The crime was committed in June 1991 when Estrellita, Carmela and Jennifer Vizconde were killed at their house. Suspects were arrested, confessions were signed but the case was dismissed.
In 1995, on the strength of an “eyewitness” account, eight young men — 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 (Ventura and Filart were never found and arrested) — were tried for rape with homicide. In 2000, the trial court convicted them.
In 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
In a decision promulgated on December 14, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and ordered their release.
Release? Yes, release. For 15 years, from the time they were arrested to the day the Supreme Court reversed the conviction, the accused were in detention. Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution says, “All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law…” Rape with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment).
If it’s difficult to appreciate the length of time by sheer numbers, I look at it this way: In June 1991 when the Vizcondes were killed, Speedy was my boyfriend. Today, our firstborn, Sam, is 18 years old. In 1995 when Hubert Webb, et al. were arrested, our younger daughter, Alex, was one year old. She will turn 17 in January. In 2000 when the accused were convicted by the trial court, Sam was in Grade 2 and Alex was in Grade 1. Today, they are both in college. Hubert Webb and the other accused were young men when they were arrested and jailed; today, they are middle-aged men.
When I read the Supreme Court decision last night (click here for the full text of the Supreme Court decision on People vs. Webb, et al.), I wasn’t sure if I believe that the accused are innocent. I’m still not sure. Even the Supreme Court isn’t. What the decision says is that the prosecution FAILED to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And that’s not the same as saying that they are innocent. No, not the same at all.
It is difficult — and unfair — for a by-stander to pass judgment on the guilt and innocence of the accused. So, I won’t. But the Supreme Court decision is significant in ways beyond the question of guilt or innocence. In fact, what it says is downright scary.
1. In the opening paragraph of the decision, the Supreme Court says:
On June 30, 1991 Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela, nineteen years old, and Jennifer, 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.
The details are found farther down in the decision:
…the police had arrested some “akyat-bahay” group in Parañaque and charged them with the crime. The police prepared the confessions of the men they apprehended and filled these up with details that the evidence of the crime scene provided…
Not surprisingly, the confessions of some members of the Barroso “akyat bahay” gang, condemned by the Makati RTC as fabricated by the police to pin the crime on them, shows how crime investigators could make a confession ring true by matching some of its details with the physical evidence at the crime scene.
What does that tell us? The police can and will arrest anyone, they will concoct confessions and they can force suspects to sign those confessions. Sure, the court eventually dismissed the case but what did those suspects have to bear while in detention and while the police were forcing them to sign the confessions? Sounds like something out of a movie? Well, it happens in real life.
2. Star witness Jessica Alfaro’s initial statement to the NBI was that “she knew someone who had the real story behind the Vizconde massacre.” When she failed to produce this “someone”, she told Atty. Artemio Sacaguing, former head of the NBI Anti-Kidnapping, Hijacking, and Armed Robbery Task Force (AKHAR) Section: “Easy lang, Sir. Sir, relax lang, Sir, papapelan ko, papapelan ko na lang ‘yan.” That’s from the testimony of Atty. Sacaguing himself.
Despite that, Alfaro was put on the stand as an eyewitness and it was primarily her testimony that got Webb, et al. convicted.
At which point could the anomaly have been detected? First, at the NBI level, naturally. Second, at the prosecutorial level. Surely, the government prosecutors should have smelled a rat? Third, during the trial itself. Atty. Sacaguing testified as to that conversation with Alfaro and the trial court did not realize its significance? Fourth, during the appeal. Just like the trial court, the Court of Appeals seems to have dismissed that part of Atty. Sacaguing’s testimony without much thought.
Does incompetence permeate the justice system at all levels?
On the other hand, we might ask whether Sacaquing’s testimony truly ought to be dismissed considering that Jessica Alfaro withstood multiple cross-examinations. Surely, that wouldn’t have been possible if she were lying? I don’t know. Some people are exceptionally good at lying. People trained in the ways of espionage can even live double lives without being found out. And Jessica Alfaro was an NBI “asset” beginning 1994.
