and his basketball buddy, Joselito Orendain Escobar, of his travel plans. He even invited them to his despedida party on March 8, 1991 at Faces Disco along Makati Ave.23 On March 8,1991, the eve of his departure, he took girlfriend Milagros Castillo to a dinner at Bunchums at the Makati Cinema Square. His basketball buddy Rafael Jose with Tina Calma, a blind date arranged by Webb, joined them. They afterwards went to Faces Disco for Webb's despedida party. Among those present were his friends Paulo Santos and Jay Ortega.24

b. The two immigration checks

The following day, March 9, 1991, Webb left for San Francisco, California, with his Aunt Gloria on board United Airlines Flight 808.25 Before boarding his plane, Webb passed through the Philippine Immigration booth at the airport to have his passport cleared and stamped. Immigration Officer, Ferdinand Sampol checked Webb’s visa, stamped, and initialed his passport, and let him pass through.26 He was listed on the United Airlines Flight’s Passenger Manifest.27

On arrival at San Francisco, Webb went through the U.S. Immigration where his entry into that country was recorded. Thus, the U.S. Immigration Naturalization Service, checking with its Non-immigrant Information System, confirmed Webb's entry into the U.S. on March 9, 1991. Webb presented at the trial the INS Certification issued by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service,28 the computer-generated print-out of the US-INS indicating Webb's entry on March 9, 1991,29 and the US-INS Certification dated August 31, 1995, authenticated by the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, correcting an earlier August 10, 1995 Certification.30

c. Details of U.S. sojourn

In San Francisco, Webb and his aunt Gloria were met by the latter’s daughter, Maria Teresa Keame, who brought them to Gloria’s house in Daly City, California. During his stay with his aunt, Webb met Christopher Paul Legaspi Esguerra, Gloria’s grandson. In April 1991, Webb, Christopher, and a certain Daphne Domingo watched the concert of Deelite Band in San Francisco.31 In the same month, Dorothy Wheelock and her family invited Webb to Lake Tahoe to return the Webbs’ hospitality when she was in the Philippines.32

In May 1991, on invitation of another aunt, Susan Brottman, Webb moved to Anaheim Hills, California.33 During his stay there, he occupied himself with playing basketball once or twice a week with Steven Keeler34 and working at his cousin-in-law’s pest control company.35 Webb presented the company’s logbook showing the tasks he performed,36 his paycheck,37 his ID, and other employment papers. On June 14, 1991 he applied for a driver's license38 and wrote three letters to his friend Jennifer Cabrera.39

On June 28, 1991, Webb’s parents visited him at Anaheim and stayed with the Brottmans. On the same day, his father introduced Honesto Aragon to his son when he came to visit.40 On the following day, June 29, Webb, in the company of his father and Aragon went to Riverside, California, to look for a car. They bought an MR2 Toyota car.41 Later that day, a visitor at the Brottman’s, Louis Whittacker, saw Webb looking at the plates of his new car.42 To prove the purchase, Webb presented the Public Records of California Department of Motor Vehicle43 and a car plate "LEW WEBB."44 In using the car in the U.S., Webb even received traffic citations.45

On June 30, 1991 Webb, again accompanied by his father and Aragon,46 bought a bicycle at Orange Cycle Center.47 The Center issued Webb a receipt dated June 30, 1991.48 On July 4, 1991, Independence Day, the Webbs, the Brottmans, and the Vaca family had a lakeside picnic.49

Webb stayed with the Brottmans until mid July and rented a place for less than a month. On August 4, 1991 he left for Longwood, Florida, to stay with the spouses Jack and Sonja Rodriguez.50 There, he met Armando Rodriguez with whom he spent time, playing basketball on weekends, watching movies, and playing billiards.51 In November 1991, Webb met performing artist Gary Valenciano, a friend of Jack Rodriguez, who was invited for a dinner at the Rodriguez’s house.52 He left the Rodriguez’s home in August 1992, returned to Anaheim and stayed with his aunt Imelda Pagaspas. He stayed there until he left for the Philippines on October 26, 1992.

d. The second immigration checks

As with his trip going to the U.S., Webb also went through both the U.S. and Philippine immigrations on his return trip. Thus, his departure from the U.S. was confirmed by the same certifications that confirmed his entry.53 Furthermore, a Diplomatic Note of the U.S. Department of State with enclosed letter from Acting Director Debora A. Farmer of the Records Operations, Office of Records of the US-INS stated that the Certification dated August 31, 1995 is a true and accurate statement. And when he boarded his plane, the Passenger Manifest of Philippine Airlines Flight No. 103,54 certified by Agnes Tabuena55 confirmed his return trip.

