Showing posts with label Lex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lex. Show all posts

Jurisprudential Quotes

>> 15 June 2013

Statistics never lie, but lovers often do.
- Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800,  March 10, 2006


There is a right way to do the right thing at the right time and for the right reason.
-Santiago v. COMELEC


He who comes to equity must come with clean hands.
-De Garcia vs Santos, GR.L-1422, October 17, 1947


We cannot castigate a man for seeking out the partner of his dreams, for marriage is a sacred and perpetual bond which should be entered into because of love, not for any other reason. 
-Figueroa v. Barranco, Jr., SBC Case No. 519, July 31, 1997


Love happens to everyone. It is dubbed to be boundless as it goes beyond the expectations people tagged with it. In love, “age does matter.” People love in order to be secure that one will share his/her life with another and that he/she will not die alone. Individuals who are in love had the power to let love grow or let love die – it is a choice one had to face when love is not the love he/she expected.  
-Padilla-Rumbaua v. Rumbaua, G.R. No. 166738, August 14, 2009



Marital union is a two-way process. An expressive interest in each other's feelings at a time it is needed by the other can go a long way in deepening the marital relationship. Marriage is definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who view the relationship with love amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise, conscious of its value as a sublime social institution. 
-Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals and Gina Lao- Tsoi,  GR No. 119190, January 16, 1997


In our criminal justice system, what is important is not whether the court entertains doubt 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.
- Antonio Lejano v. People GR.No. 176389


The law favors the mother if she is a fit and proper person to have custody of her children so that they may not only receive her attention, care, supervision but also have the advantage and benefit of a mother’s love and devotion for which there is no substitute. Generally, the love, solicitude and devotion of a mother cannot be replaced by another and are worth more to a child of tender years than all other things combined.
- Wilson Sy vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 124518

Read more...

Maxims

>> 25 August 2011

(source: Law Students Lounge.blogspot.com)

A

A mensa et thoro - From bed and board.

A vinculo matrimonii - From the bond of matrimony.

Ab extra - From outside.

Ab initio - From the beginning.

Absoluta sententia expositore non indiget - An absolute judgment needs no expositor.

Abundans cautela non nocet - Abundant caution does no harm.

Accessorium non ducit sed sequitur suum principale - An accessory does not draw, but follows its principal.

Accessorius sequitur - One who is an accessory to the crime cannot be guilty of a more serious crime than the principal offender.

Acta exteriora iudicant interiora secreta - Outward acts indicate the inward intent.

Actio non accrevit infra sex annos - The action has not accrued within six years.

Actio non datur non damnificato - An action is not given to one who is not injured.

Actio personalis moritur cum persona - A personal action dies with the person.

Actiones legis - Law suits.

Actori incumbit onus probandi - The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.

Actus nemini facit injuriam - The act of the law does no one wrong.

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - The act does not make one guilty unless there be a criminal intent.

Actus reus - A guilty deed or act.

Ad ea quae frequentius acciduunt jura adaptantur - The laws are adapted to those cases which occur more frequently.

Ad hoc - For this purpose.

Ad infinitum - Forever, without limit, to infinity.

Ad perpetuam rei memoriam - For a perpetual memorial of the matter.

Ad quaestionem facti non respondent judices; ad quaestionem legis non respondent juratores - The judges do not answer to a question of fact; the jury do not answer to a question of Law.

Aedificare in tuo proprio solo non licet quod alteri noceat - It is not lawful to build on one's own land what may be injurious to another.

Aequitas legem sequitur - Equity follows the law.

Aequitas nunquam contravenit legem - Equity never contradicts the law.

Alibi - At another place, elsewhere.

Alienatio rei praefertur juri accrescendi - Alienation is preferred by law rather than accumulation.

Aliunde - From elsewhere, or, from a different source

Allegans contraria non est audiendus - One making contradictory statements is not to be heard.

Allegans suam turpitudinem non est audiendus - One alleging his own infamy is not to be heard.

Allegatio contra factum non est admittenda - An allegation contrary to a deed is not to be heard.

Ambiguitas contra stipulatorem est - An ambiguity is most strongly construed against the party using it.

Ambiguitas verborum patens nulla verificatione excluditur - A patent ambiguity is never helped by averment.

Amicus curiae - A friend of the Court.

Angliae jura in omni casu libertati dant favorem - The laws of England are favorable in every case to liberty.

Animo furandi - With an intention of stealing.

Animo testandi - With an intention of making a will.

Annus luctus - The year of mourning.

Ante - Before.

Aqua currit et debet currere, ut currere solebat - Water runs and ought to run.

Arbitrium est judicium - An award is a judgment.

Arbor dum crescit; lignum cum crescere nescit - A tree while it grows, wood when it cannot grow.

Argumentum ab auctoritate fortissimum est in lege - An argument drawn from authority is the strongest in law.

Argumentum ab impossibilii plurimum valet in lege - An argument from impossibility is very strong in law.

Argumentum ad hominem - An argument directed a the person.

Argumentum ad ignoratiam - An argument based upon ignorance (i.e. of one's adversary).

Arma in armatos sumere jura sinunt - The laws permit the taking up of arms against the armed.