3. What about the missing sperm specimen? After the killings, sperm was retrieved from the body of Carmela Vizconde. DNA tests were non-existent back in 1995 but by the time the case went on automatic appeal to the Supreme Court, DNA testing was already possible. Hubert Webb wanted the sperm specimen retrieved and tested to prove his innocence. BUT, according to the Supreme Court decision:
…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.
Lost evidence? What does that say about the quality of the NBI’s work? The loss itself is already jaw-dropping. But for the NBI to try to wash its hands by claiming that the specimen was turned over to the trial court was downright mind-blowing.
4. Finally, there’s the issue of time. Fifteen years is a long time. A fifteen-year legal battle is draining — emotionally, financially, physically, mentally. If, indeed, Webb and his friends were not the ones who committed the crime, they lost fifteen productive years of their lives because the wheels of justice turn ever so slowly.
For the rest of us, for us the taxpayers who paid for the investigations, the costs of the trial and appeal, what we get is a massive failure. After all the time and money spent, there’s no one to be held accountable for the deaths of the Vizcondes.
UPDATE @3.46 p.m.
I was baking bread for the last three hours and, all the while, I was wondering about the applicability of double jeopardy. In other words, can the accused — Webb et al. — be tried again for the same crime?
The rule on double jeopardy states that no man may be tried for the same crime more than once. And it applies whether he has been previously acquitted or convicted. In the case of a previous conviction, he cannot be punished more than once for the same crime.
But it is also true than if a case is dismissed, meaning there is no ruling on the merits (no final judgment) and no clear acquittal, an accused can be tried again for the same crime. Hence, the term dismissed without prejudice which really means the People is not precluded from filing a new case. Double jeopardy does not apply.
In the case of Webb, et al., was there an acquittal which bars another trial? The decision says “ACQUITS” but it isn’t synonymous with a NOT GUILTY verdict. In fact, the decision says, “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.”
In strict legalese, of course, where there is failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted. In its most common context then, an acquittal has become synonymous with NOT GUILTY. But they’re not the same. Not really. And I’m wondering now whether an acquittal based on reasonable doubt vis a vis the rule on double jeopardy work as a disservice to the attainment of justice.
I’m thinking that somewhere in the future, some hotshot lawyer might question the use of the word ACQUITS under the circumstances and force a ruling that clearly differentiates an acquittal from a not guilty verdict.
Sheer incompetence on all levels. A "pwede na yan" and "buti na yung meron kesa sa wala" attitudes from the investigative level up. You're right in saying that we're still not sure. The facts of the case may never have been "facts" in the first place.
And it's funny how the Vizconde Massacre movie came out just 2 years after the crime ("true stories" were all the rage back then) and 2 years before Alfaro became the star witness. Perhaps none of the materials presented to the public in movie form or "The Probe Team" episodes were based on anything solid.
Prof Randy David put it accurately in one of his columns after the Rizal Park hostage crisis, our institutions have become downright rotten and screwed.
I cannot help but feel for Mr Vizconde, after all of that, 15 freakin' years, he's back to square one.
If it happened to me, I'd become criminally insane.
Sabi ko na nga ba! It will all boil down to that perennial problem: INCOMPETENCE. What makes this case WORSE is the presence of talented LIARS. If those were core competencies for economic progress, instead of reasons for infamy, we should've been a first-world country by now. [Similar Case: Even NoyNoy does not know who really masterminded killing his Dad]
Hm, now that you've mentioned the decision's implication on the double jeopardy rule, perhaps it would have been more proper if the Court had just ordered a retrial.
The Supreme Court couldn't because there was no motion for new trial.
It’s been a long time I have not passed by your website. I remember back then when MJ was acquitted you argued with the same thing (acquittal does not mean innocence). After hearing about the case, I though of going to your website again and here are your thoughts written all over the matter.
Now time to read the rest of your post and familiarize myself with the case…
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
It seems to me that the 7-4-4 decision (7 voted, 4 dissented and 4 abstained) reflected this phrase. Those who abstained combined with dissenters outnumbered those in favor of acquittal. Such a tragedy in justice.