When he arrived in Manila, Webb again went through the Philippine Immigration. In fact, the arrival stamp and initial on his passport indicated his return to Manila on October 27, 1992. This was authenticated by Carmelita Alipio, the immigration officer who processed Webb’s reentry.56 Upon his return, in October 1992, Paolo Santos, Joselito Erondain Escobar, and Rafael Jose once again saw Webb playing basketball at the BF's Phase III basketball court.

e. Alibi versus positive identification

The trial court and the Court of Appeals are one in rejecting as weak Webb’s alibi. Their reason is uniform: Webb’s alibi cannot stand against Alfaro’s positive identification of him as the rapist and killer of Carmela and, apparently, the killer as well of her mother and younger sister. Because of this, to the lower courts, Webb’s denial and alibi were fabricated.

But not all denials and alibis should be regarded as fabricated. Indeed, if the accused is truly innocent, he can have no other defense but denial and alibi. So how can such accused penetrate a mind that has been made cynical by the rule drilled into his head that a defense of alibi is a hangman’s noose in the face of a witness positively swearing, "I saw him do it."? Most judges believe that such assertion automatically dooms an alibi which is so easy to fabricate. This quick stereotype thinking, however, is distressing. For how else can the truth that the accused is really innocent have any chance of prevailing over such a stone-cast tenet?

There is only one way. A judge must keep an open mind. He must guard against slipping into hasty conclusion, often arising from a desire to quickly finish the job of deciding a case. A positive declaration from a witness that he saw the accused commit the crime should not automatically cancel out the accused’s claim that he did not do it. A lying witness can make as positive an identification as a truthful witness can. The lying witness can also say as forthrightly and unequivocally, "He did it!" without blinking an eye.

Rather, to be acceptable, the positive identification must meet at least two criteria:

First, the positive identification of the offender must come from a credible witness. She is credible who can be trusted to tell the truth, usually based on past experiences with her. Her word has, to one who knows her, its weight in gold.

And second, the witness’ story of what she personally saw must be believable, not inherently contrived. A witness who testifies about something she never saw runs into inconsistencies and makes bewildering claims.

Here, as already fully discussed above, Alfaro and her testimony fail 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 that agency for sometime as a stool pigeon, one paid for mixing up with criminals and squealing on them. Police assets are often criminals themselves. She was the prosecution’s worst possible choice for a witness. Indeed, her superior testified that she volunteered to play the role of a witness in the Vizconde killings when she could not produce a man she promised to the NBI.

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 act of Webb hurling a stone at the front door glass frames even when they were trying to slip away quietly—just so she can accommodate this crime scene feature. She also had Ventura rummaging a bag on the dining table for a front door key that nobody needed just to explain the physical evidence of that bag and its scattered contents. And she had Ventura climbing the car’s hood, risking being seen in such an awkward position, when they did not need to darken the garage to force open the front door—just so to explain the darkened light and foot prints on the car hood.

Further, her testimony was inherently incredible. Her story that Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, Rodriguez, and Filart agreed to take their turns raping Carmela is incongruent with their indifference, exemplified by remaining outside the house, milling under a street light, visible to neighbors and passersby, and showing no interest in the developments inside the house, like if it was their turn to rape Carmela. Alfaro’s story that she agreed to serve as Webb’s messenger to Carmela, using up her gas, and staying with him till the bizarre end when they were practically strangers, also taxes incredulity.

To provide basis for Webb’s outrage, Alfaro said that she followed Carmela to the main road to watch her let off a lover on Aguirre Avenue. And, inexplicably, although Alfaro had only played the role of messenger, she claimed leading Webb, Lejano, and Ventura into the house to gang-rape Carmella, as if Alfaro was establishing a reason for later on testifying on personal knowledge. Her swing from an emotion of fear when a woman woke up to their presence in the house and of absolute courage when she nonetheless returned to become the lone witness to a grim scene is also quite inexplicable.

Ultimately, Alfaro’s quality as a witness and her inconsistent, if not inherently unbelievable, testimony cannot be the positive identification that jurisprudence acknowledges as sufficient to jettison a denial and an alibi.

f. A documented alibi

To establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence57 that (a) he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.58

The courts below held that, despite his evidence, Webb was actually in Parañaque when the Vizconde killings took place; he was not in the U.S. from March 9, 1991 to October 27, 1992; and if he did leave on March 9, 1991, he actually returned before June 29, 1991, committed the crime, erased the fact of his return to the Philippines from the records of the U.S. and Philippine Immigrations, smuggled himself out of the Philippines and into the U.S., and returned the normal way on October 27, 1992. But this ruling practically makes the death of Webb and his passage into the next life the only acceptable alibi in the Philippines. Courts must abandon this unjust and inhuman paradigm.