Assentio mentium - The meeting of minds, i.e. mutual assent.

Assignatus utitur jure auctoris - An assignee is clothed with rights of his assignor.

Audi alteram partem - Hear the other side.

Aula regis - The King's Court.

B

Benignior sententia in verbis generalibus seu dubiis est preferenda - The more favorable construction is to be placed on general or doubtful words.

Bis dat qui cito dat - He gives (pays) twice who pays promptly.

Bona fide - Sincere, in good faith

Bona vacantia - Goods without an owner

Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem - It is the part of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction, i.e. remedial authority.

Boni judicis est judicium sine dilatione mandare executioni - It is the duty of a good judge to cause execution to issue on a judgment without delay.

Boni judicis lites dirimere est - It is the duty of a good judge to prevent litigation.

Bonus judex secundum aequum et bonum judicat et aequitatem stricto juri praefert - A good judge decides according to justice and right and prefers equity to strict law.

Breve judiciale non cadit pro defectu formae - A judicial writing does not fail through defect of form.

C

Cadit quaestio - The matter admits of no further argument.

Cassetur billa (breve) - Let the writ be quashed.

Casus fortuitus non est spectandus; et nemo tenetur divinare - A fortuitous event is not to be foreseen and no person is bound to divine it.

Catalla reputantur inter minima in lege - Chattels are considered in law among the minor things.

Causa proxima, non remota spectatur - The immediate, and not the remote cause is to be considered.

Caveat emptor - Let the purchaser beware.

Caveat venditor - Let the seller beware.

Cepi corpus et est languidum - I have taken the body and the prisoner is sick.

Cepi corpus et paratum habeo - I have taken the body and have it ready.

Ceteris paribus - Other things being equal.

Consensu - Unanimously or, by general consent.

Consensus ad idem - Agreement as to the same things.

Consuetudo loci observanda est - The custom of the place is to be observed.

Contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege - A contemporaneous exposition is best and most powerful in law.

Contra - To the contrary.

Contra bonos mores - Against good morals.

Contra non valentem agere nulla currit praescriptio - No prescription runs against a person not able to act.

Contractus est quasi actus contra actum - A contract is an act as it were against an act.

Conventio et modus vincunt legem - A contract and agreement overcome the law.

Conventio privatorum non potest publico juri derogare - An agreement of private persons cannot derogate from public right.

Coram Domino Rege - In the presence of our Lord the King.

Coram non judice - Before one who is not a judge.

Corpus - Body.

Corpus delicti - The body, i.e. the gist of crime.

Corpus humanum non recipit aestimationem - A human body is not susceptible of appraisement.

Crescente malitia crescere debet et poena - Vice increasing, punishment ought also to increase.

Crimen omnia ex se nata vitiat - Crime vitiates every thing, which springs from it.

Crimen trahit personam - The crime carries the person.

Cujus est dare, ejus est disponere - He who has a right to give has the right to dispose of the gift.

Cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelam; et ad inferos - He who owns the soil owns it up to the sky; and to its depth.

Cum duo inter se pugnantia reperiuntur in testamentis ultimum ratum est - When two things repugnant to each other are found in a will, the last is to be confirmed.

Cursus curiae est lex curiae - The practice of the court is the law of the court.

Custos morum - A guardian of morals.

D

Damnum sine injuria - damage without legal injury.

De bonis asportatis - Of goods carried away.

De bonis non administratis - Of goods not administered.

De die in diem - From day to day.

De facto - In fact.

De futuro - In the future.

De integro - As regards the whole.

De jure - Rightful, by right.

De minimis lex non curat - The law does not notice trifling matters.

De novo - Starting afresh.

Debile fundamentum fallit opus - Where there is a weak foundation, the work fails.

Debita sequuntur personam debitoria - Debts follow the person of the debtor.

Debitor non praesumitur donare - A debtor is not presumed to make a gift.

Debitum et contractus sunt nullius loci - Debt and contract are of no particular place.

Debitum in praesenti, solvendum in futuro - A present debt is to be discharged in the future.

Delegata potestas non potest delegari - A delegated authority cannot be again delegated.

Derivativa potestas non potest esse major primitiva - The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.

Deus solus haeredem facere potest, non homo - God alone, not man, can make an heir.

Dies Dominicus non est juridicus - Sunday is not a day in law.

Discretio est discernere per legem quid sit justum - Discretion is to discern through law what is just.

Doli incapax - Incapable of crime.

Dominium - Ownership.

Domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium - Every man s house is his safest refuge.

Dona clandestina sunt semper suspiciosa - Clandestine gifts are always suspicious.

Dormiunt leges aliquando, nunquam moriuntur - The laws sometimes sleep, but never die.

Doti lex favet; praemium pudoris est; ideo parcatur - The law favors dower; it is the reward of chastity, therefore let it be preserved.

Dubitante - Doubting the correctness of the decision.

Duo non possunt in solido unam rem possidere - Two cannot possess one thing each in entirety.

E

Ei incumbit probatio qui - The onus of proving a fact rests upon the man.

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat - The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.

