Skip to main content

The Vizconde Massacre and Trial by "Trust Me Bro"?


As Christmas approaches, another case worth revisiting for history vs. gossip is the Vizconde Massacre. I watched Crime Investigation Asia uploaded on YouTube. I wrote about the documentary Give Up Tomorrow--a documentary that explores the irregularities while pursuing justice for the late Chiong sisters, Jacqueline Jimenea Chiong and Marijoy Jimenea Chiong. I feel compelled to write about the Vizconde Massacre. For more than 10 years, I used to believe that Hubert Jeffry Pagaspas Webb, son of Freddie Webb, was guilty. It turns out that according to Crime Investigation Asia--it was really a trial by gossip. In my case, I want to call it a trial of Trust Me Bro. 


I still read comments about how footage of Hubert in the States could've been "easily tampered". Yet, those who comment haven't presented the evidence. I guess if I asked for their evidence, they'll just say, "Trust me bro!" Granted, photo editing was still in its infancy back then so how could anybody who claimed it was tampered with have even a single proof for that claim Well, that's what the documentary about the Vizconde Massacre revealed. A lot of evidence that pointed to Hubert's innocence was somehow, I dare believe, conveniently ignored. Until now, I still feel something was not right concerning the Vizconde Massacre.

Ramon Tulfo wrote for the Inquirer an article called "A lesson in forgiveness". I would agree that the judge herself, Amelita G. Tolentino, was biased. The article mentioned that Tolentino herself was eyeing a position in the Court of Appeals. Did that desire, if ever, blind the judge? Did the judge have some motive? I can't be too sure but while watching the documentary--I think I would've probably slapped the judge, been sent to jail, and gotten de-barred if I was among Hubert's lead counsel! I even want to say that the judge herself is very maldita which means mean-spirited woman.

Why I felt it was a trial of "Trust Me Bro"

The timeline of the Vizconde Massacre would be as follows. June 29-30, 1991, was when the crime happened. There were also movies such as The Vizconde Massacre Story followed up by The Untold Story: Vizconde Massacre II May The Lord Be With Us. These were screened during the trial. I find this all to be unethical, especially when in 1995, the new suspect, Jessica Alfaro (who frequently wore shades for some reason) appeared. It was when things started to fall into place.

The documentary revealed 142 pieces of evidence ignored. We have Tolentino herself who said that it's not the amount but the quality. Yet, Crime Investigation Asia surely had presented the proof that Tolentino ignored. Tolentino had condemned herself in that statement. Was Tolentino insinuating that Jessica herself was more reliable than the evidence she probably just rejected as an inconvenience? Isn't it protocol to examine every piece of evidence? I guess that's why there was this article from The Philippine Star called "The Tolentino Blunder". It was written nine years before Hubert got acquitted for a crime he could've never committed. It was because Hubert was in America when it all happened. 

Why are Jessica's statements listened to? I guess it's because of how intriguing the story was. Her story was probably very fascinating. Yet, there were several inconsistencies that Crime Investigation Asia's documentary pointed out. I guess people were more interested in hearing what Jessica had to say because it sounded more interesting. In the case of the late Lauro Vizconde, here's a man who's desperate to find out who did the crime. It's sad, really, that Vizconde would die without knowing who was responsible for the crime. That's what Hubert later said that the real murderers must be found! Vizconde still believes the lies Jessica uttered in court. I guess it's because desperation caused him to believe it. I'm sickened at how Jessica's probably still enjoying life out there. Though, Jessica will sooner or later get what's coming to her. 

Why were the 142 pieces of evidence ignored? I guess it's because, facts, unlike gossip, can be very boring. For some students, history is a very boring lesson. People would rather gossip nonsense than study for a history exam. If the judge was in doubt then why not have them examined? How could Tolentino just say that it may have been tampered with if she didn't have it examined? I guess that's why former Philippine justice secretary, Vitaliano N. Aguirre II, walked out. At first, I thought it was an act of disrespect like he did during the impeachment trial of the late Renato Corona. It turns out that Hubert was truly a victim of public outcry and a biased judge as the documentary presented. Any good judge would have complied with protocol. Why not have all 142 pieces of evidence examined before making a verdict? It seemed that the judge pre-judged the case if that's the case!

The outrage can be there. Hubert was really in the States all along when the crime happened. Yet, we have a very biased judge who contradicted herself. We have a man who did nothing wrong arrested and wrongfully arrested for 15 years. I wonder if his wife, whom he met in jail, was also wrongfully accused? I believe that the rest of the people with Hubert were nothing more than fall guys. I'm glad Hubert is out of jail. Yet, the fight isn't over. One must question where are the real killers. One must question why was this gross injustice allowed to happen? 

When Hubert later gets involved in the premiere of a similar case


Later on, Hubert appeared in the 2012 premiere of Give Up Tomorrow. It's because, like the Vizconde Case, the real murderers of Jacqueline and Marijoy were never found. It turns out that Juan Francisco Gonzales Larranaga aka Paco was in Quezon City in Manila during the night of the crime. It shocked me to no end to learn that Paco was innocent of that crime. Sure, Paco did have some previous cases such as the fight in the parking lot. Yet, nothing changes the fact that Paco and seven others were wrongfully arrested, one of them (according to the documentary) was actually tortured, and it wasn't a fair trial. Hubert knows what it's like to be wrongfully accused.