Why do you combine the abstentions with the dissents? The law clearly says that the Supreme Court requires the majority of those who took part in deliberations is enough. Besides, even if we add the four to the total, are you assuming that all four of them would have voted for conviction? At the very least, Carpio would have voted to acquit, otherwise, he would be admitting that he lied under oath in his testimony in the lower court.
Well, you've ASSUMED that Carpio would have voted for acquittal (would it be more prudent for a justice officer to abstain for bias issue? Damn if you don't and damn if you do situation, isn't it?). How about the other three? What is your assumption except from "we would not know"?
The fact is that among the 15 Supreme Court justices, only 7 voted for acquittal.
One has to read the dissenting opinions to appreciate if there was or if there was no miscarriage of justice in this particular case. Not the one you're reading from the quack media and feeling-good blogs.
That is to illustrate how divisive is the high court to set aside the lower court ruling which was already upheld by the court of appeals. To follow your assumption, a 8-7 decision simply underscore the divisiveness resulting to miscarriage of justice. But that is the law as everybody would insist.
I still think Biong holds the key. Siya ang dapat pigain to make a confession. Who told him to clean up the place? It has to be someone wealthy and in power.
Yes, police Gerardo Biong arrested some “akyat-bahay” members in Paranaque and charged them with the crime. He prepared the confessions and filled these up with details the crime scene provided. Thus, the policeman was jailed 12 years for evidence tampering.
“Akyat-bahay” gang are solely interested for money or valuable properties. They don’t kill everybody just to get the money they want. It is even more totally absurd they have to rape somebody adding to theft/robbery and murder. That is out of whack.
Gang rape is a collective hate crime fueled by intense hatred like what Hubert Webb felt and rallied (pipilahan natin siya) his drug addicted accomplices to destroy the victim Carmela.
What is obvious that this corrupt policeman keep defending Webb and his gang as innocent despite the fact that he was convicted for tampering.
The time when every TV channel was on Webb's "acquittal", I was also watching the movie Judge Dredd from cable, who's always fond of saying "I know you'll say that" or anything that will be similar to that.
I was also thinking of your blog and there was an expectation on my part that you're going to blog something different from what our media is presenting us.
It seems I'm correct.
You've presented something different!!!
Justice delayed, justice denied.
Damn, this is so bad! This is probably one of the worst decision by the SC (but I applaud Corona's dissent). Of course there is no direct evidence, since policeman Gerardo Biong (Hubert's contact) was responsible for tampering evidences (was the first one to arrive at the crime scene when Hubert left his jacket and was told to do the cleanup) and thus convicted for 12 years. But there were enough strong circumstantial evidences for guilt "beyond reasonable doubt".
This is exactly why the son (Webb) of a senator, a son (Lejano) of actress Pinky de Leon, son (Fernandez) of retired commodore, sons (Gatchalian and Rodriguez) of prominent lawyers, nephew (Filart) of NCR chief, sons (Ventura and Estrada) of wealthy businessmen can get away with rape and murder. It is as if the eight murderers did not knew each other. All were drug addicts (shabu and cocaine) and pinned down because the star witness Jessica Alfaro (another drug addict) who was the message courier between Webb and the victim Carmela to leave the the kitchen door open. Jessica Alfaro was the girlfriend of the murderer and drug addict Peter Estrada.
Since the case is concluded with acquittal, the Jessica's life is very much on danger with the end of witness protection program. His ex-boyfriend is certainly not happy about her and so the rest of the gang.
Dear Senator Freddie Web, if you truly believe that your son is innocent why did you sent him to the United States for drug rehabilitation and yet refused to produce the US passport with all exit and entry dates to clear up where he was during the time of murder?
Because of this SC decision, I am losing faith in the Philippine justice system.
Hubert Webb's passport which was never introduced as evidence is the most interesting part of the lone dissenting opinion.
According to the Webbs, they presented the original as evidence in the lower court (the initial document presented was a photocopy). I heard they are going to upload online all the evidence they presented.
"According to the Webbs, they presented the original as evidence in the lower court…"
That's not what the evidence says.