Error, qui non resistitur approbatur - An error not resisted is approved.

Et cetera - Other things of that type.

Ex cathedra - With official authority.

Ex concessis - In view of what has already been accepted/

Ex dolo malo actio non oritur - A right of action cannot arise out of fraud.

Ex facie - On the fact of it.

Ex gratia - Out of kindness, voluntary.

Ex nihilo nil fit - From nothing nothing comes.

Ex nudo pacto actio non oritur - No action arises on a contract without a consideration.

Ex parte - Proceeding brought by one person in the absence of another.

Ex post facto - By reason of a subsequent act.

Ex praecedentibus et consequentibus optima fit interpretatio - The best interpretation is made from things preceding and following.

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio - No action arises on an immoral contract.

Exceptio probat regulam - An exception proves the rule.

Executio est executio juris secundum judicium - Execution is the fulfillment of the law in accordance with the judgment.

Executio est finis et fructus legis - An execution is the end and the fruit of the law.

Executio legis non habet injuriam - Execution of the law does no injury.

Extra legem positus est civiliter mortuus - One out of the pale of the law (i.e. an outlaw) is civilly dead.

F

Faciendum - Something which is to be done.

Factum - An act or deed.

Facultas probationum non est angustanda - The right of offering proof is not to be narrowed.

Falsa demonstratio non nocet - A false description does not vitiate.

Fatetur facinus qui judicium fugit - He who flees judgment confesses his guilt.

Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas - Happy is he who has been able to understand the causes of things.

Felonia implicatur in qualibet proditione - Felony is implied in every treason.

Festinatio justitiae est noverca infortunii - The hurrying of justice is the stepmother of misfortune.

Fictio cedit veritati; fictio juris non est, ubi veritas - Fiction yields to truth. Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.

Fides servanda est - Good faith is to be preserved.

Fieri facias (abreviated fi. fa.) - That you cause to be made.

Filiatio non potest probari - Filiation cannot be proved.

Firmior et potentior est operatio legis quam dispositio hominis - The operation of law is firmer and more powerful than the will of man.

Forma legalis forma essentialis est - Legal form is essential form.

Fortior est custodia legis quam hominis - The custody of the law is stronger than that of man.

Fractionem diei non recipit lex - The law does not regard a fraction of a day.

Fraus est celare fraudem - It is a fraud to conceal a fraud.

Fraus est odiosa et non praesumenda - Fraud is odious and is not to be presumed.

Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant - Fraud and justice never dwell together.

Fructus naturales - Vegetation which grows naturally without cultivation.

Frustra probatur quod probatum non relevat - That is proved in vain which when proved is not relevant.

Furor contrahi matrimonium non sinit, quia consensus opus est - Insanity prevents marriage from being contracted because consent is needed.

G

Generale nihil certum implicat - A general expression implies nothing certain.

Generalia praecedunt, specialia sequuntur - Things general precede, things special follow.

Generalia specialibus non derogant - Things general do not derogate from things special.

Generalis regula generaliter est intelligenda - A general rule is to be generally understood.

Gravius est divinam quam temporalem laedere majestatem - It is more serious to hurt divine than temporal majesty.

H

Habeas corpus - That you have the body.

Habemus optimum testem confitentem reum - We have the best witness, a confessing defendant.

Haeredem est nomen collectum - Heir is a collective name.

Haeres est nomen juris, filius est nomen naturae - Heir is a term of law, son, one of nature.

Haeres legitimus est quem nuptiae demonstrant - He is the lawful heir whom the marriage indicates.

Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis - Man is a term of nature, person of the civil law.

I

Id est (i.e) - That is.

Id quod commune est, nostrum esse dicitur - That which is common is said to be ours.

Idem - The same person or thing.

Idem nihil dicere et insufficienter dicere est - It is the same to say nothing as not to say enough.

Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat - Ignorance of fact excuses, ignorance of law does not excuse.

Imperium in imperio - A sovereignty within a sovereignty.

Impotentia excusat legem - Impossibility is an excuse in the law.

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat - Impunity always leads to greater crimes.

In aequali jure melior est conditio possidentis - When the parties have equal rights, the condition of the possessor is better.

In alta proditione nullus potest esse acessorius; sed principalis solum modo - In high treason no one can be an accessory; but a principal only.

In Anglia non est interregnum - In England there is no interregnum.

In camera - In private.

In casu extremae necessitatis omnia sunt communia - In a case of extreme necessity everything is common.

In criminalibus probationes debent esse luce clariores - In criminal cases the proofs ought to be cleared than the light.

In curia domini regis, ipse in propria persona jura discernit - In the King s Court, the King himself in his own person dispenses justice.

In delicto - At fault.

In esse - In existence.

In extenso - At full length.

In fictione legis aequitas existit - A legal fiction is consistent with equity.

In foro conscientiae - In the forum of conscience.

In futoro - In the future.

In jure non remota causa sed proxima spectatur - In law not the remote but the proximate cause is looked at.

In limine - At the outset, on the threshold.

In loco parentis - In place of the parent.

In mortua manu - In a dead hand.

In novo casu novum remedium apponendum est - In a new case a new remedy is to be applied.