If one is cynical about the Philippine system, he could probably claim that Webb, with his father’s connections, can arrange for the local immigration to put a March 9, 1991 departure stamp on his passport and an October 27, 1992 arrival stamp on the same. But this is pure speculation since there had been no indication that such arrangement was made. Besides, how could Webb fix a foreign airlines’ passenger manifest, officially filed in the Philippines and at the airport in the U.S. that had his name on them? How could Webb fix with the U.S. Immigration’s record system those two dates in its record of his travels as well as the dates when he supposedly departed in secret from the U.S. to commit the crime in the Philippines and then return there? No one has come up with a logical and plausible answer to these questions.

The Court of Appeals rejected the evidence of Webb’s passport since he did not leave the original to be attached to the record. But, while the best evidence of a document is the original, this means that the same is exhibited in court for the adverse party to examine and for the judge to see. As Court of Appeals Justice Tagle said in his dissent,59 the practice when a party does not want to leave an important document with the trial court is to have a photocopy of it marked as exhibit and stipulated among the parties as a faithful reproduction of the original. Stipulations in the course of trial are binding on the parties and on the court.

The U.S. Immigration certification and the computer print-out of Webb’s arrival in and departure from that country were authenticated by no less than the Office of the U.S. Attorney General and the State Department. Still the Court of Appeals refused to accept these documents for the reason that Webb failed to present in court the immigration official who prepared the same. But this was unnecessary. Webb’s passport is a document issued by the Philippine government, which under international practice, is the official record of travels of the citizen to whom it is issued. The entries in that passport are presumed true.60

The U.S. Immigration certification and computer print-out, the official certifications of which have been authenticated by the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, merely validated the arrival and departure stamps of the U.S. Immigration office on Webb’s passport. They have the same evidentiary value. The officers who issued these certifications need not be presented in court to testify on them. Their trustworthiness arises from the sense of official duty and the penalty attached to a breached duty, in the routine and disinterested origin of such statement and in the publicity of the record.61

The Court of Appeals of course makes capital of the fact that an earlier certification from the U.S. Immigration office said that it had no record of Webb entering the U.S. But that erroneous first certification was amply explained by the U.S. Government and Court of Appeals Justice Tagle stated it in his dissenting opinion, thus:

While it is true that an earlier Certification was issued by the U.S. INS on August 16, 1995 finding "no evidence of lawful admission of Webb," this was already clarified and deemed erroneous by no less than the US INS Officials. As explained by witness Leo Herrera-Lim, Consul and Second Secretary of the Philippine Embassy in Washington D.C., said Certification did not pass through proper diplomatic channels and was obtained in violation of the rules on protocol and standard procedure governing such request.

The initial request was merely initiated by BID Commissioner Verceles who directly communicated with the Philippine Consulate in San Francisco, USA, bypassing the Secretary of Foreign Affairs which is the proper protocol procedure. Mr. Steven Bucher, the acting Chief of the Records Services Board of US-INS Washington D.C. in his letter addressed to Philip Antweiler, Philippine Desk Officer, State Department, declared the earlier Certification as incorrect and erroneous as it was "not exhaustive and did not reflect all available information." Also, Richard L. Huff, Co-Director of the Office of Information and privacy, US Department of Justice, in response to the appeal raised by Consul General Teresita V. Marzan, explained that "the INS normally does not maintain records on individuals who are entering the country as visitors rather than as immigrants: and that a notation concerning the entry of a visitor

may be made at the Nonimmigrant Information system. Since appellant Webb entered the U.S. on a mere tourist visa, obviously, the initial search could not have produced the desired result inasmuch as the data base that was looked into contained entries of the names of IMMIGRANTS and not that of NON-IMMIGRANT visitors of the U.S..62

The trial court and the Court of Appeals expressed marked cynicism over the accuracy of travel documents like the passport as well as the domestic and foreign records of departures and arrivals from airports. They claim that it would not have been impossible for Webb to secretly return to the Philippines after he supposedly left it on March 9, 1991, commit the crime, go back to the U.S., and openly return to the Philippines again on October 26, 1992. Travel between the U.S. and the Philippines, said the lower courts took only about twelve to fourteen hours.

If the Court were to subscribe to this extremely skeptical view, it might as well tear the rules of evidence out of the law books and regard suspicions, surmises, or speculations as reasons for impeaching evidence. It is not that official records, which carry the presumption of truth of what they state, are immune to attack. They are not. That presumption can be overcome by evidence. Here, however, the prosecution did not bother to present evidence to impeach the entries in Webb’s passport and the certifications of the Philippine and U.S.’ immigration services regarding his travel to the U.S. and back. The prosecution’s rebuttal evidence is the fear of the unknown that it planted in the lower court’s minds.