I quote the dissenting opinion:
"The passport of accused-appellant Webb produced in evidence, and the inscriptions appearing thereon, also offer little support of Webb’s alibi. Be it noted that what appears on record is only the photocopy of the pages of Webb’s passport. The Court therefore can only rely on the appreciation of the trial court as regards the authenticity of the passport and the marks appearing thereon, as it is the trial court that had the exclusive opportunity to view at first hand the original of the document, and determine for itself whether the same is entitled to any weight in evidence."
Of course only photocopies appear in the records. The Webbs didn't surrender the original to the court, but it was presented for examination in the lower court.
Which affirms what the Webbs are saying, they presented the original in the lower court.
You're quoting from the CA decision which was, in turn, quoted in the disseting opinion.
Now, let quote from the actual dissenting opinion:
"Appellant Webb’s travel documents and other supposed paper trail of his stay in the US are unreliable proof of his absence in the Philippines at the time of the commission of the crime charged. The non-submission in evidence of his original passport, which was not formally offered and made part of the records, had deprived the RTC, CA and this Court the opportunity to examine the same. Such original is a crucial piece of evidence which unfortunately was placed beyond judicial scrutiny."
Need I emphasize that a formal offer of evidence has a very distinct meaning in law?
I know what formal offer means. The rules do not state that they need to offer the original passport in evidence (the passport itself will be in the custody of the court already). What they did was to present the photocopies and that was what they offered and made part of the records. The passport, they presented/showed it to the court when they were asked to. So the other side had the opportunity to examine the original and compare it to the photocopies. Look back at my previous posts and I never mentioned that they "offered" the original passport as evidence.
You're making it sound that they were hiding the original, and that the other side did not have the opportunity to see the original. "Hubert Webb’s passport which was never introduced as evidence is the most interesting part of the lone dissenting opinion." – the original may not have been offered in evidence, but the defense did not hide it, they allowed the prosecution to compare.
The law on evidence.
"Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a)When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b)When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c)When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d)When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office."
The passport was NOT offered not admitted as evidence. None of the exceptions apply. Res ipsa loquitur.
"You’re making it sound that they were hiding the original."
HAHAHA I bet you'd say that to whoever DOES NOT believe in the complete innocence of the accused.
Sass: “HAHAHA I bet you’d say that to whoever DOES NOT believe in the complete innocence of the accused.”
Sounds similar to Judge Dredd…
Judge Dredd: How do you plead?
Herman Ferguson: Not guilty?
Judge Dredd: I knew you’d say that.
"the original may not have been offered in evidence, but the defense did not hide it, they allowed the prosecution to compare" -Melvel
Oh boy, you assume that was the case but actually it was not.
Associate Justice Martin Villarama’s 88-page opinion was far more detailed than the 38-page majority ruling penned by Associate Justice Roberto Abad.
"It is worthy that the original of Webb’s passport was not offered as evidence … which only gives credence to the prosecution’s allegation that it bore signs of tampering and irregularities".
The statement clearly showed that the prosecution had not seen the original, hence the allegations of tampering.
Tsk. Tsk.
It is a huge part to the case, since the Senator go on lengthy trouble of documenting the travel of his son Hubert Webb to include Rajah Tours confirmation, Philippine immigration clearing confirmation, United Airlines manifest, US INS confirmation, US employer logbook( cousin in-law), California DMV, affidavits of US relatives and acquitances which are all selective.
But the damn Senator refused to provide a simple primary evidence – his son's Philippine passport to tell straight which country Hubert Webb was on early morning of June 30, 1991.
The Webb's alibi in the court abstract portrayed Hubert Webb as an angel,
"Senator Freddie Webb and his wife, Elizabeth, sent their son to the United States (U.S.) to learn the value of independence, hard work, and money".
Contrast this to the 12/6/10 statement of veteran broadcaster Ramon Tulfo agreed by ex-NBI Director Epimaco Velasco,
"That’s why he (Hubert Webb) was brought to the States for (drug) treatment by then Congressman Freddie Webb months before the Vizconde massacre took place".
