DE LA CRUZ VS CONCEPCION A.M. No. RTJ-93-1062 AUG. 25, 1994

DE LA CRUZ VS CONCEPCION

A.M. No. RTJ-93-1062 AUG. 25, 1994

Facts: 

Respondent Judge Crisanto C. Concepcion of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Malolos, Bulacan, was administratively indicted for gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment for acquitting the accused who was charged before his court with acts of lasciviousness. 

Eliza Ratilla de la Cruz, Edeline Cuison, Ana Maria Cruz, and Lolita Santiago filed a case against the accused for acts of lasciviousness. The accused Loreto Estrella, Jr., summoned the victims and told them that he need to examine their private parts pursuant to a DECS memorandum. 

During the hearing, the four girls gave almost identical experience. The accused on his part admitted that indeed he made such examination; however denied that he touched the private parts of the girl.  Moreover, he argued that he only did such in compliance with the DECS order. 

Upon hearing the prosecution and the defense, respondent Judge observed that the girls consented, without any force employed upon them. The Judged reasoned out that it is inconceivable that the girls did not make any objections if indeed their private parts were touched with lust on the mind of the couch.  Thus, Respondent Judge arrived on the conclusion that since the touching was necessary in the examination required by the memorandum, no acts of lasciviousness can be attributed to the accused. 

Issue:

Whether or not the analysis of the Judge constitutes Gross Ignorance of the law and against the Canon 5 of The Code of Professional Responsibility

Held:

 To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the subject decision, order or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but, most importantly, he must be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. 

In the case at bar, no bad faith nor malice may be imputed against the respondent judge. More so, wrong appreciation of evidence cannot be a ground for gross ignorance of the law. The court held that if we hold respondent guilty as charged, then we might be telegraphing the wrong signals to our trial judges. For then, where administrative sanctions are imposed on them for rendering judgments of acquittal based on reasonable doubt or on difficult questions of law, they would be inclined, and not without practical reason, to hand down verdicts of conviction, in case of doubt. For that course would be safer for them to pursue since, after all, erroneous convictions may still be corrected on appeal. But that would be disregarding the true concept and judicial implication of "reasonable doubt" in criminal cases, under which judges are directed according to the Rules of Court to render a judgment of acquittal. 

As such, the reiterate that "mere errors in the appreciation of evidence, unless so gross and patent as to produce an inference of ignorance or bad faith, or that the judge knowingly rendered an unjust decision, are irrelevant and immaterial in an administrative proceeding against him. Therefore, respondent judge was acquitted for the case charged.

GR No. 176389
ANTONIO LEJANO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

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

G.R. No. 176864
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, ANTONIO LEJANO, MICHAEL A. GATCHALIAN, HOSPICIO FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, PETER ESTRADA and GERARDO BIONG, Appellants.

Facts:

On June 30, 1991 Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela, nineteen years old, and xxx, 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.

The Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, presided over by Judge Amelita G. Tolentino, tried only seven of the accused since Artemio Ventura and Joey Filart remained at large.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

Controlling Issues:

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.

Other Issues:

1. 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; and

2. 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.

Held:

The Right to Acquittal Due to Loss of DNA Evidence

Webb claims, citing Brady v. Maryland, 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.

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.

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.

Suspicious Details

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.

Webb’s U.S. Alibi

Among the accused, Webb presented the strongest alibi through (a) the travel preparations; (b) the two immigration checks; (c) details of US sojourn; (d) the second immigration check; and (e) alibi versus positive identification; and (f) a documented alibi.

To establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence 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.

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.


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?

The Supreme 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.

G.R. No. 114267 December 17, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 
vs.
GILBERT DORIMON, accused-appellant.

Facts:

Appellant was an eighteen (18) year-old senior high school student at the Salug National High School of Salug, Zamboanga del Norte. Found in his possession was a .22 cal. paltik, that he allegedly used to threaten a classmate who had defeated him in a basketball game at school. 

On August 7, 1992, at around 9:30 A.M., Esnani Bontigao, a high school student, personally reported to the Chief of Police of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Salug, Zamboanga del Norte, that appellant had threatened him with a gun. Acting on the information, the Chief of Police dispatched a team composed of SPO3 Marcelino Tamala, SPO2 Ernesto Lagare and SPO3 Malik Sapihi to proceed to the store near the school to apprehend appellant. Upon reaching the store, SPO3 Tamala approached appellant whom he knew since the latter was a relative of his wife, and asked him whether he was carrying a gun.  Appellant answered in the affirmative but explained that he only found the gun at the back of the school.  Thereafter, appellant was brought to the police station where SPO3 Sapihi discovered a .22 cal. paltik revolver, which fell from appellant's waist when appellant was frisked. 

On August 10, 1992, the Chief of Police of Salug, Zamboanga del Norte filed a Complaint  for Illegal Possession with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Salug-Godod, Salug, Zamboanga del Norte against appellant.

On August 24, 1992, after conducting the preliminary investigation, Municipal Circuit Trial Judge Ig H. Aricheta issued a Resolution, ⁹ which found a prima facie case for Illegal Possession, fixed the bail at P200,000.00, and ordered the records of the case forwarded to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor.

On September 16, 1992, Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Valeriano B. Lagula affirmed the aforesaid Resolution but lowered the recommended bail to P50,000.00. 

On October 8, 1992, Provincial Prosecutor Rodolfo T. Mata filed the following Information  for Illegal Possession of Firearm with the Regional Trial Court:

On May 5, 1993, upon arraignment, appellant, duly assisted by counsel de parte Atty. Reubin Maraon, entered a plea of not guilty.

During trial, the prosecution presented two of the arresting officers as its witnesses, namely, SPO3 Marcelino Tamala and SPO2 Ernesto Lagare. Both identified the .22 cal. paltik revolver.

On January 28, 1994, the trial court rendered a decision  convicting appellant of the crime charged for violation of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866,  sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering the forfeiture of his .22 caliber paltik revolver in favor of the government.

Issue:

Whether or not a mere possession of firearm constitutes the crime of illegal possession.

Held:

In cases involving illegal possession of firearm, the requisite elements are: (a) the existence of the subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess. 

The first requisite is beyond dispute as the subject firearm was recovered from the person of accused, identified in court as the same firearm, and offered in evidence during trial.

As to the second requisite, we have held that the testimony of a representative of, or a certification from, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms and Explosives Unit that appellant was not a licensee of the said firearm would suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of the crime of illegal possession.  The non-possession of a license is a negative fact, which constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession, and it is the duty of the prosecution not only to allege it but also to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. 

While it is true that the appellant did not raise the issue of failure of the prosecution to prove his non-possession of a license to possess a firearm, the rule is well-settled that in a criminal case, an appeal to the Court throws the whole case open for review, and it becomes the duty of the Court to correct such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from, whether they are made the subject of the assignment of error or not.  Moreover, well established is the principle that conviction of a person for an alleged offense should not rest on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution's evidence. Accordingly, in this case it is proper for the Court to consider in favor of appellant the absence of proof of one element in the charge of illegal possession of firearm, that is, the certificate from the PNP Firearms and Explosive Unit that he had no license or permit to possess it.

WHEREFORE, for insufficiency of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, Branch 11, in Criminal Case No. S-2180 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Gilbert Dorimon is hereby ACQUITTED of the charge of Illegal Possession of Firearm. He is ordered RELEASED immediately unless there are other legal grounds for his continued detention.

Reported By:

Edeliza J Dacudao

Llb-III