7. Effect of Webb’s alibi to others

Webb’s documented alibi altogether impeaches Alfaro's testimony, not only with respect to him, but also with respect to Lejano, Estrada, Fernandez, Gatchalian, Rodriguez, and Biong. For, if the Court accepts the proposition that Webb was in the U.S. when the crime took place, Alfaro’s testimony will not hold together. Webb’s participation is the anchor of Alfaro’s story. Without it, the evidence against the others must necessarily fall.

CONCLUSION

In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court entertains doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all possibilities, but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it would be a serious mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs on to one’s inner being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth.

Will the Court send the accused to spend the rest of their lives in prison on the testimony of an NBI asset who proposed to her handlers that she take the role of the witness to the Vizconde massacre that she could not produce?

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision dated December 15, 2005 and Resolution dated January 26, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 00336 and ACQUITS accused-appellants Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and Gerardo Biong of the crimes of which they were charged for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless they are confined for another lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report the action he has taken to this Court within five days from receipt of this Decision.

G.R. No. 176389 January 18, 2011

ANTONIO LEJANO, Petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

G.R. No. 176864

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs.HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, ANTONIO LEJANO, MICHAEL A. GATCHALIAN, HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, PETER ESTRADA and GERARDO BIONG, Appellants.

R E S O L U T I O N

ABAD, J.:

On December 14, 2010 the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals (CA) and acquitted the accused in this case, Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada, and Gerardo Biong of the charges against them on the ground of lack of proof of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

On December 28, 2010 complainant Lauro G. Vizconde, an immediate relative of the victims, asked the Court to reconsider its decision, claiming that it "denied the prosecution due process of law; seriously misappreciated the facts; unreasonably regarded Alfaro as lacking credibility; issued a tainted and erroneous decision; decided the case in a manner that resulted in the miscarriage of justice; or committed grave abuse in its treatment of the evidence and prosecution witnesses."1

But, as a rule, a judgment of acquittal cannot be reconsidered because it places the accused under double jeopardy. The Constitution provides in Section 21, Article III, that:

Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. x x x

To reconsider a judgment of acquittal places the accused twice in jeopardy of being punished for the crime of which he has already been absolved. There is reason for this provision of the Constitution. In criminal cases, the full power of the State is ranged against the accused. If there is no limit to attempts to prosecute the accused for the same offense after he has been acquitted, the infinite power and capacity of the State for a sustained and repeated litigation would eventually overwhelm the accused in terms of resources, stamina, and the will to fight.

As the Court said in People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan:2

[A]t the heart of this policy is the concern that permitting the sovereign freely to subject the citizen to a second judgment for the same offense would arm the government with a potent instrument of oppression. The provision therefore guarantees that the State shall not be permitted to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense, and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty. Society’s awareness of the heavy personal strain which a criminal trial represents for the individual defendant is manifested in the willingness to limit the government to a single criminal proceeding to vindicate its very vital interest in the enforcement of criminal laws.3

Of course, on occasions, a motion for reconsideration after an acquittal is possible. But the grounds are exceptional and narrow as when the court that absolved the accused gravely abused its discretion, resulting in loss of jurisdiction, or when a mistrial has occurred. In any of such cases, the State may assail the decision by special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65.4

Here, although complainant Vizconde invoked the exceptions, he has been unable to bring his pleas for reconsideration under such exceptions. For instance, he avers that the Court "must ensure that due process is afforded to all parties and there is no grave abuse

of discretion in the treatment of witnesses and the evidence."5 But he has not specified the violations of due process or acts constituting grave abuse of discretion that the Court supposedly committed. His claim that "the highly questionable and suspicious evidence for the defense taints with serious doubts the validity of the decision"6 is, without more, a mere conclusion drawn from personal perception.

Complainant Vizconde cites the decision in Galman v. Sandiganbayan7 as authority that the Court can set aside the acquittal of the accused in the present case. But the government proved in Galman that the prosecution was deprived of due process since the judgment of acquittal in that case was "dictated, coerced and scripted."8 It was a sham trial. Here, however, Vizconde does not allege that the Court held a sham review of the decision of the CA. He has made out no case that the Court held a phony deliberation in this case such that the seven Justices who voted to acquit the accused, the four who dissented, and the four who inhibited themselves did not really go through the process.

Ultimately, what the complainant actually questions is the Court’s appreciation of the evidence and assessment of the prosecution witnesses’ credibility. He ascribes grave error on the Court’s finding that Alfaro was not a credible witness and assails the value assigned by the Court to the evidence of the defense. In other words, private complainant wants the Court to review the evidence anew and render another judgment based on such a re-evaluation. This is not constitutionally allowed as it is merely a repeated attempt to secure Webb, et al’s conviction. The judgment acquitting Webb, et al is final and can no longer be disturbed.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES for lack of merit complainant Lauro G. Vizconde’s motion for reconsideration dated December 28, 2010.