Hubert had his Christmas gift on December 10, 2010. I'm glad that Hubert is among others who are speaking against being wrongfully accused. It's no wonder why cries for the abolition of the death penalty are there. I may be for the death penalty but I agree that wrongful executions can happen. I agree with some of those who want it abolished because the wrong people can get executed as well. The problem is with the judicial system which is why I'm not in a hurry to get the death penalty back. Though, I want to see it restored and reserved only for wicked authority figures who misuse the law. I'm glad Hubert and the others wrongfully accused were released. Now, one must wonder who masterminded their frame-up? Where are the real killers now? I could dare say that trial by Trust Me Bro may have protected the real perpetrators all this while. 

Unfortunately, some people still ignore the cold-hard facts. The facts stated that Hubert was in the States when the crime happened. Yet, some people still side with the inconsistency of Jessica's testimony. Some still uphold that Tolentino wasn't a biased judge. This case should be a call against trial by Trust Me Bro. 

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

What's the Use of Complaining About Celebrities and Political Dynasties Running for Politics While DEFENDING Presidential and Rejecting Parliamentary?

2025 is just around the corner for the midterm elections . People keep emphasizing the need to "defend the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines" for any amendments whatsoever. If that were true then we really need to remove Article XVII entirely if the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines was meant to be set in stone (read here ). Several camps whether it's PDP-Laban supporters, Liberal Party of the Philippines supporters, Uniteam supporters, etc.--I can expect social media mudslinging at its finest . I keep talking about the need to amend or even replace the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. However, they keep acting like it's the best constitution in the world, they cite Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. (and others like the Monsods) to idolatrous levels , and when I talk about the parliamentary system--I can expect the whole, "Boohoo! It will never work because we already tried it under Marcos! The proof was Cesar Virata!" However, I wrote a refute on that ...
Read more

No to Cha Cha Because of EDSA?

Back when I was in elementary, we were told that EDSA 1986 was a good thing. I don't want to deny the well-documented human rights abuses of the first Marcos Administration . The repeated call to amend or reform the constitution has unfortunately been demonized as if it's always a bad thing. I guess that's a result of people with poor reading (and listening) comprehension for so long . If only people started to read in-between the details of Philippine history, if only people read through the book From Third World to First and not just quote the late Lee Kuan Yew about the Marcoses, they'll see that using EDSA to demonize charter change is really a bad move. Startling facts during the Marcos Years that may have been ignored by anti-charter change proponents What happened during EDSA was practically a revolutionary government . Above is a video of the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy. I confess that I do tend to admire Ninoy, especially with his Los Angeles sp...
Read more

Why EDSA Should Be a Reason to Support, NOT Oppose Cha Cha

  I don't doubt that the EDSA Revolution left a legacy to the world. Yesterday, I wrote a piece where I asked if EDSA should be a reason to say no to cha-cha . It was a peaceful revolution though it's often argued that the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. didn't want to further ruin his already  tarnished image  in front of the world. How true was it that President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., in his younger days, wanted to run over the protestors? However, consider EDSA wasn't really one of a kind. The Indian pacifist Mohandas Karamchand "Mahatma" Gandhi, and his  writings inspired the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy . also led a similar revolution against the  unjust  British occupation of India during that time. Gandhi may have been dead by the time Ninoy read about Gandhi. However, Gandhi's peaceful protests left a legacy that was probably not so well-known before. Today, the Indian economy has been doing better than the Philippines. I even consult...
Read more

The EDSA Revolution of 1986 Would've Never Happened if People were Stuck in Nostalgia

  It's something that I read crybaby comments online where people are saying, "Making EDSA a special working day is making us forget the glory of EDSA." Please, let me remind people that even 10 years later , neither the late Lee Kuan Yew's birthday nor his death anniversary has become a national holiday in Singapore! Singapore simply honored LKY's birthday by working on that day. I was laughing at the toxic Facebook page called We Are Millennials. What truly made me think that these people are stuck in nostalgia is that EDSA 1986 would never have been possible if the Filipinos were stuck in nostalgia . I remember talks about how the first Marcos administration was built on these two pillars. The first pillar was information control . The other pillar was toxic positivity. I remember back in 1995 when the social studies teacher talked about how he thought that Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was a "good president" due to the long holidays. However, the holidays ...
Read more

[OPINION] Why Do Some Filipino Boomers Insist that the Marcos Years Were Under a "Parliamentary System"

  This is a screenshot I got on Facebook. The Tweet is courtesy of Raissa Espinosa-Robles, who I hear is a marites or a gossiper. I'm not denying that there are some truths in what she said. It's true that the Marcos Years have their well-documented human rights abuses. However, Mrs. Robles still continues to insist in the myth of a parliamentary system under Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s regime. It's not just Mrs. Robles but also some Filipino boomers who keep saying, "Are you crazy? We had a parliamentary system under Marcos."  I could show them some evidence like Marcos' severe lack of legitimacy to disprove the parliamentary systme. I even wrote about the snap elections because Marcos was a president with powers (read here ). Under a parliamentary system, the president is purely ceremonial. The president is just a door opener and credentials receiver! Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. and Salvador "Doy" Laurel both challenged the legitimacy of Marcos...
Read more