Antonio Lejano vs.

People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 176389
December 14, 2010
Vizconde Massacre
FACTS:
Estellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela and XXX were brutally slain at their
home in Paranaque City. Four years later in 1995, the NBI announced that it had
solved the crime. It presented star-witness Jessica Alfaro who claimed that she
had witnessed the crime. She pointed Antonio Lejano and other identified men.
Alfaro had been working as an asset to the NBI by leading the agency to criminals.

In Alfaro’s story, she stated that after she and the accused got high of shabu, she
was asked to see Carmela at their residence. After Webb was informed that
Carmela had a male companion with her, Webb became piqued and thereafter
consumed more drugs and plotted the gang rape on Carmela. Webb denied all
the accusations against him with the alibi that during the whole time that the
crime had taken place, he was staying in the United States.

He presented photocopies of his passport with four stamps recording his entry
and exit from both the Philippines and the US, Flight’s Passenger Manifest
employment documents in the US during his stay there and US-INS computer
generated certification authenticated by the Philippine DFA. Aside from these
documentary alibis, he also gave a thorough recount of his activities in the US.

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. Unfortunately, the NBI
informed that it no longer has custody of the specimen having been turned over
to the trial court. However, the trial record shows that the specimen was not
among the object evidence that the prosecution offered in evidence in the case.
This led to his outright acquittal.

ISSUE: Should Webb’s documented alibi of his U.S. travel be given more credence
by the Court than the positive identification by Alfaro.
RULING: Yes. Webb’s documented alibi of his U.S. travel should be given more
credence than the positive identification by Alfaro.

For a positive identification to be acceptable, it must meet at least two criteria:

1. The positive identification of the offender must come from a credible
witness; and
2. The witness’ story of what she personally saw must be believable, not
inherently contrived.

Alfaro and her testimony failed 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 the agency for sometime as a stool pigeon, one paid for mixing up
with criminals and squealing on them. 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 incompatible acts of Webb, for example, saying that she hurled a
stone at the front door glass frames just so she can accommodate the crime scene
feature.

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.

To establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, clear and satisfactory
evidence that:
1. He was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the
crime, and
2. That it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.

The Supreme Court gave very high credence to the compounded documentary
alibi presented by Webb. This alibi altogether impeaches Alfaro’s testimony not
only with respect to him, but also with respect to the other accused. For, if the
Court accepts the proposition that Webb was in the US when the crime took
place, Alfaro’s testimony will not hold altogether.

The Court concludes by providing a question before judgment: 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?

Hence, the accused were immediately released from detention.