For essentially the same reason, the Court DENIES the motions for leave to intervene of Fr. Robert P. Reyes, Sister Mary John R. Mananzan, Bishop Evangelio L. Mercado, and Dante L.A. Jimenez, representing the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption and of former Vice President Teofisto Guingona, Jr.

No further pleadings shall be entertained in this case.

SO ORDERED.

9. G.R. Nos. 138874-75 January 31, 2006

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs.FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA alias "PACO;" JOSMAN AZNAR; ROWEN ADLAWAN alias "WESLEY;" ALBERT CAÑO alias "ALLAN PAHAK;" ARIEL BALANSAG; DAVIDSON VALIENTE RUSIA alias 'TISOY TAGALOG;" JAMES ANTHONY UY alias "WANGWANG;" and JAMES ANDREW UY alias "MM," Appellants.

R E S O L U T I O N

PER CURIAM:

Most jurisdictions recognize age as a barrier to having full responsibility over one’s action.1 Our legal system, for instance, does not punish a youth as it would an adult, and it sees youthful misconduct as evidence of unreasoned or impaired judgment. Thus, in a myriad of cases, we have applied the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority embodied in Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code -- the rationale of which is to show mercy and some extent of leniency in favor of an accused who, by reason of his age, is presumed to have acted with less discernment. The case at bar is another instance when the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority must apply.

MR

A brief review of the pertinent facts is imperative.

On February 3, 2004, we rendered a Decision3 convicting the Uy brothers, together with Francisco Juan Larrañaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Caño and Ariel Balansag of the crimes of (a) special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape; and (b) simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention. DECISION: Death for special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention – Reclusion Perpetua – simple kidnapping.

Three (3) Justices of the Court maintain their position that RA 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.

The Uy brothers filed a motion for reconsideration anchored on the following grounds:

Left unresolved is the issue of James Andrew’s minority.

Hence, this disquisition.

The Uy brothers claim that James Andrew was only seventeen (17) years and two hundred sixty two (262) days old at the time the crimes were committed. To substantiate such claim, he begs leave and pleads that we admit at this stage of the proceedings his (1) Certificate of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics Office, and (2) Baptismal Certificate. In the ultimate, he prays that his penalty be reduced, as in the case of his brother James Anthony.

The Solicitor General recommended that the penalty imposed on James Andrew be modified as follows:

-special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape - reduced to reclusion perpetua.

-Crime of simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention - reduced to twelve (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in its medium period

The motion is meritorious.

HELD: Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty on James Andrew, by reason of his minority, is one degree lower than the statutory penalty. The penalty for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with

homicide and rape, being death, one degree lower therefrom is reclusion perpetua.5 On the other hand, the penalty for simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention is reclusion perpetua to death. One degree lower therefrom is reclusion temporal.

10. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. STEPHEN MARK WHISENHUNT, accused-appellant.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

This is a direct appeal from the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City – “Finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder defined and penalized under Art. 248, Revised Penal Code,

FACTS:

That on or about September 24, 1993, in the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and taking advantage of superior strength, attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of one Elsa Elsie Santos Castillo by then and there stabbing her with a bladed weapon in different parts of her body, thereby inflicting upon her mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of her death and thereafter outraged or scoffed her corpse by then and there chopping off her head and different parts of her body.

The evidence shows that accused-appellant and the deceased, were lovers. Both accused-appellant and Elsa were married, but they were estranged from their respective spouses. She continued her affair with accused-appellant even after she resigned from Apex Motor Corporation.

Demetrio Ravelo, assigned to drive for accused-appellant found Elsa standing at a corner near her parents house, and brought her to accused-appellants condominium unit.

A couple of days after, accused asked Demetrio how long he wanted to work for him. Demetrio replied that he was willing to work for him forever, and expressed his full trust in him. Upon hearing this, accused-appellant shed tears and embraced Demetrio. Then accused-appellant told him that Elsa was dead. Accused-appellant answered that he did not kill Elsa, rather she died of bangungot. Demetrio suggested that Elsas body be autopsied, but accused-appellant said that he had already beheaded her. When they returned to the condominium, accused-appellant asked Demetrio to help him wrap the body in the black garbage bagsHe helped accused-appellant place the other body parts in three separate garbage bags. They packed all the garbage bags in the bag with the zipper and rollers, which they had bought in Shoppesville. Then, they brought the bag down and loaded it in the trunk of accused-appellants car. Accused-appellant told Demetrio to drive around Batangas and Tagaytay City. When they were near Puting Kahoy and Silangan, accused-appellant told Demetrio to turn into a narrow road. Accused-appellant took the plastic bags inside the bag and dumped them by the roadside.

