Vizconde Massacre Update 3: Lauro fights for Justice

Whoever killed the Vizcondes nineteen years ago probably thought that the case is finally over. He and his group probably thought that Lauro, the family patriarch, already gave up when the Supreme Court decided to release Hubert Webb and several others initially suspected of being the ones who brutally murdered Lauro's wife Estrellita, raped and killed Carmela and inflicted multiple stab wounds against Jennifer, the youngest victim in the 1991 gruesome massacre which shocked the nation. 


Wrong. 


For Lauro, the Supreme Court decision is just a start of a brand new ball game. He insists that the NBI, the police and the courts did not err in tagging Hubert Webb and several prominent names as perpetuators of the crime. Fact is, Lauro believes in the testimony of the lone eye witness, Jessica Alfaro, that, indeed, Hubert Webb and the rest of his buddies committed the crime nineteen years ago. 


The Supreme Court thinks that Alfaro is a tainted witness, a liar, whose testimony was manufactured by the National Bureau of Investigation. 


Really, if you study this case, this would have been different if there were pieces of evidence presented which scientifically or forensically linked or proved the link between Webb etal and the murder or crime scene. 


Let's admit that the NBI, in those times, employed very crude methods in solving this crime. Were fingerprints lifted from the crime scene? How about the blood samples recovered from the crime scene, where were they? The agency even blundered when they lost the sperm sample recovered from the cadaver of Carmela. This would have given the courts sufficient evidence to believe or disbelieve the testimony of Alfaro.


Instead of relying on scientific evidence, this case became somewhat of "she said, he said" thing. It was never scientific from the very start. That's why the case is weak. 


Now, revisiting a 20 or so year old crime scene is still possible, if the integrity of the place is still intact. 


The NBI can still revisit the place and use sophisticated equipment available to them now, and lift pieces of vital evidence from the crime scene. 


For example, I was given the information that Mang Lauro replaced his wallpaper because it was full of blood. Where are the remnants of this wallpaper? Maybe Mang Lauro can give the investigating team those old and blood filled wallpaper for analysis. 


Now, if this is entirely not possible given the age of the crime scene, the only recourse left is circumstantial, meaning, try to re-enact or piece the recovered evidence together and picture the crime as it happened.


Four things:


1. Whoever did the crime knew the Vizcondes since they were able to go inside the house without employing force.


2. Whoever did the crime was either drug induced or hated the victims so much, they brutally inflicted wounds that an ordinary person of a stable mental condition would surely not do. 


3. Whoever did the crime did it out of spite to Carmela, who was brutally raped and stabbed repeatedly. Fact is, it is even possible that Carmela and her sister Jennifer knew the suspect since Jennifer suffered defensive wounds and was stabbed nineteen times, probably when she was trying to either defend herself or her sister from the perpetuator.


This is a very crucial aspect of the case since this proves that the perpetuator of the crime only wanted to rape Carmela, probably out to spite her, to humiliate her, not necessarily to satisfy his carnal desire. The entire crime revolved around this simple fact--the motivation was clearly rape Carmela just to spite her.


Had it been that the motivation was carnal desire, Estrellita would have been raped as well. Estrellita's body was not violated. 


If the purpose was to rob the place, then, the suspects would have carted several valuable items from the house. Estrellita's money and jewelry were all intact, save a few which were possibly stolen post-mortem. 


4. Whoever did it has or have links with Biong, the first to the scene investigator, who burned all the pieces of evidence without recording or documenting them. 


Process of elimination


1. Akyat-Bahay gang members. We all know the modus operandi of Akyat-Bahay gang members. They don't kill. They just tie up their victims and rob the place. 


Now, is it entirely possible that these criminals took a fancy of Carmela and decided to rape her? Possibly. How about kill her? Possible, but under the circumstances, least likely. 


If these suspects did the crime, then, why spare Estrellita and why inflict such mortal wounds to Carmela and her sister, Jennifer? Two mortal wounds are enough to debilitate and or kill their victims, but not nineteen stab wounds.


The wounds inflicted show you the state of mind of the perpetuator. It was not just to kill, but kill severely or kill with such brutality. Only a drug crazed individual would do this, or someone mentally unstable or passionately hate his victim.