Hubert Webb was sent to the US for treatment by his parents prior to the murder. It just made sense:
1. The victim Carmela was caught unaware of (her ex) Webb's presence until told by the witness Jessica (Webb's messenger).
2. The victim Carmela told the witness Jessica "that she could not go out yet since she had just arrived home".
3. "She told Alfaro to return after twenty minutes" which is to delay the inevitable meeting but 20 minutes showed urgency.
4. Because the victim was with her current boyfriend which was found out inadavertently by the witness when the victim hurriedly left to drop off the boyfriend outside the village.
5. "When she told Webb of Carmela’s male companion, Webb’s mood changed for the rest of the evening (bad trip)" – the motive of rape and murder.
Hubert Webb was not the ex-bf of Carmela. There was no evidence, other than what Alfaro is saying, that they even knew each other. Carmela had a boyfriend at that time.
Remember that the Vizcondes moved to BF only the year before the crime. They had not even spent a year in that house. They lived in Quezon City prior to BF Homes. Hubert and Carmela were not schoolmates, in high school or college. So the only logical time they could have met was when she moved to BF Homes…but she had a boyfriend.
There is nothing to stop Hubert Webb to have 2 or more girlfriends like most sons of powerful families. It is also common to have a girl messenger to a teenage girlfriend at that time especially if parents are averse to a guy who is a drug addict. Also, the guy dropped by Carmela could be a new bf or a suitor after Hubert Webb was sent to the US for treatment.
But Hubert Webb using Jessica Alfaro (related to Michael Gatchalian and girlfriend of Peter Estrada) to relay a message to Carmela suggested Hubert and Carmel may have a relationship.
I was saying based on Jessica's testimony, Carmela had two boyfriends. I never said anything about Hubert having two girlfriends.
Carmela having a boyfriend at that time was confirmed. I always wondered why they never asked him to testify…maybe because they couldn't get him to cooperate with their concocted story?
If you are still wondering, you should know by human nature that Carmela would NOT OFFER to tell a new person about drug addict boyfriend that was sent to the US for treatment. So the person cannot testify for something he had no knowledge.
Rather, it is absurd for the Webbs NOT TO OFFER the original passport but instead went on with numerous selective documents including the passport photocopy. Selective actions are done for a purpose.
@melvel –
Correct me if I'm wrong in the question of Hubert being Carmella's boyfriend:
You have these comments –
"I was saying based on Jessica’s testimony, Carmela had two boyfriends. I never said anything about Hubert having two girlfriends."
Meaning you believe Jessica's testimony that Carmella had two boy friends.
Curiously, you're other comment –
"Hubert Webb was not the ex-bf of Carmela. There was no evidence, other than what Alfaro is saying, that they even knew each other. Carmela had a boyfriend at that time."
Meaning, you believe that there has been no evidence, other than what
Jessica Alfaro was saying.
Which is which? Nitpicking?
And what is the concocted story? Hours of grilling Jessica Alfaro in the court was still not enough?
Do you really have a first hand information of how it happened?
It's just unfortunate that what is being published is the basis of the supreme court's decision with the exclusion of the dissenting opinions.
It is horrible how sons of prominent families in the Philippines act like Gods, and went on vengeful hatred.
Rape and murder is their common trade. In Maguindanao massacre, 5 women were raped and later shot at their genitals. The harshiest punishment was reserved for the enemy's wife, where each of private parts were slashed 4 times and fired bullets into it, both of her feet were cut off and beheaded.
In July 16, 1997, 20 yr old Marijoy Chiong (local beauty queen) and her sister 22 yr old Jacqueline were abducted, raped and murdered in Cebu. Marijoy former suitor Francisco Juan "Paco" Larranaga (great grandson of President Sergio Osmena) along with Jozman Aznar (family owned a university and hospital) and others were found guilty on May 5, 1999, by Cebu Regional Trial Court Judge Martin Ocampo. Five months after, the judge was found dead at Waterfront Hotel that was ruled in autopsy as suicide. But independent forensic test by UP Prof. Bailen suggested that the judge was beaten to death.
"Prof. Bailen claimed that the victim had a cardiac failure after absorbing the first few blows in the chest from the killer. In addition, the victim was reported to have two black eyes." -The Varsitarian.