In omni re nascitur res quae ipsam rem exterminat - In everything is born that which destroys the thing itself.

In omnibus - In every respect.

In pari delicto potior est conditio possidentis - When the parties are equally in the wrong the condition of the possessor is better.

In personam - Against the person.

In pleno - In full.

In quo quis delinquit in eo de jure est puniendus - In whatever thing one offends in that he is to be punished according to law.

In re dubia magis inficiatio quam affirmatio intelligenda - In a doubtful matter the negative is to be understood rather than the affirmative.

In republica maxime conservanda sunt jura belli - In a State the laws of war are to be especially observed.

In situ - In its place.

In terrorem - As a warning or deterrent.

In testamentis plenius testatoris intentionem scrutamur - In wills we seek diligently the intention of the testator.

In traditionibus scriptorum non quod dictum est, sed quod gestum est, inspicitur - In the delivery of writings (deeds), not what is said but what is done is to be considered.

In verbis, non verba sed res et ratio quaerenda est - In words, not words, but the thing and the meaning are to be inquired into.

Indicia - Marks, signs.

Injuria non excusat injuriam - A wrong does not excuse a wrong.

Intentio inservire debet legibus, non leges intentioni - Intention ought to be subservient to the laws, not the laws to the intention.

Inter alia - Amongst other things.

Interest reipublicae res judicatas non rescindi - It is in the interest of the State that things adjudged be not rescinded.

Interest reipublicae suprema hominum testamenta rata haberi - It is in the interest of the State that men s last wills be sustained.

Interest reipublicae ut quilibet re sua bene utatur - It is in the interest of the State that every one use properly his own property.

Interest reipublicase ut sit finis litium - It is in the interest of the State that there be an end to litigation.

Interim - Temporary, in the meanwhile.

Interpretare et concordare leges legibus est optimus interpretandi modus - To interpret and harmonize laws is the best method of interpretation.

Interpretatio fienda est ut res magis valeat quam pereat - Such a construction is to be made that the thing may have effect rather than it should fail.

Interruptio multiplex non tollit praescriptionem semel obtentam - Repeated interruption does not defeat a prescription once obtained.

Invito beneficium non datur - A benefit is not conferred upon one against his consent.

Ipsissima verba - The very words of a speaker.

Ipso facto - By that very fact.

Ira furor brevis est - Anger is brief insanity.

Iter arma leges silent - In war the laws are silent.

J

Judex est lex loquens - A judge is the law speaking.

Judex non potest esse testis in propira causa - A judge cannot be witness in his own cause.

Judex non potest injuriam sibi datam punire - A judge cannon punish a wrong done to himself.

Judex non reddit plus quam quod petens ipse requirit - A judge does not give more than the plaintiff himself demands.

Judiciis posterioribus fides est adhibenda - Faith must be given to later decisions.

Judicis est judicare secundum allegata et probata - It is the duty of a judge to decide according to the allegations and the proofs.

Judicium non debet esse illusorium, suum effectum habere debet - A judgment ought not to be illusory; it ought to have its proper effect.

Juduces non tenentur exprimere causam sententiae suae - Judges are not bound to explain the reason of their judgment.

Jura naturae sunt immutabilia - The laws of nature are immutable.

Jura publica anteferenda privatis juribus - Public rights are to be preferred to private rights.

Juramentum est indivisibile et non est admittendum in parte verum et in parte falsum - An oath is indivisible and it is not to be held partly true and partly false.

Jurare est Deum in testem vocare, et est actus divini cultus - To swear is to call God to witness and is an act of divine worship.

Jus - A right that is recognised in law.

Jus accrescendi praefertur oneribus - The right of survivorship is preferred to incumbrances.

Jus ad rem; jus in re - A right to a thing; a right in a thing.

Jus dicere, non jus dare - To declare the law, not to make the law.

Jus est norma recti; et quicquid est contra normam recti est injuria - The law is a rule of right; and whatever is contrary to a rule of right is an injury.

Jus naturale - Natural justice.

Jus naturale est quod apud omnes homines eandem habet potentiam - Natural right is that which has the same force among all men.

Jus scriptum aut non scriptum - The written law or the unwritten law.

Jusjurandum inter alios factum nec nocere nec prodesse debet - An oath made between third parties ought neither to hurt nor profit.

Justitia est duplec; severe puniens et vere praeveniens - Justice is two-fold; severely punishing and in reality prohibiting (offences).

Justitia firmatur solium - The throne is established by justice.

Justitia nemini neganda est - Justice is to be denied to no one.

L

Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant - Subsequent laws repeal prior conflicting ones.

Legibus sumptis desinentibus legibus naturae utendum est - When laws imposed by the State fail, we must use the laws of nature.

Lex aliquando sequitur aequitatem - The law sometimes follows equity.

Lex citius tolerare vult privatum damnum quam publicum malum - The law would rather tolerate a private injury than a public evil.

Lex dabit remedium - The law will give a remedy.

Lex dilationes abhorret - The law abhors delays.

Lex est judicum tutissimus ductor - The law is the safest guide for judges.