2. Policemen or associates of Biong. There is a theory that policemen or cops did the crime. Again, this is entirely possible. If they, indeed committed the crime, then, why this brutality? Why spare Estrellita? Estrellita was just killed because she probably prevented the suspect or the suspects from reaching Carmela. 


Carmela was not raped by a gang--she was raped and killed by one man. Had one gang perpetuated the crime, they would have taken turns raping Carmela and even possibly, Estrellita. 


Likewise, the state of the crime scene showed that an amateur did the crime, someone unfamiliar with police procedures or someone unmindful of leaving traces of his crime in the scene. Had it been the police, they would have surely, and probably just killed the victims with one or two stab wounds and not twelve or nineteen stab wounds. They would have cleansed the crime scene with every trace of their own blood or skin or any pieces of evidence. These wounds show you the state of mind of the criminal when he was committing the crime. Such brutality and gruesomeness can only be committed by someone crazy enough to commit such a crime.


3. Construction workers. Possible, especially if they were under a state of drugs induced hallucination. If workers were involved, then, two things might have happened: they would have repeatedly raped Carmela and would have stolen several pieces of jewelry inside the house. They would have ransacked the house. 


Carmela, based on findings, was raped by just one man--not severally, and killed by the hand of one man. Besides, if these workers were drug crazed, they would have probably violated the entire family, including Jennifer. Jennifer was just brutally killed while defending herself and Carmela. Estrellita, again, let me say this, was not raped. 


4. The architect and his men. The architect, a close family friend of the Vizcondes, is the weakest among four possible suspects. Why? A background check revealed that the architect was not present within 5 kilometer radius of the house, had a very solid alibi, and never even dabbled in drugs. He never took a fancy of Carmela nor any member of the family. How about his men? This cannot be because those men left the place several months prior to the massacre and even if they, pre-planned the crime, and probably took a fancy of Carmela, why was Carmela raped by just one man and not several? 


5. Now, is it possible that Joey Filart, a nephew of then NCR head General Filart and his friend, Artemio Ventura, did it and not Hubert Webb? Flight, under the law, is a clear sign of complicity. 


Before Carmela died, she revealed that she rejected the overtures of a man who claims to be the son of a politician. She, however, failed to specifically identify this man to his father. 


Joey Filart and Artemio Ventura are known drug dependents in that subdivision. They are well connected. And surely, they have connections with the Paranaque police since his uncle was then the head of the NCR. Among these groups, there are only two groups who probably committed this crime: Filart and Webb.


Let's admit one thing, and every BF subdivision resident knew this eversince--Hubert Webb and his friends are not your average group of users. Everyone knows they were drug dependents. Everyone knows that they took an interest in the case post-mortem, since some of them were caught observing the crime scene when Biong and several others were conducting an investigation. 


If, the Webb group claims that they don't know each other, it's quite implausible. Tonyboy Lejano knows HUbert Webb. They belong to one group.


Besides, they did not raise it during the trials. If they were really fall guys, they did not protest this as wildly and as loudly as those Akyat Bahay gang members, who were tortured and made to admit the crime.


Hubert Webb and the rest of these suspects were not tortured. Why allow yourself to suffer more than fifteen years of incarceration if you really believe that you are innocent? An innocent guy would have raised hell back then. 


But, no. If you will just look at the demeanor of the suspects during the time when the case was being heard, they were under a state of quiet acceptance, probably they already prepared themselves psychologically that the authorities already caught them and its the end of the line for them. If they were really fall guys, they should have shouted it to high heavens when they were caught. But no, when they were arrested, their expressions were of those criminals who really did the crime.

Six Stupid Things that Undermine Philippine Justice System

What justice? Justice is for the rich,
none for the poor.

In just three days, we, the Filipino People, were treated with a succession of depressing news. The Supreme Court, Sandiganbayan and a local court in Pasig all gave us deplorable news which seriously undermined the People's trust in the Philippine justice system.


These attacks on the Philippine justice system, I call the "six-peat Injustice scandal".


The Supreme Court rendered a decision which declared the Executive Order creating the Truth Commission unconstitutional. Basis for the ruling? The very tenor of the E.O. violates the equal rights clause in the 1987 Constitution. This is the first attack.


Then on December 14, just eleven days before Christmas, the SC reversed the initial guilty ruling in the controversial Vizconde massacre case, allowing Hubert Webb, son of former Senator Freddie Webb, and some others, to regain their freedom. Lauro Vizconde, the family patriarch, described the decision as a disappointment. The Public Assistance Office (PAO) meanwhile, is thinking of filing an appeal for reconsideration. This is the second attack.


