The Vizconde Massacre looks like it's going to be in those cases, still Case Unclosed. Back in the 1990s, the Vizconde Massacre was one of the cases I heard while growing up. I once believed that Hubert Jeffry P. Webb was guilty. I actually wanted to see the man get the death penalty. What shocked me was that after many years, Hubert, along with Francisco Juan "Paco" G. Larrañaga, were both innocent of the crimes they were accused of! Since the crime happened in 1991, and the trial only began in 1995. Right now, it turns out that Jessica Alfaro, the "star witness" is living somewhere in Canada. The rumors of the Chiong Sisters living in Canada can't be proven. However, it's proven that Jessica is living in Canada.
From the Asian Human Rights Commission, here's a summary of the Vizconde Case. Since I'm not writing this as a book report in middle school or high school, I'll paste the summary here:
VIZCONDE MASSACRE CASE: This case is about the gang rape and murder of a 19-year-old woman, the murder of her 7-year-old sister and their mother on June 30, 1991 at their home in Paranaque City, Metro Manila. This is one of the most controversial and widely publicised massacre cases because of the involvement of the son of a former Philippine Senator, Freddie Webb; and six others from a wealthy family background similar to that of the accused.
Webb’s son, Hubert Jeffrey, is also the brother of a television host, Pinky, in one of the largest television networks in the country. Webb’s co-accused, Antonio Lejano, is a son of a known singer and celebrity. The other accused were Artemio “Dong” Ventura, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio “Pyke” Fernandez, Peter Estrada, Miguel “Ging” Rodriguez, and Joey Filart. A police officer, Gerardo Biong, has also been charged for destroying the evidence at the crime scene.
The prosecution of this case only began in August 10, 1995, four years after the massacre happened, when Jessica Alfaro, an informant working for the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), told lawyer Artemio Sacaguing, an official of the NBI, that “she knew someone who had the real story behind the Vizconde massacre”. When she could not produce the person, Sacaguing continued to press her saying that “she might as well assume the role of her informant.”
Acting solely on Alfaro’s testimony, the Department of Justice (DoJ) filed charges of rape with homicide against the eight accused on August 1995. The DoJ also placed Alfaro under the Witness Protection Program (WPP) during the trial period. The NBI is the agency responsible in providing security and protection of witnesses admitted under WPP. The NBI is a special investigating body attached to the DoJ.
On January 4, 2000, the Regional Trial Court of Paranaque City rendered its judgement “finding all the accused guilty as charged” imposing a penalty of life imprisonment. When the accused appealed the decision, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgement of conviction by the RTC. On April this year, the Webbs filed an “urgent motion to acquit” when they found out that the NBI “no longer has custody of the specimen” that was taken from the body of the rape victim, Carmela Visconde.
During the trial, accused Webb made a defence of alibi claiming that he was in the United States when the massacre of the Vizcondes happened. To support this, Webb presented a “Certification issued by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service” of August 31, 1995 confirming that “his entry into that country was recorded”. But both the RTC and the CA rejected his defence ruling that his “alibi cannot stand against Alfaro’s positive identification of him as the rapist and killer”.
On December 14, 2010, the SC rendered its decision on the appeals of the accused, questioning the guilty verdict by the RTC and the CA. It took the trial and appeal process in this case fifteen years. The SC acquitted all the accused, reversing and dismissing the guilty verdict of the RTC and the CA.
Instead of watching those movies about the Vizconde Massacre, the documentary above covers up some mysteries. Some of the key people here are the late Atty. Rene Saguisag. Former justice secretary Atty. Vitaliano N. Aguirre II was also part of Hubert's legal counsel. Aguirre walked out in frustration. At first, I thought it was because he was being disrespectful to court proceedings. It's because Aguirre got controversial when he covered his ears when the late Miriam Defensor Santiago berated the prosecution panel, during the late Renato Corona's impeachment. However, Aguirre knew for well his client Hubert, was innocent of the accused crime. As I watched the documentary, it started to put many questions on Jessica's claims, and the claims of two former housemaids (since the other housemaids have different testimonies), and there were already documents.
This also raises the question of how reliable was Jessica anyway, after she confessed to being a drug addicti? Sure, I'm skeptical about the reliability of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, especially when it comes to the Chiong Sisters Case. However, I'll quote this excerpt from the Supreme Court itself containing the decision for Hubert's acquittal:
The paper of authors Burrus and Marks, "Testimonial Reliability of Drug Addicts,"[18] teaches:
. . . [W]here the prolonged use of drugs has impaired the witness' ability to perceive, recall or relate, impeaching testimony is uniformly sustained by the courts. Aside from organic deterioration, however, testimony may be impugned if the witness was under the influence of drugs at the time of perceiving the event about which he is testifying or at the time he is on the stand. This necessarily follows, for even the temporary presence of drugs affects the functioning of the body's organs, and thus bears directly on the credibility of the witness' testimony...[19] (underscoring supplied)
Evidence derived from the testimony of a witness who was under the influence of drugs during the incident to which he is testifying is indeed very unreliable.[20] So it has been held that "habitual users of narcotics become notorious liars and that their testimony is likely to be affected thereby."[21]
We believe it will be admitted that habitual users of opium, or other like narcotics, become notorious liars. The habit of lying comes doubtless from the fact that the users of those narcotics pass the greater part of their lives in an unreal world, and thus become unable to distinguish between images and facts, between illusions and realities.[22] (underscoring supplied)
This also reminds me of the Chiong Sisters' Case' "star witness" Davidson V. Rusia (read here). If David was truly under the influence of drugs and alcohol and the crime happened--it doesn't only put the claims against Francisco Juan "Paco" G. Larrañaga to the test. It also puts David's testimony to the test. In Give Up Tomorrow, it was questioned why was David even allowed to testify when drug addicts don't make good witnesses. The acquittal of Hubert et al but not Paco et al can be rather suspicious. Was it because the chief justice at that time, Atty. Hilario G. Davide, was related by marriage to Thelma Jimenea-Chiong? Hubert's acquittal in court was some time after the Chiong Sisters Case happened. What can't be denied is that we can't rely on the testimony of an addict, even a self-confessed one. Was a drug test and other forms of test done on Jessica at that time? That's another thing worth asking.
I don't blame the Vizcondes for believing this woman. After all, the relatives wanted closure over what happened. I would definitely be outraged if what happened to the Vizcondes, happened to me. However, the emergence of Jessica only gave false hope to the victims' relatives. One must wonder that after more than 30 years, where are the real murderers of the three females? Why does Jessica still stand by her "testimony" after all these years? It might be because she was paid a huge reward for it. Maybe, Jessica is enjoying life in Canada without any remorse whatsoever.
Comments
Post a Comment