Before reaching Bagac(accused mansion), accused-appellant ordered Demetrio to stop the car on top of a bridge. Accused-appellant told Demetrio to get off and to throw a bag into the river. Later, they passed another bridge and accused-appellant again told Demetrio to pull over. Accused-appellant alighted and threw Elsas clothes over the bridge. On the way, Demetrio noticed that accused-appellant took something from a bag, tore it to pieces and threw it out of the window. When they passed Pilar, Bataan, accused-appellant threw Elsas violet Giordano bag. As they reached the road boundary of Bagac, accused-appellant wrung a short-sleeved dress with violet and green stripes, and threw it on a grassy lot.[20]

It was about midnight when accused-appellant and Demetrio arrived at the mansion. Demetrio was unable to sleep that night, as he was scared that he might be the next victim. When Demetrio got home, he immediately told his family what happened. His wife told him to report the incident to Fiscal Joey Diaz. Demetrio and his wife went to the house of Fiscal Diaz in Fairview to talk to him.

They were referred to the National Bureau of Investigation, where Demetrio gave his statement before Atty. Artemio Sacaquing, head of the Anti-Organized Crime Division. Initially, Atty. Sacaguing could not believe what he heard and thought Demetrio was exaggerating. He dispatched a team of NBI agents, headed by Marianito Panganiban, to verify Demetrios report. They found out that Demetrios report was positive.

The Medico-Legal Officer found contusions on accused-appellants left periumbilical region, right elbow, left and right forearms and right leg.[33]

That same afternoon, before the close of office hours, accused-appellant was brought to the Department of Justice for inquest.[34] However, accused-appellant moved that a preliminary investigation be conducted, and signed a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, he was detained at the NBI.[35]

According to accused-appellant, he first learned of Elsas death when he was arrested by the NBI on September 28, 1993. He denied having anything to do with her death, saying that he had no reason to kill her since he was in love with her.

On January 31, 1996, the trial court promulgated the appealed judgment, convicting accused-appellant of the crime of murder, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the heirs of the deceased actual damage, moral damages, exemplary damages and attorneys fees.[60]

Accused-appellant interposed an appeal from the adverse decision of the trial court, alleging that:

I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED OF THE CRIME CHARGED;

II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS ABLE TO PRESENT ENOUGH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED;

III THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN REJECTING, DISREGARDING AND/OR NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED.[61]

Much of the evidence on accused-appellants complicity was elicited from Demetrio Ravelo, the so-called prosecution star witness.[62] On the premise that accused-appellants guilt or innocence depends largely on the weight of his testimony, this Court has carefully scrutinized and examined his version of the events, and has found that Demetrio Ravelos narrative is both convincing and consistent in all material points.

Before accused-appellant confessed to Demetrio Ravelo what had happened to Elsa Castillo, he first asked the latter how long he was willing to work for him, and how far his loyalty will go. This was logical if accused-appellant wanted to ensure that Demetrio would stand by his side after learning what he was about to reveal. More importantly, Demetrios description of Elsas dismembered body, as he found it in accused-appellants bathroom, perfectly jibed with the appearance of the mutilated body parts, as shown in the photographs presented by the prosecution.[63]

Likewise, the mutilated body parts, as well as the other items thrown by accused-appellant along the road to Bataan, were found by the NBI agents as Demetrio pointed, which confirms that, indeed, the latter witnessed how accused-appellant disposed of Elsas body and personal belongings one by one.

All in all, the testimony of Demetrio Ravelo bears the ring of truth and sincerity. The records show that he did not waver even during lengthy and rigorous cross-examination. In fact, the trial court gave full faith and credit to his testimony, stating:

The Court had opportunity to observe the demeanor of Demetrio Ravelo when he took the witness stand on several occasions. He was extensively cross-examined by one of the defense counsel and he withstood the same creditably. Demetrio Ravelo is a very credible witness and his testimony is likewise credible.[64]

This Court has consistently ruled that factual findings of the trial court deserve the highest respect. This is based on the fact that the trial judge is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before his sala as he had personally heard them and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[65] Especially, where issues raised involve the credibility of witnesses, the trial courts findings thereon will not be disturbed on appeal absent any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts, or circumstances of weight or substance, which could have affected the result of the case.[66] Succinctly put, findings of fact of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses command great weight and respect since it had the opportunity to observe their demeanor while they testified in court.[67]

Perhaps more damning to accused-appellant is the physical evidence against him. The findings of the forensic biologist on the examination of the hair samples and bloodstains all confirm Elsas death inside accused-appellants bedroom. On the other hand, the autopsy report revealed that Elsa was stabbed at least three times on the chest. This, taken together with Demetrios testimony that accused-appellant kept the kitchen knife inside his bedroom on September 24, 1993, leads to the inescapable fact that accused-appellant stabbed Elsa inside the bedroom or bathroom.

Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in the hierarchy of our trustworthy evidence.[68] For this reason, it is regarded as evidence of the highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.[69]

While it may be true that there was no eyewitness to the death of Elsa, the confluence of the testimonial and physical evidence against accused-appellant creates an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence that naturally leads to the fair and reasonable conclusion that accused-appellant was the author of the crime, to the exclusion of all others. Circumstantial evidence may be resorted to in proving the identity of the accused when direct evidence is not available, otherwise felons would go scot-free and the community would be denied proper protection. The rules on evidence and jurisprudence sustain the conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence when the following requisites concur: (1) there must be more than one circumstance; (2) the inference must be based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond doubt of the guilt of the accused.[70]

In the case at bar, the following circumstances were successfully proven by the prosecution without a shadow of doubt, to wit: that Elsa Santos Castillo was brought to accused-appellants condominium unit on September 23, 1993; that on September 24, 1993, accused-appellants housemaid was looking for her kitchen knife and accused-appellant gave it to her, saying that it was in his bedroom; that on September 25, 1993, accused-appellant and Demetrio Ravelo collected the dismembered body parts of Elsa from the bathroom inside accused-appellants bedroom; that accused-appellant disposed of the body parts by a roadside somewhere in San Pedro, Laguna; that accused-appellant also disposed of Elsas personal belongings along the road going to Bagac, Bataan; that the mutilated body parts of a female cadaver, which was later identified as Elsa, were found by the police and NBI agents at the spot where Demetrio pointed; that hair specimens found inside accused-appellants bathroom and bedroom showed similarities with hair taken from Elsas head; and that the bloodstains found on accused-appellants bedspread, covers and in the trunk of his car, all matched Elsas blood type.

Accused-appellant makes capital of the fact that the Medico-Legal Officer, Dr. Mendez, did not examine the pancreas of the deceased notwithstanding Demetrios statement that, according to accused-appellant, Elsa died of bangungot, or hemorrhage of the pancreas. Because of this, accused-appellant insists that the cause of death was not adequately established. Then, he relied on the controverting testimony of his witness, lawyer-doctor Ernesto Brion, who was himself a Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI for several years, to the effect that the autopsy report prepared by Dr. Mendez was unreliable and inconclusive. The trial court noted, however, that Dr. Brion was a biased witness whose testimony cannot be relied upon because he entered his appearance as one of the counsel for accused-appellant and, in such capacity, extensively cross-examined Dr. Mendez. Accused-appellant counters that there is no prohibition against lawyers giving testimony. Moreover, the trial courts ruling would imply that lawyers who testify on behalf of their clients are presumed to be lying.

By rejecting the testimony of Dr. Brion, the trial court did not mean that he perjured himself on the witness stand. Notably, Dr. Brion was presented as expert witness. His testimony and the questions propounded on him dealt with his opinion on the probable cause of death of the victim. Indeed, the presentation of expert testimony is one of the well-known exceptions to the rule against admissibility of opinions in evidence.[71] In like manner, Dr. Mendez was presented on the stand to give his own opinion on the same subject. His opinion differed from that of Dr. Brion, which is not at all unusual. What the trial court simply did was to choose which --- between two conflicting medico-legal opinions --- was the more plausible. The trial court correctly lent more credence to Dr. Mendezs testimony, not only because Dr. Brion was a biased witness, but more importantly, because it was Dr. Mendez who conducted the autopsy and personally examined Elsas corpse up close.

In any event, the foregoing does not detract from the established fact that Elsas body was found mutilated inside accused-appellants bathroom. This clearly indicated that it was accused-appellant who cut up Elsas body to pieces. Naturally, accused-appellant would be the only suspect to her killing. Otherwise, why else would he cut up Elsas body as if to conceal the real cause of her death?

As already stated above, Demetrios testimony was convincing. Accused-appellant attempts to refute Demetrios statements by saying that he had repeatedly reprimanded the latter for discourteous and reckless driving, and that he had already asked the latter to tender his resignation. Thus, accused-appellant claims that Demetrio imputed Elsas death on him in order to get back at him. This Court finds the cruel treatment by an employer too flimsy a motive for the employee to implicate him in such a gruesome and hideous crime. Rather than entertain an accusation of ill-motive and bad faith on Demetrio Ravelo, this Court views his act of promptly reporting the incident to his family and, later, to the authorities, as a genuine desire to bring justice to the cruel and senseless slaying of Elsa Santos Castillo, whom he knew well.

Accused-appellant also argues that his arrest was without a warrant and, therefore, illegal. In this regard, the rule is settled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived.[72] In other words, it is too late in the day for

accused-appellant to raise an issue about his warrantless arrest after he pleaded to a valid information and after a judgment of conviction was rendered against him after a full-blown trial.