Lex est sanctio sancta jubens honesta et prohibens contraria - The law is a sacred sanction, commanding what is right and prohibiting the contrary.

Lex indendit vicinum vicini facta scire - The law presumes that one neighbor knows the acts of another.

Lex necessitatis est lex temporis i.e. instantis - The law of necessity is the law of time, that is time present.

Lex neminem cogit ad vana seu impossiblia - The law compels no one to do vain or impossible things.

Lex nil frustra facit - The law does nothing in vain.

Lex non a rege est violanda - The law must not be violated even by the King.

Lex non deficere potest in justitia exhibenda - The law cannot fail in dispensing justice.

Lex non novit patrem, nec matrem; solam veritatem - The law does not know neither father nor mother, only the truth.

Lex non oritur ex injuria - The law does not arise from a mere injury.

Lex non requirit verificari quod apparet curiae - The law does not require that to be proved which is apparent to the Court.

Lex non favet delicatorum votis - The law does not favor the wishes of the dainty.

Lex plus laudatur quando ratione probatur - The law is the more praised when it is supported by reason.

Lex prospicit not respicit - The law looks forwared, not backward.

Lex punit mendaciam - The law punishes falsehood.

Lex rejicit superflua, pugnatia, incongrua - The law rejects superfluous, contradictory and incongruous things.

Lex spectat naturae ordinem - The law regards the order of nature.

Lex succurrit ignoranti - The law succors the ignorant.

Lex tutissima cassis, sub clypeo legis nemo decipitur - Law is the safest helmet; under the shield of the law no one is deceived.

Lex uno ore omnes alloquitur - The law speaks to all through one mouth.

Longa possessio est pacis jus - Long possession is the law of peace.

Longa possessio parit jus possidendi et tollit actionem vero domino - Long possession produces the right of possession and takes away from the true owner his action.

M

Magister rerum usus; magistra rerum experientia - Use is the master of things; experience is the mistress of things.

Major continet in se minus - The greater contains the less.

Majus est delictum se ipsum occidere quam alium - It is a greater crime to kill one s self than another.

Mala fide - In bad faith.

Mala grammatica non vitiat chartam - Bad grammar does not vitiate a deed.

Mala in se - Bad in themselves.

Mala prohibita - Crimes prohibited.

Malitia supplet aesatem - Malice supplies age.

Malo animo - With evil intent.

Mandamus - We command.

Maximus magister erroris populus est - The people are the greatest master of error.

Melior est conditio possidentis, ubi neuter jus habet - Better is the condition of the possessor where neither of the two has the right.

Melior testatoris in testamentis spectanda est - In wills the intention of a testator is to be regarded.

Meliorem conditionem suam facere potest minor deteriorem nequaquam - A minor can make his position better, never worse.

Mens rea - Guilty state of mind.

Mentiri est contra mentem ire - To lie is to act against the mind.

Merito beneficium legis amittit, qui legem ipsam subvertere intendit - He justly loses the benefit of the law who seeks to infringe the law.

Minatur innocentibus qui parcit nocentibus - He threatens the innocent who spares the guilty.

Misera est servitus, ubi jus est vagum aut incertum - It is a miserable slavery where the law is vague or uncertain.

Mors dicitur ultimum supplicium - Death is called the extreme penalty.

Muilta exercitatione facilius quam regulis percipies - You will perceive many things more easily by experience than by rules.

N

Nam nemo haeres viventis - For no one is an heir of a living person.

Naturae vis maxima est - The force of nature is the greatest.

Necessitas inducit privilegium quoad jura privata - With respect to private rights necessity induces privilege.

Necessitas non habet legem - Necessity has no law.

Necessitas publica est major quam privata - Public necessity is greater than private necessity.

Negligentia semper habet infortuniam comitem - Negligence always has misfortune for a companion.

Nemo admittendus est inhabilitare se ipsum - No one is allowed to incapacitate himself.

Nemo bis punitur pro eodem delicto - No one can be twice punished for the same offence.

Nemo cogitur suam rem vendere, etiam justo pretio - No one is bound to sell his own property, even for a just price.

Nemo contra factum suum venire potest - No man can contradict his own deed.

Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa - No one can be judge in his own case.

Nemo plus juris transferre ad alium potest quam ipse habet - No one can transfer to another a larger right than he himself has.

Nemo potest contra recordum verificare per patriam - No one can verify by the country, that is, through a jury, against the record.

Nemo potest esse tenens et dominus - No one can at the same time be a tenant and a landlord (of the same tenement).

Nemo potest facere per alium, quod per se non potest - No one can do through another what he cannot do himself.

Nemo potest mutare consilium suum in alterius injuriam - No one can change his purpose to the injury of another.

Nemo praesumitur esse immemor suae aeternae salutis et maxime in articulo mortis - No one is presumed to be forgetful of his eternal welfare, and particularly in the hour of death.

Nemo prohibetur pluribus defensionibus uti - No one is forbidden to make use of several defences.

Nemo punitur pro alieno delicto - No one is punished for the crime of another.

Nemo se accusare debet, nisi coram Deo - No one should accuse himself except in the presence of God.

Nemo tenetur accusare se ipsum nisi coram Deo - No one is bound to accuse himself except in the presence of God.