That same day, the SC granted former First Lady Imelda Marcos two mansions which were initially subject of sequestration by government in her hometown of Olot in Leyte. These mansions, which were subjects of graft and corrupt cases filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), rests in a 46 hectare lot, which is claimed by Imelda as a "family heirloom" prior to her marriage with the former strongman Ferdinand Marcos. This is the third attack.


Also, in that same day, an RTC judge found self-confessed sex maniac Hayden Kho not guilty of the offense of illegally producing a sex video. Reason for the decision? The judge said that the victim, actress Katrina Halili, knew that she was being filmed by Kho, therefore, the video was not illegally obtained. Support for the judge's belief that Halili knew she was being videotaped? The camera was just five feet away from her, and therefore, the judge deduced, Halili would have known that she was being filmed. Stupid. This is the fourth stupid thing.


A day later, the SC squashed the petition questioning the legality of the election of former Pampanga Congressman Mikey Arroyo as representative of Ang Galing Pinoy, a partylist of security guards. The SC said that Arroyo, indeed, represents the partylist organization. This is the fifth stupid thing. 


And lastly, the Sandiganbayan granting Major General Carlos Garcia bail after pleading for a lesser offense of direct bribery. Garcia has been accused of plunder and violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Art which is worth 303 million. With the plea bargain, government is now poised to regain a fraction of the declared illegal money, which is about 130 million. This is the sixth stupid thing.


Learnings:


1. In the first stupid thing: Don't forget that thieves share one common class. Don't mis-classify those sophisticated ones (The Arroyos) with that of the roques (The Pereses) because that's a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. If you want the truth, prosecute all members of the class of thieves. 


2. In the second stupid thing: If you think you have money for a prolonged court battle, and you have connections, then do what you want. Hubert Webb was brutally frank when he admitted that the reason why he is now a free man is his family, especially his father, who is a former Senator and Congressman. Webb successfully defended his innocence with complete documentation, a group of corroborative witnesses in his beck and call, and a battalion of legal minds who did serious legal work to buttress his alibi that he was not present when the Vizconde Massacre took place. Lucky for Hubert, but not so lucky on other innocents out there suffering inside cramped cells, who are now getting old, but lack the money and the influence Hubert got, to prove their innocence.


3. Third stupid thing: If you want to video tape your sexual exploits with your unknowing fiancee, put your camera at least five feet away from the bed. Enuf said.


4. Fourth stupid thing: If you want to regain your illegally obtained properties, go, tell the courts that those hectares and hectares of property were yours before you even got married. Don't mind those thousands of articles quoting you as saying that you were once poor and destitute before your marriage to the Congressman of Ilocos. And don't worry that you even don't have any title for those properties. Just enter into a compromise with the PCGG.


5. Fifth stupid thing: Prove that you're a security guard and is worthy of representing the class despite the very obvious fact that you, yourself, have been the most abusive employer of security guards. Don't worry, you have your mother's friends in high places to back you up.


6. Sixth stupid thing: When you steal other people's hard-earned monies, steal big. Don't worry. You can enter into a plea bargain agreement with a bunch of nincoompoops posturing as government prosecutors and share with them half of the loot. 

Vizconde Massacre Update 2: The Testimony of Other Witnesses

The Supreme Court blasted the testimony of the star witness in the Vizconde massacre case. But, how about the security guard's testimony in G.R. No. 176389, who positively identified one of the suspects, Michael Gatchalian, and his friends, entering and leaving the BF homes subdivision the night of the gruesome massacre.


Unknown to the public, there were several other witnesses who presented themselves before the courts. There were two security guards and one laundry woman whose testimonies were given credence before the local court. The Supreme Court found loopholes in their respective testimonies and advertedly, rejected all of them. The Tribunal instead trained their guns at Jessica Alfaro, the star witness, whom two courts, the Regional Trial Court of Paranaque and the Court of Appeals, found extremely credible.


The SC established one singular fact which convinced all of them to render a favorable decision for the Webbs--that Alfaro is a perjured witness, and that she was an NBI agent. 


Examining the facts of GR. No. 176389, Alfaro was indeed an NBI agent. She began acting as one only in 1994--three years after the gruesome crime. 


Kung ang motibasyon ni Alfaro ay magpalakas lamang sa kanyang mga NBI handlers, hindi ba rasyunal na isipin na dapat noon pa lamang 1991 ay nagpakita na ito ng gilas at nagpresenta bilang eye-witness? Bakit 3 taon pa ang nakaraan bago gawin ni Alfaro ang nasabing pag-amin na nakita niya ang naganap na patayan sa bahay ng mga Vizcondes?


Dito pa lamang, kitang kita na na si Alfaro ay isang dating kriminal na lumabas lamang sa kanyang lungga matapos siguro ng tatlong taong pagmumuni-muni. 


GR No. 176389 is a bit curious for one thing---nowhere did the Supreme Court discussed theories or principles of law. The Tribunal only discussed the facts of the case which were already established by the local courts. It was like the Tribunal assumed the role of both the RTC and the Court of Appeals--they reviewed the facts of the case to 


The question really by some legal eagles is simple--is the Supreme Court empowered to be a "trier of facts"?


In Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, we find the definition of judicial power as a power vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. "Judicial power" includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.


Section 4 (1) outlines the powers given by the Constitution to the Supreme Court. In numerous cases, the Highest Tribunal of the land only reviews cases from the local courts. The Court determines whether or not there has been an erroneous interpretation of the law or that there has been a grave abuse of discretion by the courts which harmed the rights of the parties involved.  In GR no. 165968, Pepsi-Cola Products vs. Santos, the Highest Court said categorically that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. 


However, the Supreme Court only assumes this role (trier of facts) if there are glaring errors on the part of the lower courts in evaluating pieces of evidence. Testimonies are part of evidence. 


In GR. NO. 176389, we find the Supreme Court assuming the role of the lower courts. This is clearly, an abuse of its powers considering the fact that the members of the court were not present during the trial and cannot, by any circumstances, judge by what they saw. Members of the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of the accused in this case, never saw the demeanor of the witnesses, who positively identified the accused in court, never even saw the actual presentation of the pieces of evidence and never even heard the argumentations in court.


The HIghest Tribunal was only presented with the position papers and the pieces of evidence presented and entered in court. How, then, can the Court truly say that Alfaro's testimony is non-sense and devoid of any rationality?


The case of rape can be established solely on the basis of the victim's testimony(People of the Philippines vs. Elmer Barberos alias “EMIE”, G.R. No. 187494, December 23, 2009.). In this case, the victim was killed by her assailant or assailants. Is the testimony of an eye-witness enough to convict someone of rape? Yes. 


If Alfaro really perjured herself before the courts, Judge Tolentino and members of the Court of Appeals should have noted it and therefore, dispensed of her "wild story". They did not. Is the Supreme Court saying that both courts have erred in evaluating and recognizing the substantiveness of these pieces of evidence?


Besides, Alfaro was not an NBI agent when the crime was allegedly committed in June of 1991. The testimony of Atty. Sacaguing that he was approached by Alfaro and that Alfaro herself volunteered to be a star witness in the crime is not enough to impeach her as an eye witness. 


The testimony of an eye-witness is enough to convict someone of the crime of rape. In this case, however, there must be enough grounds to establish the presence of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime. 


Hubert Webb presented numerous documents proving his alibi that he was not present during the commission of the crime. He was in the United States when the crime was allegedly committed. Read the dissenting opinion of GR. No. 176389 and you'll find that one of the Associate Justices actually disbelieved Webb's assertion that he was present during the time. Besides, there were insinuations that the Webb's used the enormous powers of the Office of the Senator to "cleanse HUbert Webb's tracks".


This I find extremely incredulous. How can you refute the certifications made by the US government and corroborated by several other witnesses who saw Huber Webb in the US during the period from April to June of 1991?


For the first time, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier rulings about the weakness of alibis and said that if there are sufficient grounds to support the alibi, then, the Court should have accepted this. In GR no. 176389, there were sufficient grounds to support the alibi of Webb.


When I was covering the Vizconde massacre hearings before the Court of Tolentino, I saw the alleged video of Hubert Webb, enjoying his vacation in the United States. I don't remember the date of the video but clearly, this video established that he was not around when the Vizcondes were killed. 


Okey, granting that Webb was not there when Carmela and her mother and sister were killed, who then ordered their killing? 


Read the next entry.