Accused-appellant presented in evidence two supposedly threatening letters which, according to Elsa, were written by the latters husband. There is nothing in these letters which will exculpate accused-appellant from criminal liability. The threats were directed at accused-appellant, not Elsa. The fact remains that Elsa was last seen alive in accused-appellants condominium unit, and subsequently discovered dead in accused-appellants bathroom. Surely, the place where her dead body was found does not support the theory that it was Fred Castillo who was probably responsible for her death.

We do not agree with the trial court that the prosecution sufficiently proved the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Abuse of superiority is present whenever there is inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor and selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime.[73] The fact that the victim was a woman does not, by itself, establish that accused-appellant committed the crime with abuse of superior strength. There ought to be enough proof of the relative strength of the aggressor and the victim.[74]

Abuse of superior strength must be shown and clearly established as the crime itself.[75] In this case, nobody witnessed the actual killing. Nowhere in Demetrios testimony, and it is not indicated in any of the pieces of physical evidence, that accused-appellant deliberately took advantage of his superior strength in overpowering Elsa. On the contrary, this Court observed from viewing the photograph of accused-appellant[76] that he has a rather small frame. Hence, the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was not adequately proved and cannot be appreciated against accused-appellant.

However, the other circumstance of outraging and scoffing at the corpse of the victim was correctly appreciated by the trial court. The mere decapitation of the victims head constitutes outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim, thus qualifying the killing to murder.[77] In this case, accused-appellant not only beheaded Elsa. He further cut up her body like pieces of meat. Then, he strewed the dismembered parts of her body in a deserted road in the countryside, leaving them to rot on the ground. The sight of Elsas severed body parts on the ground, vividly depicted in the photographs offered in evidence, is both revolting and horrifying. At the same time, the viewer cannot help but feel utter pity for the sub-human manner of disposing of her remains.

In a case with strikingly similar facts, we ruled:

Even if treachery was not present in this case, the crime would still be murder because of the dismemberment of the dead body. One of the qualifying circumstances of murder under Article 248, par. 6, of the Revised Penal Code is outraging or scoffing at (the) person or corpse of the victim. There is no question that the corpse of Billy Agotano was outraged when it was dismembered with the cutting off of the head and limbs and the opening up of the body to remove the intestines, lungs and liver. The killer scoffed at the dead when the intestines were removed and hung around Victorianos neck as a necklace, and the lungs and liver were facetiously described as pulutan.[78]

Hence, the trial court was correct in convicting accused-appellant of the crime of murder, qualified by outraging and scoffing at the victims person or corpse.[79] This circumstance was both alleged in the information and proved during the trial. At the time of its commission, the penalty for murder was reclusion temporal maximum to death.[80] No aggravating or mitigating circumstance was alleged or proved; hence, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period.[81] Therefore, the trial courts imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correct, and need not be modified.

However, the damages awarded by trial court should be modified. Elida Santos, Elsas sister, testified that the funeral expenses was only P50,000.00.[82] Hence, the trial court erred when it awarded the amount of P100,000.00. Basic is the jurisprudential principle that in determining actual damages, the court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount of the loss. Actual damages cannot be presumed but must be duly proved with reasonable certainty.[83]

The award of moral damages in murder cases is justified because of the physical suffering and mental anguish brought about by the felonious acts, and is thus recoverable in criminal offenses resulting in death.[84] It is true that moral damages are not intended to enrich the victims heirs or to penalize the convict, but to obviate the spiritual sufferings of the heirs.[85] Considering, however, the extraordinary circumstances in the case at bar, more particularly the unusual grief and outrage suffered by her bereaved family as a result of the brutal and indecent mutilation and disposal of Elsas body, the moral damages to be awarded to them should be more than the normal amount dictated by jurisprudence. However, the amount of P3,000,000.00 awarded by the trial court as moral

damages is rather excessive. The reasonable amount is P1,000,000.00 considering the immense sorrow and shock suffered by Elsas heirs.

The award of attorneys fees of P150,000.00 was duly proved,[86] and thus should be affirmed.

Finally, the heirs of Elsa Santos Castillo should be indemnified for her death. In murder, the civil indemnity has been fixed by jurisprudence at P50,000.00. The grant of civil indemnity in murder requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of accused-appellants responsibility therefor.[87]

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 152, in Criminal Case No. 102687, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: Accused-appellant is ORDERED to pay the heirs of Elsa Santos Castillo actual damages in the amount of P50,000.00; civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00; moral damages in the amount of P1,000,000.00; exemplary damages in the amount of P1,000,000.00; and attorneys fees in the amount of P150,000.00. Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.