Nemo tenetur armare adversarium contra se - No one is bound to arm his adversary against himself.

Nexus - Connection

Nihil quod est inconveniens est licitum - Nothing inconvenient is lawful.

Nil facit error nominis cum de corpore constat - An error of name makes not difference when it appears from the body of the instrument.

Nisi - Unless

Non compus mentis - Not of sound mind and understanding

Non constat - It is not certain

Non decipitur qui scit se decipi - He is not deceived who knows that he is deceived.

Non definitur in jure quid sit conatus - What an attempt is, is not defined in law.

Non est arctius vinculum inter homines quam jusjurandum - There is no stronger link among men than an oath.

Non est factum - It is not his deed

Non est informatus - He is not informed.

Non facias malum ut inde veniat bonum - You shall not do evil that good may come of it.

Non jus, sed seisina, facit stipitem - Not right, but seisin makes a stock (from which the inheritance must descend).

Non refert quid notum sit judici si notum non sit in forma judicii - It matters not what is known to the judge if it is not known judicially.

Non sequitur - An inconsistent statement, it does not follow

Nullus commodum capere potest ex sua injuria propria - No one can derive an advantage from his own wrong.

Nullus recedat e curia cancellaria sine remedio - No one should depart from a Court of Chancery without a remedy.


O

Omne sacramentum debet esse de certa scientia - Every oath ought to be of certain knowledge.

Omnia delicta in aperto leviora sunt - All crimes (committed) in the open are (considered) lighter.

Omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem - All things are presumed against a wrongdoer.

Omnis innovatio plus novitate perturbat quam utilitate prodeat - Every innovation disturbs more by its novelty than it benefits by its utility.

Optima legum interpres est consuetudo - The best interpreter of laws is custom.

Optimus interpres rerum est usus - The best interpreter of things is usage.

P

Pacta privata juri publico non derogare possunt - Private contracts cannot derogate from public law.

Par delictum - Equal fault.

Pari passu - On an equal footing.

Partus sequitur ventrem - The offspring follows the mother.

Pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant - The father is he whom the marriage points out.

Peccata contra naturam sunt gravissima - Wrongs against nature are the most serious.

Pendente lite nihil innovetur - During litigation nothing should be changed.

Per curiam - In the opinion of the court.

Per minas - By means of menaces or threats.

Per quod - By reason of which.

Post mortem - After death.

Prima facie - On the face of it.

Prima impressionis - On first impression.

Pro hac vice - For this occasion.

Pro rata - In proportion.

Pro tanto - So far, to that extent.

Pro tempore - For the time being.

Publici juris - Of public right.


Q

Quaeitur - The question is raised.

Quantum - How much, an amount.

Qui facit per alium, facit per se - He who acts through another acts himself.

Qui haeret in litera, haeret in cortice - He who stices to the letter, sticks to the bark.

Qui in utero est, pro jam nato habetur, quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur - He who is in the womb is considered as already born as far as his benefit is considered.

Qui non habet potestatem alienandi, habet necessitatem retinendi - He who has not the power of alienating is under the necessity of retaining.

Qui non habet, ille non dat - He who has not, does not give.

Qui non improbat, approbat - He who does not disapprove, approves.

Qui non obstat quod obstare potest facere videtur - He who does not prevent what he is able to prevent, is considered as committing the thing.

Qui non prohibet quod prohibere potest assentire videtur - He who does not prohibit when he is able to prohibit, is in fault.

Qui peccat ebrius, luat sobrius - He who does wrong when drunk must be punished when sober.

Qui potest et debet vetare et non vetat jubet - He who is able and ought to forbit and does not, commands.

Qui prior est tempore potior est jure - He who is prior in time is stronger in right.

Qui sentit commodum, debet et sentire onus - He who derives a benefit ought also to bear a burden.

Qui tacet consentire videtur - He who is silent appears to consent.

Quid pro quo - Consideration. something for something.

Quidcquid plantatur solo, solo cedit - Whatever is planted in or affixed to the soil, belongs to the soil.

Quod ab initio non valet, in tractu temporis non convalescit - What is not valid in the beginning does not become valid by time.

Quod constat curiae opere testium non indiget - What appears to the Court needs not the help of witnesses.

Quod necessarie intelligitur, id non deest - What is necessarily understood is not wanting.

Quod necessitas cogit, defendit - What necessity forces it justifies.

Quod non apparet, non est - What does not appear, is not.

Quod non habet principium non habet finem - What has no beginning has no end.

Quod per me non possum, nec per alium - What I cannot do through myself, I cannot do through another.

Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure - What is first is more true; and what is prior in time is stronger in law.

Quod vanum et inutile est, lex non requirit - The law does not require what is vain and useless.

Quoties in verbis nulla est ambiguitas, ibi nulla expositio contra verba expressa fienda est - When there is no ambiguity in words, then no exposition contrary to the expressed words is to be made.

R

Ratio est legis anima, mutata legis ratione mutatur et lex - Reason is the soul of the law; when the reason of the law changes the law also is changed.

Re - In the matter of.