I sympathize with Mr. Vizconde because of his loss yet who are we to say whose guilty and who's innocent.. we weren't there when it happened.
The law maybe cruel but that is the law.
If you cannot trust our justice system.. you are free to migrate to other countries.
"Beyond reasonable doubt"
Try watching The Practice or Boston Legal.. maybe you'll learn something.
"If you cannot trust our justice system.. you are free to migrate to other countries."
Soooo… the solution is to flee rather than to try to institute reforms? That is such a defeatist attitude.
"Try watching The Practice or Boston Legal.. maybe you’ll learn something."
Whoa. Try separating reality from fiction.
So well said Ms Connie. My daughter took Justice Studies in her final 2 senior years of high school . At the end of the second year each school had to argue a case before a real judge , in a real courtroom .Twelve parents were selected to sit as jury members . The trial was actually for an unlawful killing . One thing that struck me was how so very different it all was from what we see on television. The reality is a lot more stark and far less theatrical that those tv shows .
Yep, if people think that real courtroom action is anything like what they see on TV, they're in for a disappointment.
"We weren’t there when it happened" – Tembuang
Yeah, right but that also applies to everybody in the justice system from the trial judge, appellate court to the SC justices. The case had been for the guilty verdict from the lower court up to the appeals until 7 vs 8 (4 dissenters and 4 who refused) SC justices dwells on the technicality (alibi vs inconsistent testimony). That was a very close call for 7 of 15 justices to overturn both the lower court and the appellate decision.
In addition, you misunderstood the statement. The "can trust" is possible but the current feeling like most people do is "losing faith" on those charged with final responsibility based on this SC indecision.
These are seasoned and experienced lawyers put into the highest office and 4 abstentions is just too big as a factor to change the two previous decisions.
In simple language, people can demand better performance from the justice system than just suck up with it.
Ms Connie , where my I find a good background on this story? Something that a lay person could understand lol .
There's a recitation of facts in the decision itself.
Ms. Connie, does the Supreme Court ever really say outright in criminal cases brought on appeal that the accused is "innocent" or "not guilty"? The Supreme Court always says "the ruling of the lower court/CA is reversed" or the defendants are "acquitted". I don't recall ever reading a case where the Supreme Court states in the dispositive portion that the accused is not guilty or innocent.
"does the Supreme Court ever really say outright in criminal cases brought on appeal that the accused is “innocent” or “not guilty”?"
I don't know. Can't say I've read all criminal cases that went on automatic appeal. Makes for a good study though.
Of course, in reversals due to failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, "not guilty" cannot be spelled out because what really prevails is the presumption of innocence (then again, not all reversals are due to failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt). Which really brings it back to the pre-trial status. Logically, it shouldn't be called an acquittal; ergo, double jeopardy should not apply.
The decision states they are acquitted. Double jeopardy sets in. I don't see how it can be argued otherwise. The moment that the court rules, judging on the merits, that you are not liable for the crime charged, the first jeopardy is terminated. At least that's what I remember from law school.
I'm arguing against the very concept of double jeopardy and why it doesn't make sense in cases where acquittal is based on reasonable doubt.
"I don’t see how it can be argued otherwise."
You can't unless you free your mind from what you have always been taught about what double jeopardy means.
But the law and jurisprudence as it stands now states that there would be double jeopardy if another case against them would be filed.
So let's say I file a case against a person without sufficient evidence. The accused is incarcerated while the case in being tried, until the court finally acquits the accused because the prosecution was unable to establish "beyond reasonable doubt". The accused is released. A year later, I find a new witness, I file a new case hoping that this time, I'll be able to establish "beyond reasonable doubt". Accused is incarcerated again, court acquits again, accused is set free again. Then after a year, I find another witness, same pattern of events. Can this pattern go on and on and on, based on your reasoning?
One of the reasons why there's a double jeopardy rule is to have finality on litigation. Jurisprudence supports that rationale. Otherwise, there'll be no end and a case can go on forever an ever.
Just like you, I'm also curious what would be Sass's comment.
Seems hindi ka na pinatulan.
My $0.02 – if it can be proven that it is a dismissal and not an acquittal, then, there's no jeopardy in appealing the decision. I would say it's this post was all about.
BTW, you're scenarios actually is in reality in Singapore and Malaysia and I think also in England.
"Seems hindi ka na pinatulan."
Hehehe eh kesa naman tarayan ko pa.
“there’s a double jeopardy rule is to have finality on litigation”
SC Administrator Marquez said that the motion for reconsideration violated the double jeopardy article which already put finality to the case.
But he also laid a groundwork for double jeopardy exception. The decision did not rule on innocence but the (lack of) evidences presented.
A new evidence (say DNA of the co-accused) which did not put the co-accused in jeopardy in the first place because they were not presented can open new trial with the permission from the SC.
I'm willing to bet with you that the MR will be ignored by the SC. The prosecution can't just keep on digging for new evidence. They should have brought the case to the courts when they knew they had exhausted all possible witnesses/evidence they could find. Otherwise, the scenario I mentioned in my post above will happen. There'll be no end to litigation.
"Otherwise, there’ll be no end and a case can go on forever" – Melvel
When the double jeopardy rule was set aside in the Rolando Galman case, it brought the case to its conclusion rather than "go on forever".
Here is the SC decision on Galman below:
"In effect the first jeopardy was never terminated, and the remand of the criminal case for further hearing and/or trial before the lower courts amounts merely to a continuation of the first jeopardy, and does not expose the accused to a second jeopardy".
I am not saying the Vizconde case is the same as that of Galman. It is quite the opposite. In Vizconde, guilty verdict was found but overturned due to lack of evidence, compared to Galman's case with original acquittal but later convicted.
SC spokesman Marquez clarified that MR will no longer be entertained. So this is already a close book as far as the SC. But….there is the slim chance, the double jeopardy rule can be set aside.
Hence, the government ordered new investigation in view of prescription. The prescription itself is a strong safeguard that the case will not "go on forever". In England and Australia, double jeopardy rule for serious offenses was removed in fresh and compelling evidences.
I wish the government can make new grounds within the 6 months period and strong enough for the SC to set aside the rule. As things stand right now, Webb is free as a bird.
i thought that the CA washed its hands of the affair by passing it on to the Supreme Court.
CA affirmed the convictions.
It also blows my mind how Alfaro was able to withstand cross-examination from top notch lawyers, how NBI can lose evidence and the sloooowwwwww process of the trial, appeal…… I am just wondering about the Maguindanao massacre, it will take say 50 years perhaps….and a thousand blunders.
I predict that there will NEVER be any decision in the Maguindanao Massacre case . Look how long it took the Court in The Hague to convict the people responsible for War Crimes following the break up of the former Yugoslavia . And that court is far better resourced , staffed and trained .
I believe the Ampatuans will be convicted with the quality work done by the trial court judge. It may take long but we will get there.
I just hope and pray that you are right Ms Dodong.
Since this is your second time to refer me as Ms., do I look like a woman to you, Mark?
Let us see where you are you coming from, Mark.
Please accept my most sincere apologies. thank you for your patience with me and for pointing out my error . Once again I apologise.
d0d0ng, pagpasensyahan mo na. May problema sya sa compehension.
All the while, akala along the way, he could recalibrate himself. lalo pang lumala.
Mark: "I predict that there will NEVER be any decision in the Maguindanao Massacre case . Look how long it took the Court in The Hague to convict the people responsible for War Crimes following the break up of the former Yugoslavia . And that court is far better resourced , staffed and trained ."
I can't make the tail or head on that comment. What has the Court int he Hague has to do with our local courts? They're absolutely two different things. The Hague Courts (which one are you referring to? I can surmise it's the ICTY and not the ICC.) are both well-funded while our local ones are not.
I've known for quite some time that d0d0ng whom you referred to as Ms Dodong is a male.
Your gaffe again? Or maybe mine.
off topic and no offense to Dodong, yes your picture or photo is confusing….really looks like a woman specially the eyes and the lips. I suggest you change your picture?