Reprobata pecunia leberat solventem - Money refused releases the debtor.

Res - Matter, affair, thing, circumstance.

Res gestae - Things done.

Res integra - A matter untouched (by decision).

Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet - Things done between strangers ought not to affect a third person, who is a stranger to the transaction.

Res judicata accipitur pro veritate - A thing adjudged is accepted for the truth.

Res nulis - Nobody s property.

Respondeat superior - Let the principal answer.

Rex est major singulis, minor universis - The King is greater than individuals, less than all the people.

Rex non debet judicare sed secundum legem - The King ought not to judge but according to the law.

Rex non potest peccare - The King can do no wrong.

Rex nunquma moritur - The King never dies.

Rex quod injustum est facere non potest - The King cannot do what is unjust.

S

Salus populi est suprema lex - The safety of the people is the supreme law.

Sciens - Knowingly.

Scienter - Knowingly.

Scire facias - That you cause to know.

Scribere est agere - To write is to act.

Se defendendo - In self defence.

Secus - The legal position is different, it is otherwise.

Semper praesumitur pro legitimatione puerorum - Everything is presumed in favor of the legitimacy of children.

Semper pro matriomonio praesumitur - It is always presumed in favor of marriage.

Sententia interlocutoria revocari potest, definitiva non potest - An interlocutory order can be revoked, a final order cannot be.

Servitia personalia sequuntur personam - Personal services follow the person.

Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas - So use your own as not to injure another s property.

Simplex commendatio non obligat - A simple recommendation does not bind.

Stare decisis - To stand by decisions (precedents).

Stet - Do not delete, let it stand.

Sub modo - Within limits.

Sub nomine - Under the name of.

Sub silentio - In silence.

Sublata causa, tollitur effectus - The cause being removed, the effect ceases.

Sublato fundamento, cadit opus - The foundation being removed, the structure falls.

Subsequens matrimonium tollit peccatum praecedens - A subsequent marriage removes the preceding wrong.

Suggestio falsi - The suggestion of something which is untrue.

Sui generis - Unique.

Summa ratio est quae pro religione facit - The highest reason is that which makes for religion, i.e. religion dictates.

Suppressio veri - The suppression of the truth.

Suppressio veri expressio falsi - A suppression of truth is equivalent to an expression of falsehood.

T

Talis qualis - Such as it is.

Terra firma - Solid ground.

Testamenta latissimam interpretationem habere debent - Testaments ought to have the broadest interpretation.

Traditio loqui chartam facit - Delivery makes a deed speak.

Transit terra cum onere - The land passes with its burden.

U

Ubi eadem ratio ibi idem jus, et de similibus idem est judicium - When there is the same reason, then the law is the same, and the same judgment should be rendered as to similar things.

Ubi jus ibi remedium est - Where there is a right there is a remedy.

Ubi non est principalis, non potest esse accessorius - Where there is no principal, there can be no accessory.

Ubi nullum matrimonium, ibi nulla dos es - Where there is no marriage, there is no dower.

Ultima voluntas testatoris est perimplenda secundum veram intentionem suam - The last will of a testator is to be fulfilled according to his true intentio.

Ut poena ad paucos, metus ad omnes, perveniat - That punishment may come to a few, the fear of it should affect all.

Utile per inutile non vitiatur - What is useful is not vitiated by the useless.

V

Verba chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra preferentem - The words of deeds are accepted more strongly against the person offering them.

Verba debent intelligi cum effectu - Words ought to be understood with effect.

Verba intentioni, non e contra, debent inservire - Words ought to serve the intention, not the reverse.

Verbatim - Word by word, exactly.

Vi et armis - With the force and arms.

Via antiqua via est tuta - The old way is the safe way.

Vice versa - The other way around.

Vide - See.

Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt - The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep.

Vir et uxor consentur in lege una persona - A husband and wife are regarded in law as one person.

Visitationem commendamus - We recommend a visitation.

Volens - Willing.

Volenti non fit injuria - An injury is not done to one consenting to it.

Voluntas in delictis non exitus spectatur - In offences the intent and not the result is looked at.

Voluntas reputatur pro facto - The will is taken for the deed.

Read more...

Summary of VAWC Law (RA 9262)

>> 04 July 2011

(RA 9262, March 8, 2004)

I. PURPOSE (Sec. 2)

It is hereby declared that the State values the dignity of women and children and guarantees full respect for human rights

To protect the family and its members particularly women and children, from violence and threats to their personal safety and security

II. DEFINITION OF TERMS (Sec. 3)

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN – any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:



PHYSICAL VIOLENCE – acts that include bodily or physical harm

SEXUAL VIOLENCE – an act which is sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her child, including but not limited to:

  1. rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child as a sex object, making demeaning and sexually suggestive remarks, physically attacking the sexual parts of the victim's body, forcing her/him to watch obscene publications and indecent shows or forcing the woman or her child to do indecent acts and/or make films thereof, forcing the wife and mistress/lover to live in the conjugal home or sleep together in the same room with the abuser;
  2. acts causing or attempting to cause the victim to engage in any sexual activity by force, threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm or coercion;
  3. Prostituting the woman or child.


PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE - acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and mental infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common children

ECONOMIC ABUSE - acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following:

  1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code;
  2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common;
  3. destroying household property;
  4. controlling the victims' own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal money or properties.


BATTERY - an act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional distress.

BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME - scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.

STALKING - an intentional act committed by a person who, knowingly and without lawful justification follows the woman or her child or places the woman or her child under surveillance directly or indirectly or a combination thereof.

DATING RELATIONSHIP - a situation wherein the parties live as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or are romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two individuals in a business or social context is not adating relationship.

SEXUAL RELATIONS - a single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a common child

III. ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN (Sec. 5)

The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:

  1. Causing physical harm to the woman or her child;
  2. Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
  3. Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
  4. Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm;
  5. Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or her child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's or her child's freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation directed against the woman or child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman's or her child's movement or conduct:


  • Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her child of custody to her/his family;
  • Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's children insufficient financial support; (3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right;
  • Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity or controlling the victim's own mon4ey or properties, or solely controlling the conjugal or common money, or properties;
  • Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions or decisions;
  • Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any sexual activity which does not constitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical harm, or through intimidation directed against the woman or her child or her/his immediate family;
  • Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child. This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts:


  1. Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private places;
  2. Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child;
  3. Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman or her child against her/his will;
  4. Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm to animals or pets of the woman or her child; and
  5. Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;
  6. Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman's child/children.


IV. VENUE (Sec. 7)

RTC designated as Family Court (EOJ)

V. RELIEFS/REMEDIES

A. PROTECTION ORDER (Sec. 8)

A protection order is an order issued under this act for the purpose of preventing further acts of violence against a woman or her child specified in Section 5 of this Act and granting other necessary relief.

KINDS:

  1. Barangay protection order (BPO) (Sec. 14) – issued by the Punong Barangay ordering the perpetrator to desist from committing acts under Sec. 5 (a) and (b) of this Act
  2. Temporary protection order (TPO) (Sec. 15) – issued by the court on the date of filing of the application after ex parte determination that such order should be issued; effective for 30 days
  3. Permanent Protection order (PPO) (Sec. 16) – issued by the court after notice and hearing


B. WHO MAY FILE PETITION FOR PROTECTION ORDER (Sec. 9)

  1. Offended party
  2. Parents or guardians of offended party
  3. Ascendants, descendants or collateral relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity
  4. Officers or social workers of the DSWD or social workers of LGUs
  5. Police officers, preferably those in charge of women and children’s desks
  6. Punong barangay or Barangay Kagawad
  7. Lawyer, counsellor, therapist or healthcare provider of the petitioner
  8. At least 2 concerned responsible citizens of the city or municipality where the violence against women and their children occurred and who has personal knowledge of the offense committed


C. WHERE TO APPLY FOR PROTECTION ORDER (Sec. 10)

  • BPO – Rules on venue under Sec. 409 of LGC
  • TPO/PPO – Family Court, or if none, RTC, MTC, MeTC, MCTC with territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of petitioner


D. HOW TO APPLY FOR PROTECTION ORDER (Sec. 11)

  1. Accomplish a standard protection order application form, signed and verified under oath by applicant
  2. Filed as an independent action or as incidental relief
  3. If applicant is not the victim, application must be accompanied by an affidavit of the applicant attesting to (a) the circumstances of the abuse suffered by the victim and (b) the circumstances of consent given by the victim for the filling of the application. When disclosure of the address of the victim will pose danger to her life, it shall be so stated in the application. In such a case, the applicant shall attest that the victim is residing in the municipality or city over which court has territorial jurisdiction, and shall provide a mailing address for purpose of service processing.


VI. BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME AS A DEFENSE (Sec. 26)

Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.

In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists.

A victim who is suffering from battered woman syndrome shall not be disqualified from having custody of her children. In no case shall custody of minor children be given to the perpetrator of a woman who is suffering from Battered woman syndrome (Sec. 28)

Read more...

UNDHR

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION
OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, therefore,
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair, and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

  1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
  2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
  2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14

  1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
  2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

  1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
  2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16

  1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
  2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

  1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
  2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
  2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

  1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
  2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
  3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

  1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
  2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
  3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
  4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

  1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
  2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

  1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
  2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
  3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

  1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
  2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29

  1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
  2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
  3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

This covenant details the basic civil and political rights of individuals and nations. Among the rights of nations are:
Among the rights of individuals are:
The covenant permits governments to temporarily suspend some of these rights in cases of civil emergency only, and lists those rights which cannot be suspended for any reason. It also establishes the UN Human Rights Commission.
After almost two decades of negotiations and rewriting, the text of the Universal Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was agreed upon in 1966. In 1976, after being ratified by the required 35 states, it became international law.

Read more...

Visconde Massacre Supreme Court Decision

Brief Background

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 Evidence[6] 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 Acquittal
Due 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. Maryland[9] 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.  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 sustained[14] 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. 
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 Keeler[34] 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 license[38] 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 Vehicle[43] 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 Tabuena[55] 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 evidence[57] 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.

SO ORDERED.

Read more...

  © Blogger templates Shiny by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP