Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila En Banc PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

- e!susHU)ERT *EFFRE+ P# ,E)), -NTONIO LE*-NO, MICH-EL -# "-TCH-LI-N, HOSPICIO FERN-N.E/, MI"UEL RO.RI"UE/, PETER ESTR-.- an0 "ER-R.O )ION", Accused-Appellants; -RTEMIO 1ENTUR-, *OE+ FIL-RT an0 *OHN .OES 2-t-La!3e4, Accused# 5-------------------------------------------------------5

"#R# No# $%&'&(

URGENT MOTION TO ACQUIT HUBERT JEFFREY WEBB

-ppellant HU)ERT *EFFRE+ ,E)), b6 counsel, !espectfull6 7o es fo! his ac8uittal on the follo9in3 :

Ground Appellant Webb !on t"tut"onal r"#$t to due pro!e %a &"olated %$en t$e 'tate( t$rou#$ ne#l"#en!e or %"ll)ul uppre "on( )a"led to produ!e t$e e*en pe!"*en t$at !ould $a&e pro&en Appellant Webb "nno!en!e+

,rel"*"nar- 'tate*ent

In its Resolution 0ate0 ;< -p!il ;<$<, the Hono!able Cou!t 3!ante0 appellant ,ebb=s !e8uest to sub7it the se7en speci7en ta>en f!o7 the ca0a e! of Ca!7ela 1i?con0e fo! .N- anal6sis# The Hono!able Cou!t allo9e0 appellant ,ebb to utili?e the latest a ailable .N- technolo36 to affo!0 hi7 the @fullest e5tent of his constitutional !i3ht to 0ue p!ocess#A$

-ppellant ,ebb, ho9e e!, has been 0enie0 the @fullest e5tent of his constitutional !i3ht to 0ue p!ocessA because the State can no lon3e! p!o0uce the se7en speci7en that 9as in its custo06# Th!ou3h no fault of appellant ,ebb, the State has lost o! supp!esse0 a ital piece of e i0ence that coul0 ha e p!o en, once an0 fo! all, that appellant ,ebb 0i0 not !ape Ca!7ela# Unfo!tunatel6 fo! appellant ,ebb, the!e is no othe! 9a6 fo! hi7 to obtain anothe! biolo3ical sa7ple co7pa!able 9ith the se7en speci7en e5t!acte0 f!o7 Ca!7ela=s bo06 a fe9 hou!s afte! he! 0eath#

In -7e!ican Bu!isp!u0ence, it has been hel0 that @the supp!ession b6 the p!osecution of e i0ence fa o!able to an accuse0 upon !e8uest iolates 0ue p!ocess 9he!e the e i0ence is 7ate!ial to eithe! 3uilt o! punish7ent, i!!especti e of the 3oo0 faith o! ba0 faith of the p!osecution#A; It has also been hel0 that the State has a constitutional 0ut6 to p!ese! e e i0ence 9ith e5culpato!6 alue that 9as appa!ent befo!e the e i0ence 9as 0est!o6e0# That e i0ence, 7o!eo e!, 7ust be @of such a natu!e that the 0efen0ant 9oul0 be unable to obtain co7pa!able e i0ence b6 othe! !easonabl6 a ailable 7eans# 5 5 5#AC

$ ; C

Sup!e7e Cou!t Resolution 0ate0 ;< -p!il ;<$<, p# $;# Brady v. Maryland, C%C U#S# 'C 2$D&C4# California v. Trombetta, (&% U#S# (%D 2$D'(4#

In the p!esent case, appellant ,ebb !espectfull6 sub7its that the loss o! supp!ession b6 the State of the se7en speci7en iolates his constitutional !i3ht to 0ue p!ocess, fo! 9hich !eason he is entitle0 to an ac8uittal#

BRIEF 'TATEMENT OF THE CA'E

$#

In its Resolution of ;< -p!il ;<$<, the Hono!able Cou!t 3!ante0 appellant

,ebb=s !e8uest fo! .N- testin3 of the se7en speci7en !eco e!e0 f!o7 Ca!7ela 1i?con0e=s bo06 0u!in3 he! autops6# -ppellant 7a0e this !e8uest of *u03e -7elita Tolentino 9a6 bac> in Octobe! $DD%, 9hen he file0 a Motion to .i!ect N)I to Sub7it Se7en Speci7en to .N- -nal6sis#( The National )u!eau of In esti3ation 2N)I4 ha0 info!7e0 appellant in a lette! 0ate0 ;C -p!il $DD% an0 si3ne0 b6 .!# Renato C# )autista of the N)I Me0ico-Le3al .i ision, that @the speci7en 3athe!e0 is still e5istin3 an0 in the custo06 of the )u!eau, p!ese! e0 on sli0es 5 5 5#AE

;#

-ppellant a!3ue0 that .N- testin3 of the se7en speci7en 9oul0 establish

his innocence, as the test !esults 9oul0 sho9 9hethe! the spe!7 foun0 in Ca!7ela 1i?con0e=s a3inal canal belon3e0 to hi7 o! not# @In othe! 9o!0s, if the P!osecution is co!!ect in its accusations that Hube!t ,ebb !ape0 Ca!7ela 1i?con0e, the spe!7ato?oa shoul0 be sho9n to belon3 to accuse0 Hube!t ,ebb#A&

C#

-ppellant=s 7otion fo! .N- testin3, ho9e e!, 9as oppose0 b6 the *u03e

P!osecution an0 e entuall6 0enie0 b6 *u03e Tolentino on ;E No e7be! $DD%#

Tolentino 9as of the belief that the p!opose0 .N- e5a7ination 9oul0 not se! e the en0s of Bustice but onl6 lea0 to co7plication an0 confusion of the case# % She cite0 $DD%

( E & %

People v. Webb et al., ollo, 1ol# $%, pp# $'&-$D;# !d#, p# $D;# !d#, pp# $'%-$''# Resolution 0ate0 ;< -p!il ;<$<, citin3 Reco!0s, 1ol# $%, pp# ;E&-;ED#

Bu!isp!u0ence in 9hich the Hono!able Cou!t 0ecla!e0 .N- to be a !elati el6 ne9 science an0 the!efo!e not 6et acco!0e0 official !eco3nition b6 the cou!ts# *u03e Tolentino also hel0 that the!e 9as no assu!ance that the se7en speci7en ha0 not been ta7pe!e0 9ith o! conta7inate0, an0 that appellant ha0 not sho9n that the p!ope! p!oce0u!e fo! the e5t!action an0 p!ese! ation of the se7en speci7en 9as co7plie0 9ith#'

(#

Since $DD%, ho9e e!, the la9 has finall6 cau3ht up 9ith a0 ances in

technolo36# Cou!t of -ppeals *ustice Lucenito Ta3le, in his .issentin3 Opinion, cite0 the Hono!able Cou!t=s !ulin3 in the ;<<( case of People v. "atarD to sho9 that .Ntestin3 coul0 finall6 settle the 8uestion of appellant=s 3uilt o! innocence, as follo9sF @In People s# +ata!, the Hi3h Cou!t pointe0 out the i7po!tance of a .N- e5a7ination, i?F @G.N- p!int o! i0entification technolo36 has been a0 ance0 as a uni8uel6 effecti e 7eans to lin> a suspect to a c!i7e, o! to e5one!ate a 9!on3l6 accuse0 suspect, 9he!e biolo3ical e i0ence has been left# Fo! pu!poses of c!i7inal in esti3ation, .N- i0entification is a fe!tile sou!ce of both inculpato!6 an0 e5culpato!6 e i0ence# It can assist i77ensel6 in effectin3 a 7o!e accu!ate account of the c!i7e co77itte0, efficientl6 facilitatin3 the con iction of the 3uilt6, secu!in3 the ac8uittal of the innocent, an0 ensu!in3 the p!ope! a07inist!ation of Bustice in e e!6 case# @G.N- e i0ence collecte0 f!o7 a c!i7e scene can lin> a suspect to a c!i7e o! eli7inate one f!o7 suspicion in the sa7e p!inciple as fin3e!p!ints a!e use0# Inci0ents in ol in3 se5ual assault 9oul0 lea e biolo3ical e i0ence such as hai!, s>in tissue, se7en, bloo0, o! sali a 9hich can be left on the icti7=s bo06 o! at the c!i7e scene# Hai! an0 fibe! f!o7 clothin3, ca!pets, be00in3, o! fu!nitu!e coul0 also be t!ansfe!!e0 to the icti7=s bo06 0u!in3 the assault# Fo!ensic .N- e i0ence is helpful in p!o in3 that the!e 9as ph6sical contact bet9een an assailant an0 a icti7# If p!ope!l6 collecte0 f!o7 the icti7, c!i7e scene o! assailant, .N- can be co7pa!e0 9ith >no9n sa7ples to place the suspect at the scene of the c!i7e#= @-s the e5a7ination con0ucte0 b6 .!# P!ospe!o Cabana6an 6iel0e0 the p!esence of hu7an spe!7ato?oa on the 3enitalia of Ca!7ela 1i?con0e, a DNA examination could have determined whether
' D

!d# (;' SCR- E<( 2;<<(4#

appellants Webb and/or Lejano did the bestial act or not and an independent and unbiased medical examiner could have ascertained whether the specimen semen was compromised or not. Also, it would have put an end to the question of whether accused Webb was reall in the countr or not.A 2E7phasis supplie0#4

E#

Mo!eo e!, on ; Octobe! ;<<%, the Hono!able Cou!t p!o7ul3ate0 the Rule

on .N- E i0ence,$< un0e! 9hich the @app!op!iate cou!t 7a6, at an6 ti7e, eithe! motu propio o! on application of an6 pe!son 9ho has a le3al inte!est in the 7atte! of liti3ation, o!0e! a .N- testin3# 5 5 5#A$$ The o!0e! shall issue afte! 0ue hea!in3 an0 notice to the pa!ties upon a sho9in3 of ce!tain facto!s#$;

&#

In ie9 of the p!o7ul3ation of the Rule on .N- E i0ence on ; Octobe!

;<<% an0 afte! se!ious 0elibe!ation, the Hono!able Cou!t !esol e0 to o!0e! a testin3 on the se7en speci7en as p!e iousl6 !e8ueste0 b6 appellant ,ebb befo!e the t!ial cou!t#$C The Hono!able Cou!t 0ecla!e0 that allo9in3 appellant to a ail of the latest .N- technolo36 9oul0 affo!0 hi7 the fullest e5tent of his constitutional !i3ht to 0ue p!ocess, as follo9sF

@It is 9ell to !e7in0 the pa!ties that a fla9e0 p!oce0u!e in the con0uct of .N- anal6sis of the se7en speci7en on the sli0es use0 0u!in3 the t!ial fo! 7ic!oscopic e5a7ination of hu7an spe!7ato?oa 7a6 6iel0 an inconclusi e !esult an0 thus 9ill not entitle the accuse0 to an ac8uittal# Mo!e i7po!tant, allowin! Webb to utili"e the latest available DNA technolo! does not automaticall !uarantee an exculpator DNA evidence, but simpl to afford appellant Webb the fullest extent of his constitutional ri!ht to due process#A$( 2E7phasis supplie0#4

$< $$ $; $C $(

-#M# No# <&-$$-E-SC effecti e $E Octobe! ;<<%# !d#, Section (# !d# Resolution 0ate0 ;< -p!il ;<$<, p# $<# !d#, p# $C#

%#

The Hono!able Cou!t thus o!0e!e0 the N)I to assist the pa!ties in

sub7ittin3 the se7en speci7en to the UP Natu!al Science Resea!ch Institute 2UP-NSRI4, as follo9sF

@,HEREFORE, in the hi3he! inte!est of Bustice, the !e8uest of appellant ,ebb to sub7it fo! .N- anal6sis the se7en speci7en ta>en f!o7 the ca0a e! of Ca!7ela 1i?con0e un0e! the custo06 of the National )u!eau of In esti3ation is he!eb6 "R-NTE.# The N)I is OR.ERE. to -SSIST the pa!ties in facilitatin3 the sub7ission of sai0 speci7en to the UP-Natu!al Science an0 Resea!ch Institute, .ili7an, Hue?on Cit6 an0 the6 2N)I an0 UP-NSRI4 a!e fu!the! OR.ERE. to REPORT to this Cou!t 9ithin fifteen 2$E4 0a6s f!o7 notice he!eof !e3a!0in3 co7pliance 9ith an0 i7ple7entation of this Resolution#A

'#

Thus, al7ost thi!teen 2$C4 6ea!s f!o7 the ti7e appellant fi!st !e8ueste0 fo!

the .N- anal6sis, he 9as finall6 3!ante0 that oppo!tunit6 as pa!t of his constitutional !i3ht to 0ue p!ocess# Unfo!tunatel6, 0espite the Hono!able Cou!t=s Resolution allo9in3 the .N- anal6sis, he 9as still 0enie0 that sin3ula! oppo!tunit6 to p!o e his innocence, as the State coul0 not p!o0uce the se7en sa7ple that 9as to be sub7itte0 to the UP-NSRI fo! .N- anal6sis#

ARGUMENT T$e lo or uppre "on b- t$e 'tate o) t$e e*en pe!"*en ..................................................... . D# In the Co7pliance an0 Manifestation 0ate0 ;% -p!il ;<$< sub7itte0 to the

Hono!able Cou!t, the N)I clai7e0 that the 0esi!e0 se7en speci7enI a3inal s7ea! ta>en f!o7 the ca0a e! of Ca!7ela 1i?con0e 9as no lon3e! in its custo06 because the sa7e

&

9as al!ea06 sub7itte0 as e i0ence to the t!ial cou!t 9hen then N)I Me0ico-Le3al Chief P!ospe!o -# Cabana6an testifie0 on *anua!6 C<, C$, Feb!ua!6 $, E, &, an0 %, $DD&#$E

$<#

)ut the t!ial cou!t 0enie0 the N)I=s clai7, 0ecla!in3 that no such se7en

sa7ple 9as sub7itte0 in cou!t 0u!in3 the testi7on6 of .!# P!ospe!o Cabana6an# $& Citin3 t!ansc!ipts of .!# Cabana6an=s testi7on6, the )!anch Cle!> of Cou!t e5plaine0 that 9hat 9e!e 7a!>e0 in e i0ence as E5hibits @S,A @T,A an0 @UA 9e!e the photo3!aphs of the sli0es containin3 the a3inal s7ea!, not the sli0es the7sel es# Mo!eo e!, .!# Cabana6an ha0 testifie0 that the sli0es 9e!e >ept b6 the N)I in thei! Patholo36 Labo!ato!6# $%

$$#

The N)I=s clai7 that the sli0es 9e!e sub7itte0 b6 .!# Cabana6an to the

t!ial cou!t 9as also cont!a0icte0 b6 its o9n lette! to appellant ,ebb in $DD%# -ppellant ha0 as>e0 the N)I to confi!7 the e5istence of the se7en speci7en# In !esponse, he !ecei e0 a lette! 0ate0 ;C -p!il $DD% f!o7 .!# Renato C# )autista of the N)I Me0icoLe3al .i ision, statin3 that the speci7en 3athe!e0 is still e5istin3 an0 in the custo06 of the )u!eau, p!ese! e0 on sli0es#

$;#

.i!ecte0 b6 the Hono!able Cou!t to e5plain the 0isc!epancies in its lette!

0ate0 ;C -u3ust $DD% an0 Co7pliance an0 Manifestation 0ate0 ;% -p!il ;<$<, the N)I file0 its Co7pliance 0ate0 $& *ul6 ;<$<# -ttache0 to the Co7pliance 9e!e affi0a its e5ecute0 in ;<$< b6 .!# Cabana6an an0 .!# )autista#

$C#

In .!# Cabana6an=s affi0a it 0ate0 ;% -p!il ;<$<, he insiste0 that the

se7en speci7enI a3inal s7ea!s ta>en f!o7 the ca0a e! of Ca!7ela 1i?con0e 9e!e @no lon3e! in the custo06 of the N)I as the sa7e 9as al!ea06 sub7itte0, as e i0ence, b6 7e,

$E $&

$%

Co7pliance an0 Manifestation 0ate0 ;% -p!il ;<$<, p# C# Co77ent on the Co7pliance an0 Manifestation 0ate0 ;% -p!il ;<$< of the National )u!eau of In esti3ation# T!ansc!ipt of Steno3!aphic Notes, % Feb!ua!6 $DD&, p# $D : ;$#

to the Re3ional T!ial Cou!t )!anch ;%(, Pa!aJa8ue Cit6, 9hen I testifie0, both on 0i!ect an0 c!oss e5a7inations, on *anua!6 C<, C$K Feb!ua!6 $, E, &, %, $DD& befo!e sai0 Cou!t#A $' .!# )autista, fo! his pa!t, clai7e0 in his affi0a it 0ate0 $; *ul6 ;<$< that he issue0 the ce!tification 0ate0 ;C -p!il $DD% base0 onl6 the info!7ation 3i en to hi7 b6 the 7e0ical technolo3ist on 0ut6 at the clinical labo!ato!6 of the Patholo36 Section of the N)I# .!# )autista suppose0l6 as>e0 the 7e0ical technolo3ist if the sli0es 9e!e still in thei! custo06 an0 the 7e0ical technolo3ist ans9e!e0 hi7 in the affi!7ati e#$D

$(#

These e5planations, ho9e e!, a!e not suppo!te0 b6 the !eco!0s of the case#

The P!osecution=s Fo!7al Offe! of E i0ence sho9s that E5hibits @S,A @T,A an0 @UA 9e!e 7e!el6 the photo3!aphs of the sli0es containin3 the a3inal s7ea!# No9he!e in the Fo!7al Offe! 9as it in0icate0 that the P!osecution offe!e0 the actual sli0es in e i0ence# In a00ition, none of the t!ansc!ipts of steno3!aphic notes ta>en 0u!in3 .!# Cabana6an=s testi7on6 sho9e0 that he tu!ne0 o e! the sli0es to the t!ial cou!t#

$E#

-t the hea!in3 hel0 on E Feb!ua!6 $DD&, the P!osecution state0 that the

sli0es 9e!e not a ailable on that 0ate, but that the P!osecution 9oul0 b!in3 the7 the follo9in3 0a6# ThusF

@FISC-L /UNOF @I belie e, +ou! Hono!, at this point, The best e i0ence is the sli0e itself# @-TT+# -"UIRRE ,ithout p!eBu0ice to the p!o0uction of the actual sli0e so that 9e coul0 as> 8uestions# @COURT Is this sli0e a ailable no9L @FISC-L /UNO
$'

$D

-ffi0a it of .!# P!ospe!o Cabana6an 0ate0 ;% -p!il ;<$<, attache0 as -nne5 @CA to N)I=s Co7pliance 0ate0 $& *ul6 ;<$<# Pa!# (#( of the -ffi0a it of .!# Renato C# )autista, attache0 as -nne5 @EA to N)I=s Co7pliance 0ate0 $& *ul6 ;<$<#

'

It is not a ailable, +ou! Hono! 9ith these 8uestions p!opoun0e0 b6 the counsel, 9e can p!o0uce the sli0e itself, +ou! Hono!, an0 can be p!o0uce0 b6 the labo!ato!6 technician 9ho e5a7ine0 the sli0e, +ou! Hono!# So that the 0octo! 9ill not 7a>e an6 esti7ate of the sli0e# )ecause fu!the! 8uestions on the sli0e, on the si?e of the sli0e, +ou! Hono!, 9e 9ill obBect to it on the 3!oun0 that it is not the best e i0ence# ,e 9ill be p!esentin3 the sli0e, +ou! Hono!# @5 5 5 @FISC-L /UNO It is a 3ene!al te!7, +ou! Hono!# If counsel !efe!s to the sli0es 9hich is not a ailable, 9e 9ill p!o0uce the sli0e so that 9e 9ill be not speculatin3 on the si?e# @COURT @FISC-L /UNO O! the6 can 3o to anothe! point an0 the6 on the ne5t hea!in3, 9e 9ill b!in3 the sli0e, an0 the6 can as> an0 p!opoun0 8uestions# @COURT Is the sli0e not a ailable to0a6L @FISC-L /UNO It is not a ailable, +ou! Hono! because 9e 0i0 not e5pect that 8uestions 9ill be as>e0 on the sli0e# ,e 9ill b!in3 the sli0e on the ne5t hea!in3, +ou! Hono!#A;<

$&#

-t the ne5t hea!in3 hel0 on & Feb!ua!6 $DD&, .!# Cabana6an 9as as>e0 to

p!o0uce the sli0es# .!# Cabana6an, ho9e e!, testifie0 that he @fo!3ot all about it,A as follo9sF @-TT+# -"UIRREF @HF +este!0a6 .octo! 6ou 9e!e 0!a9in3 the si?e of the sli0es 6ou use0 in ta>in3 the sa7ple of the se7inal flui0, but the p!osecution obBecte0 to an0 instea0 the6 sai0 it 9oul0 be bette! the6 9ill p!o0uce in cou!t the sli0es 9hich 6ou use0 fo! the e5a7ination of the se7inal flui0 o! the flui0 ta>en f!o7 the

;<

T!ansc!ipt of Steno3!aphic Notes, E Feb!ua!6 $DD&, pp# ;D : C(#

3enitalia of Ca!7ela 1i?con0e# .i0 6ou b!in3 9ith 6ou no9 those th!ee 2C4 sli0esL ,ITNESS @.R# C-)-N-+-NF @-F I a7 so!!6 to info!7 the Hono!able Cou!t that I fo!3ot all about it befo!e I ca7e he!e#A;$

$%#

.u!in3 his final appea!ance befo!e the t!ial cou!t on % Feb!ua!6 $DD&, .!#

Cabana6an testifie0 that he last sa9 the spe!7 speci7en in $DDE, as follo9sF @-TT+# )-UTIST-F @HF .i0 6ou e e! see the sli0es a3ainL @,ITNESS .R# C-)-N-+-NF @-F +es, Si!# @-TT+# )-UTIST-F @HF ,hen 0i0 6ou see the sli0es a3ainL @,ITNESS .R# C-)-N-+-NF @-F The last ti7e that I ha e seen the sli0es 9as afte! I ha e !ecei e0 a !epo!t an0 then the t9o sli0es 9e!e >ept fo! safe>eepin3# -n0 I thin> the last ti7e I ha0 these sli0es ta>en 9as 9hen I ha0 the photo3!aphs# @-TT+# )-UTIST-F @HF ,hen 0i0 the photo3!aphs of the sli0es ta>e placeL @,ITNESS .R# C-)-N-+-NF @-F *ust last 6ea!# @-TT+# )-UTIST-F @HF Last +ea!# So, in $DDEL

@,ITNESS .R# C-)-N-+-NF @-F +es, Si!#A;;

$'#

It is clea! f!o7 the fo!e3oin3 !eco!0s that .!# Cabana6an 0i0 not sub7it

the spe!7 speci7en to the t!ial cou!t as he clai7e0 in his affi0a it 0ate0 ;% -p!il ;<$<#
;$ ;;

T!ansc!ipt of Steno3!aphic Notes, & Feb!ua!6 $DD&, p# (# T!ansc!ipt of Steno3!aphic Notes, % Feb!ua!6 $DD&, p# $D : ;$#

$<

.!# )autista=s affi0a it 0ate0 $; *ul6 ;<$< 0oes not 7a>e .!# Cabana6an=s clai7 an6 7o!e pe!suasi e# .!# )autista=s asse!tions, to be su!e, a!e not suppo!te0 b6 co7petent e i0ence# He 0i0 not e en na7e the 7e0ical technolo3ist 9ho suppose0l6 tol0 hi7 that the sli0es 9e!e in thei! custo06 in $DD%# -ssu7in3 .!# )autista=s sto!6 9e!e t!ue, the!e is no p!oof that the 7e0ical technolo3ist lie0 to hi7# The!e is onl6 .!# Cabana6an=s belate0 clai7 that he sub7itte0 the sli0es to the t!ial cou!t 9hen he testifie0# )ut as sho9n ea!lie!, the P!osecution=s Fo!7al Offe! of E i0ence an0 the t!ansc!ipts 0isp!o e this clai7#

$D#

The !eco!0s sho9 that the se7en speci7en 9as not sub7itte0 to the t!ial F!o7 the ti7e the se7en speci7en 9as ta>en f!o7 Ca!7ela

cou!t in e i0ence#

1i?con0e=s ca0a e!, it has al9a6s been in the custo06 of the N)I# Conse8uentl6, the N)I=s failu!e to p!o0uce the speci7en fo! .N- testin3 sho9s, at the e!6 least, the P!osecution=s ne3li3ence in the safe>eepin3 of potentiall6 e5culpato!6 e i0ence o!, at 9o!st, the P!osecution=s 9illful supp!ession of such e i0ence#

/"olat"on o) t$e a!!u ed !on t"tut"onal r"#$t to due pro!e ..................................................... .

;<#

The State=s failu!e to p!o0uce the se7en sa7ple fo! .N- anal6sis :

9hethe! it be th!ou3h ne3li3ence o! 9illful supp!ession : 0enie0 appellant ,ebb his constitutional !i3ht to 0ue p!ocess of la9#

$$

;$#

In the case, !n re# T$e Writ of %abeas Corpus for

eynaldo de &illa ,;C

*ustice -ntonio T# Ca!pio 9!ote in his sepa!ate concu!!in3 opinion, 9hich 9as Boine0 b6 fo!7e! Chief *ustices Hila!io .a i0e, *!# an0 -!te7io Pan3aniban an0 *ustice Ro7eo CalleBo, S!#, thatF

@E e!6 pe!son has a !i3ht to a ail of a ne9 technolo36 that i!!efutabl6 p!o es his innocence 0espite a p!io! final con iction, p!o i0e0 the ne9 technolo36 9as not a ailable 0u!in3 his t!ial# This !i3ht is pa!t of a pe!son=s constitutional !i3ht to 0ue p!ocess of la9# - pe!son con icte0 b6 final Bu037ent 0oes not lose his constitutional !i3ht to 0ue p!ocess, an0 he 7a6 in o>e it 9hene e! the!e is a co7pellin3 an0 ali0 3!oun0 to 0o so#A

;;#

Si7ila!l6, in People v. Webb,;( the Hono!able Cou!t state0 that allo9in3

appellant ,ebb to a ail of the latest .N- technolo36 9as @si7pl6 to affo!0 appellant ,ebb the fullest e5tent of his constitutional !i3ht to 0ue p!ocess#A

;C#

In the case of !n t$e Matter of 'abbs v. &er(ari ,;E 8uote0 in

Common)ealt$ v. Brison,;& the Ne9 +o!> cou!t 0ecla!e0 that 0ue p!ocess @is not a technical conception 9ith a fi5e0 content un!elate0 to ti7e, place an0 ci!cu7stances# It is fle5ible an0 calls fo! such p!oce0u!al p!otections as the pa!ticula! situation 0e7an0s# Clea!l6, an a0 ance in technolo36 7a6 constitute such a chan3e in ci!cu7stanceM#N 5 5 5#A

;(#

In 'abbs, the 0efen0ant 9ho ha0 been t!ie0 an0 con icte0 of !ape sou3ht

post-con iction .N- testin3 on ce!tain ph6sical e i0ence : cuttin3s f!o7 the icti7=s un0e!9ea! an0 pants, an0 the 3au?e pa0 f!o7 the !ape >it# The cou!t 3!ante0 the !e8uest, !ulin3 thatF
;C ;( ;E ;&

En Banc, ((; SCR- %<&, %CC 2;<<(4# "#R# No# $%&'&(, Resolution 0ate0 -p!il ;<, ;<$<, p# $C# $(D Misc# ;0 '((, E%< N#+#S# ;0 %&E 2Sup# Ct# ,estcheste! Co# $DD<4 (;$ Pa# Supe!io! Ct# ((; 2$DD;4, &$' -# ;0 (;<#

$;

@5 5 5# Si7ila!l6, in this case, 9hile it is unclea! 9hat M.N-N testin3 9ill ulti7atel6 !e eal,O MiNf .Ntestin3 coul0 e5clu0e se7en f!o7 the attac>e! as belon3in3 to M0efen0antN, it 9oul0 st!on3l6 i7peach the c!e0ibilit6 of the icti7=s i0entification of M0efen0antN# #$o% den #defendant% the opportunit to prove his innocence with such evidence simpl to ensure the finalit of convictions is untenable.A;% 2E7phasis supplie0#4

;E#

The 0efen0ant=s con iction 9as e entuall6 acate0 afte! .N- testin3 of

the piece of cloth f!o7 the icti7=s un0e!9ea! e5clu0e0 the 0efen0ant as the sou!ce of the se7en#;'

;&#

Li>e9ise, in Common)ealt$ v. Brison, supra, 9he!e the p!osecution=s

e i0ence consiste0 p!i7a!il6 of the !ape icti7=s i0entification testi7on6 an0 the!e 9as no conclusi e ph6sical e i0ence lin>in3 the appellant to the c!i7e, the .ist!ict Cou!t of Penns6l annia !ule0 that .N- tests shoul0 ha e been pe!fo!7e0 on the sa7ples ta>en f!o7 the icti7 @MiNn ie9 of the 9i0e acceptance an0 a07issibilit6 of .N- test !esults an0 the abilit6 of such testin3 to accu!atel6 an0 0efiniti el6 inculpate o! e5culpate an in0i i0ual as the pe!pet!ato! of the c!i7e# 5 5 5#A -cco!0in3 to the cou!tF

@5 5 5# Ha0 tests been con0ucte0 an0 foun0 to e5culpate o! e5clu0e appellant as the pe!pet!ato!, a07ission of the test !esults an0 the othe! e i0ence 7a6 9ell ha e p!o i0e0 sufficient !easonable 0oubt to secu!e an ac8uittal# In the alte!nati e, inculpato!6 !esults 9oul0 ce!tainl6 ha e st!en3thene0 the Co77on9ealth=s case b6 p!o i0in3 conc!ete co!!obo!tation of the icti7=s i0entification# Un0e! these ci!cu7stances, principles of justice require us to vacate appellant&s conviction and remand to the trial court for the performance of DNA anal sis on the samples ta'en from the victim#A 2E7phasis supplie0#4

;% ;'

Common)ealt$ v. Brison, supra, 8uotin3 !n t$e Matter of 'abbs v. &er(ari# People v. 'abbs, $E( Misc# ;0 &%$ 2$DD$4#

$C

;%#

In the p!esent case, the loss o! supp!ession b6 the P!osecution of the

se7en speci7en 0enie0 appellant ,ebb his !i3ht to a ail of the latest .N- technolo36 an0 p!o e his innocence# This is cont!a!6 to the p!inciples of Bustice an0 is a 0enial of his constitutional !i3ht to 0ue p!ocess, 9hich entitles hi7 to an ac8uittal#

;'#

In -7e!ican Bu!isp!u0ence, the supp!ession of e5culpato!6 e i0ence b6 the

p!osecution is a 0enial of the 0ue p!ocess clause of the Fou!teenth -7en07ent an0 9oul0 entitle the 0efen0ant to be !elease0 f!o7 custo06# In Pyle v. *ansas,+, the Unite0 States Sup!e7e Cou!t !ule0 as follo9sF

@Petitione!=s pape!s a!e ine5pe!tl6 0!a9n, but the6 0o set fo!th alle3ations that his i7p!ison7ent !esulte0 f!o7 pe!Bu!e0 testi7on6, >no9in3l6 use0 b6 the State autho!ities to obtain his con iction, an0 f!o7 the 0elibe!ate supp!ession b6 those sa7e autho!ities of e i0ence fa o!able to hi7# These alle3ations sufficientl6 cha!3e a 0ep!i ation of !i3hts 3ua!antee0 b6 the Fe0e!al Constitution, an0, if p!o en, 9oul0 entitle petitione! to !elease f!o7 his p!esent custo06# Mooney v. %olo$an, ;D( U#S# $<C#A

;D#

In Brady v. Maryland,C< the U#S# Sup!e7e Cou!t hel0 that @the supp!ession

b6 the p!osecution of e i0ence fa o!able to an accuse0 upon !e8uest iolates 0ue p!ocess 9he!e the e i0ence is 7ate!ial eithe! to 3uilt o! to punish7ent, i!!especti e of the 3oo0 faith o! ba0 faith of the p!osecution#A -cco!0in3 to the Cou!tF

@The p!inciple of Mooney v. %olo$an is not punish7ent of societ6 fo! 7is0ee0s of a p!osecuto! but a oi0ance of an unfai! t!ial to the accuse0# (ociet wins not onl when the !uilt are convicted but when criminal trials are fair) our s stem of the administration of justice suffers when an accused is treated unfairl . 5 5 5# A prosecution that withholds evidence on demand of an
;D C<

C$% U#S# ;$C, ;$E-;$&# C%C U#S# 'C 2$D&C4#

$(

accused which, if made available, would tend to exculpate him or reduce the penalt helps shape a trial that bears heavil on the defendant. That casts the p!osecuto! in the !ole of an a!chitect of a p!ocee0in3 that 0oes not co7po!t 9ith stan0a!0s of Bustice, e en thou3h, as in the p!esent case, his action is not Gthe !esult of 3uile,= to use the 9o!0s of the Cou!t of -ppeals#A 2E7phasis supplie0#4 C<# In the p!esent case, appellant ,ebb 9as t!eate0 unfai!l6 an0 0enie0 a

co7plete 0efense a3ainst the cha!3e a3ainst hi7# The t!ial cou!t shoul0 ha e, at the outset, allo9e0 .N- testin3 of the se7en speci7en e5t!acte0 b6 the N)I f!o7 the a3inal canal of Ca!7ela 1i?con0e=s ca0a e!# -ppellant ,ebb ha0 oluntee!e0 thi!teen 2$C4 6ea!s a3o to sub7it a se7en sa7ple fo! co7pa!ison 9ith the se7en speci7en in the custo06 of the N)I# He !e8ueste0 the t!ial cou!t to o!0e! a .N- anal6sis, the !esult of 9hich coul0 ha e e5clu0e0 hi7 as the sou!ce of the se7en f!o7 Ca!7ela=s bo06# In 0isallo9in3 the .N- e5a7ination, the t!ial cou!t 0enie0 hi7 the sin3ula! piece of e i0ence that coul0 ha e 0efiniti el6 establishe0 his innocence#

C$#

Instea0, the t!ial cou!t 3a e full faith an0 c!e0ence to the testi7on6 of the

P!osecution=s sta! 9itness, *essica -lfa!o#C$ -lfa!o, ho9e e!, 9as a pe!Bu!e0 9itness, an0 the N)I >ne9 this# -s testifie0 b6 N)I Hea0 -3ent -!te7io Saca3uin3, -lfa!o ha0 info!7e0 hi7 that she >ne9 so7ebo06 9ho 9as an e6e9itness to the 1i?con0e >illin3s# ,hen -lfa!o 9as unable to p!o0uce this suppose0 e6e9itness, she oluntee!e0 he!self as an e6e9itness an0 tol0 -tt6# Saca3uin3F -.ir, papapelan /o yan, papapelan /o na lan( yan#0 -lfa!o ha0 also e5ecute0 t9o cont!a0icto!6 affi0a its on ;' -p!il $DDE an0 ;; Ma6 $DDE, one of 9hich state0 that she 0i0 not ente! the 1i?con0e !esi0ence on ;D *une $DD$# The!efo!e, she coul0 not ha e been an e6e9itness to the c!i7e# )ut in spite of all this, the N)I p!ocee0e0 to cha!3e appellant ,ebb an0 his co-accuse0 9ith the c!i7e#

C$

Resolution 0ate0 ;< -p!il ;<$<, p# C#

$E

C;#

No9, al7ost thi!teen 2$C4 6ea!s afte! he file0 his Motion to .i!ect N)I to

Sub7it Se7en Speci7en to .N- -nal6sis, appellant ,ebb 9as finall6 3!ante0 the oppo!tunit6 to 0isp!o e -lfa!o=s testi7on6 th!ou3h .N- testin3# )ut he is still

p!e ente0 f!o7 0oin3 so : this ti7e b6 the N)I=s failu!e to p!o0uce the se7en speci7en fo! .N- testin3# This is Bust the latest in a se!ies of acts sho9in3 ho9 the State : as !ep!esente0 b6 the N)I, the P!osecution, an0 the t!ial cou!t : shape0 the t!ial of this case to bea! hea il6 a3ainst appellant ,ebb#

CC#

E en if the N)I=s failu!e to p!o0uce the se7en speci7en 9e!e not 0ue to

9illful supp!ession but b6 ne3li3ence, the failu!e to 0eli e! this e i0ence to appellant ,ebb fo! .N- testin3 0enies hi7 a co7plete 0efense an0 iolates his !i3ht to 0ue p!ocess# -s hel0 b6 the US Sup!e7e Cou!t, the constitutional 0ut6 of the p!osecution to tu!n o e! e5culpato!6 e i0ence to the accuse0 inclu0es the 0ut6 to p!ese! e such e i0ence# The Cou!t 0ecla!e0 in California v. TrombettaFC;

@Un0e! the .ue P!ocess Clause of the Fou!teenth -7en07ent, c!i7inal p!osecutions 7ust co7po!t 9ith p!e ailin3 notions of fun0a7ental fai!ness# ,e ha e lon3 inte!p!ete0 this stan0a!0 of fai!ness to !e8ui!e that c!i7inal 0efen0ants be affo!0e0 a 7eanin3ful oppo!tunit6 to p!esent a co7plete 0efense# To safe3ua!0 that !i3ht, the Cou!t has 0e elope0 G9hat 7i3ht loosel6 be calle0 the a!ea of constitutionall6 3ua!antee0 access to e i0ence#= Ta>en to3ethe!, this 3!oup of constitutional p!i ile3es 0eli e!s e5culpato!6 e i0ence into the han0s of the accuse0, the!eb6 p!otectin3 the innocent f!o7 e!!oneous con iction an0 ensu!in3 the inte3!it6 of ou! c!i7inal Bustice s6ste7#A

C(#

Citin3 its p!e ious !ulin3s in Brady v. Maryland11 an0 2nited .tates v. -

A(urs,C( the US Sup!e7e Cou!t state0 in California v. Trombetta thatF @5 5 5#

0efen0ant has a constitutionall6 p!otecte0 p!i ile3e to !e8uest an0 obtain f!o7 the

C; CC C(

(&% U#S# (%D 2$D'(4# C$% U#S#, at '%# (;% U#S#, at $$;#

$&

p!osecution e i0ence that is eithe! 7ate!ial to the 3uilt of the 0efen0ant o! !ele ant to the punish7ent to be i7pose0# E en in the absence of a specific !e8uest, the p!osecution has a constitutional 0ut6 to tu!n o e! e5culpato!6 e i0ence that 9oul0 !aise a !easonable 0oubt about the 0efen0ant=s 3uilt# 5 5 5#A

CE#

In California v. Trombetta,CE the 8uestion 9as 9hethe! the 0ue p!ocess

clause !e8ui!e0 la9 enfo!ce7ent a3encies to p!ese! e b!eath sa7ples of suspecte0 0!un>en 0!i e!s in o!0e! fo! the !esults of b!eath-anal6sis tests to be a07issible in c!i7inal p!osecutions# -lthou3h the US Sup!e7e Cou!t !ule0 that Califo!nia=s polic6 of not p!ese! in3 b!eath sa7ples 9as not constitutionall6 0efecti e, the !eason 9as that the e i0ence 0i0 not 7eet the stan0a!0 of @constitutional 7ate!ialit6,A 9hich the Cou!t lai0 0o9n as follo9sF

@5 5 5# ,hate e! 0ut6 the Constitution i7poses on the State to p!ese! e e i0ence, that 0ut6 7ust be li7ite0 to e i0ence that 7i3ht be e5pecte0 to pla6 a si3nificant !ole in the suspect=s 0efense# To 7eet this stan0a!0 of constitutional 7ate!ialit6, e i0ence 7ust both possess an e5culpato!6 alue that 9as appa!ent befo!e the e i0ence 9as 0est!o6e0, an0 be of such a natu!e that the 0efen0ant 9oul0 be unable to obtain co7pa!able e i0ence b6 othe! !easonabl6 a ailable 7eans. Neithe! of these con0itions is 7et on the facts of this case#A

C&#

In Trombetta, the US Sup!e7e Cou!t hel0 that the Into5il6?e! an0

Califo!nia testin3 p!oce0u!es ha e been !eco3ni?e0 as e5t!e7el6 accu!ate# Conse8uentl6, the b!eath sa7ples 9oul0 7ost li>el6 be inculpato!6 instea0 of e5culpato!6# ThusF

@-lthou3h p!ese! ation of b!eath sa7ples 7i3ht concei abl6 ha e cont!ibute0 to !espon0ent=s 0efenses, a 0ispassionate !e ie9 of the Into5il6?e! an0 the Califo!nia testin3 p!oce0u!es can onl6 lea0 one to conclu0e that the chances a!e e5t!e7el6 lo9 that p!ese! e0 sa7ples 9oul0 ha e been e5culpato!6# 5 5 5# In all but a tin6 f!action of
CE

(&% U#S# (%D 2$D'(4#

$%

cases, p!ese! e0 b!eath sa7ples 9oul0 si7pl6 confi!7 the Into5il6?e!=s 0ete!7ination that the 0efen0ant ha0 a hi3h le el of bloo0-alcohol concent!ation at the ti7e of the test# Once the Into5il6?e! in0icate0 that !espon0ents 9e!e le3all6 0!un>, b!eath sa7ples 9e!e 7uch 7o!e li>el6 to p!o i0e inculpato!6 than e5culpato!6 e i0ence#A

C%#

In the p!esent case, the se7en speci7en e5t!acte0 f!o7 the bo06 of

Ca!7ela 1i?con0e 0u!in3 he! autops6 on C< *une $DD$ pla6s a si3nificant !ole in appellant=s 0efense# Its e5culpato!6 alue 9as e i0ent f!o7 the ti7e it 9as ta>en, 9hich 9as se e!al hou!s afte! he! 0eath, an0 th!ou3hout the t!ial of the case# To be su!e, the N)I=s o9n .!# P!opspe!o Cabana6an belie e0 that the speci7en coul0 be subBecte0 to .N- testin3 to i0entif6 to 9ho7 the spe!7 belon3e0# -s he testifie0 0u!in3 the hea!in3 on % Feb!ua!6 $DD&F

@-TT+# )-UTIST-F @HF ,hen 6ou secu!e0 the spe!7 speci7en on *une C<, $DD$ on the 0ea0 bo06 of Ca!7ela, 9hat 9as the con0ition of the spe!7 speci7en if 6ou 9e!e able to 0ete!7ine that the6 9e!e 0ea0 o! 9e!e the6 still ali eL

@.R# C-)-N-+-NF @-F @HF I belie e these 9e!e al!ea06 0ea0, Si!# .ea0# -n0 9hen 6ou sa6O9hat e5actl6 0o 6ou 7ean b6 G0ea0= in la67an=s lan3ua3e# ,hat a spe!7 is sai0 to be G0ea0=, 9hat 0oes it 7ean in la67an=s te!7L ,ell, 7a6be the!e is no 7o!e e i0ence of 7utilities, Si!# That is onl6 sa6in3 that p!obabl6 it coul0 be note0 that the bo06 o! the spe!7 cell is al!ea06 0ea0#

@-F

$'

@HF

,ill 6ou be able to i0entif6 fo! instance the pe!son to 9ho7 a spe!7 belon3s 9ith .N- test un0e! the p!esent con0itions that 6ou ha e Bust 0esc!ibe0L ,ell, 9ith the .N-, if a speci7en of O $his particular specimen that ou secured from the bod of *armela, will ou be able to, if ou subject that to a DNA test, would ou still be able to conclusivel identif it to whom+ (till possible, (ir#AC& 2E7phasis supplie0#4

@-F @HF

@-F

C'#

The si3nificance of a .N- e5a7ination on the se7en speci7en 9as best

0esc!ibe0 b6 *ustice Lucenito Ta3le of the Cou!t of -ppeals in his .issentin3 Opinion, as follo9sF

@-s the e5a7ination con0ucte0 b6 .!# P!ospe!o Cabana6an 6iel0e0 the p!esence of hu7an spe!7ato?oa on the 3enetalia of Ca!7ela 1i?con0e, a DNA examination could have determined whether appellants Webb and/or Lejano did the bestial act or not and an independent and unbiased medical examiner could have ascertained whether the specimen semen was compromised or not. Also, it would have put an end to the question of whether accused Webb was reall in the countr or not. A 2E7phasis supplie0#4

CD#

- .N- anal6sis of the se7en speci7en e5clu0in3 appellant ,ebb as the

sou!ce of that speci7en 9oul0 0isp!o e the P!osecution=s e i0ence a3ainst hi7# The P!osecution consi0e!e0 the p!esence of spe!7ato?oa on the bo06 of Ca!7ela 1i?con0e as e i0ence that she 9as !ape0, offe!in3 the photo3!aphs of the 3lass sli0es containin3 the spe!7 cells as p!oof that @Ca!7ela 9as !ape0 on o! about the late e enin3 of ;D *une $DD$ o! the ea!l6 7o!nin3 of C< *une $DD$#A C% )ut the P!osecution=s onl6 e i0ence that it 9as appellant ,ebb 9ho !ape0 Ca!7ela 1i?con0e 9as the testi7on6 of *essica -lfa!o

C& C%

T!ansc!ipt of Steno3!aphic Notes, % Feb!ua!6 ;<$<, pp# ;$-;;# E5hibit @S,A @T,A an0 @UA of the P!osecution=s Fo!7al Offe! of E i0ence#

$D

that on the ni3ht the c!i7e 9as co77itte0, she sa9 appellant ,ebb @pu7pin3A Ca!7ela 1i?con0e 9hen she ente!e0 one of the !oo7s of the 1i?con0e houseF

@5 5 5# The 0oo! to the !oo7 9he!e the soun0 ca7e f!o7 9as sli3htl6 opene0# Cu!ious, -lfa!o peepe0 insi0e# She pushe0 the 0oo! open 9ith he! fin3e! t9ice, an0 ente!e0 the !oo7# She i77e0iatel6 sa9 Hube!t on top of Ca!7ela, pu7pin3 he!, an0 9hen she loo>e0 to the !i3ht si0e of the !oo7, she sa9 t9o 2;4 bloo0ie0 bo0ies# 5 5 5A

(<#

The testi7on6 of -lfa!o 9as hea il6 !elie0 upon b6 the t!ial cou!t to

con ict the accuse0 in this case# He! na!!ation 9as 3i en full c!e0it b6 the t!ial cou!t an0 the Cou!t of -ppeals 0espite all its inconsistencies an0 0espite all the 0ocu7enta!6 an0 testi7onial e i0ence p!esente0 b6 the 0efense that p!o e0 that appellant ,ebb 9as at the Unite0 States at the ti7e the c!i7e 9as co77itte0# - .N- anal6sis of the spe!7 speci7en coul0 ha e 0ete!7ine0, once an0 fo! all, if he 9as in the Philippines at the ti7e an0 ha0 !ape0 Ca!7ela# The failu!e to ha e the speci7en subBecte0 to .N- anal6sis because of the 7iscon0uct o! ne3li3ence of a3ents of the State 0ep!i e0 appellant ,ebb of the fullest oppo!tunit6 to p!o e his innocence# The!e a!e no othe! !easonabl6 a ailable 7eans fo! hi7 to obtain e i0ence co7pa!able 9ith the se7en sa7ple e5t!acte0 f!o7 Ca!7ela=s ca0a e!#

($#

Recent le3al 0e elop7ents in ou! count!6 ha e hi3hli3hte0 the nee0 to

p!ese! e e i0ence until such ti7e as the accuse0 in a c!i7inal case has se! e0 his sentence# In pa!ticula!, Section $; 2b4 of the ne9 Rule on .N- E i0ence 9hich too> effect on $E Octobe! ;<<%, p!o i0es the pe!io0 9hen .N- e i0ence shall be p!ese! e0, as follo9sF

@Sec# $;# Preservation of '3A Evidence. The t!ial cou!t shall p!ese! e the .N- e i0ence in its

;<

totalit6, inclu0in3 all biolo3ical sa7ples, .N- p!ofiles an0 !esults o! othe! 3enetic info!7ation obtaine0 f!o7 .Ntestin3# Fo! this pu!pose, the cou!t 7a6 o!0e! the app!op!iate 3o e!n7ent a3enc6 to p!ese! e the .Ne i0ence as follo9sF @2a4 In c!i7inal casesF

@i# fo! not less than the pe!io0 of ti7e that an6 pe!son is un0e! t!ial fo! an offenseK o! @ii# in case the accuse0 is se! in3 sentence, until such ti7e as the accuse0 has se! e0 his sentenceK an0 A2b4 In all othe! cases, until such ti7e as the 0ecision in the case 9he!e the .N- e i0ence 9as int!o0uce0 has beco7e final an0 e5ecuto!6#A

(;#

In this case, the Hono!able Cou!t ha0 3i en appellant ,ebb the best

oppo!tunit6 to p!o e his innocence 9ith its o!0e! 3!antin3 .N- anal6sis of the spe!7 speci7en ta>en f!o7 Ca!7ela=s ca0a e!# Ho9e e!, the spe!7 speci7en that 9as

potentiall6 e5culpato!6 e i0ence fo! appellant ,ebb coul0 not be p!o0uce0 b6 the State# -s a !esult, appellant ,ebb 9as effecti el6 0ep!i e0 of his !i3ht to p!esent a co7plete 0efense, in iolation of his constitutional !i3ht to 0ue p!ocess# Fo! this !eason, he is entitle0 to an ac8uittal#

,RAYER

,HEREFORE, in

ie9 of the fo!e3oin3 an0 in the inte!est of Bustice, it is

!espectfull6 p!a6e0 of this Hono!able Cou!t to ac8uit appellant Hube!t *eff!e6 P# ,ebb an0 o!0e! his i77e0iate !elease f!o7 the Ne9 )ilibi0 P!ison#

Othe! Bust an0 e8uitable !eliefs a!e li>e9ise p!a6e0 fo!#

Ma>ati Cit6 fo! Cit6 of Manila, ;% Octobe! ;<$<#

;$

ONG0I0O MANHIT CU'TO1IO 2 ACOR1A 3o!*ala%4 Counsel for Appellant %ubert 4effrey P. Webb (th Floo!, C") Con0o7iniu7 $<$ -3ui!!e St!eet, Le3aspi 1illa3e Cit6 of Ma>ati $;;D Tel# No# 2&C;4 '$D-$&;(K Fa5 No# 2&C;4 '$D-;D%' E-7ailF oc7ala9Peaste!n#co7#ph )6F 1EMETRIO C+ CU'TO1IO( JR+ oll of Attorneys 3o. 11567 I)P OR No# '<CC;C, Manila III, <$-<(-$< PTR OR No# MQT ;<'DC$E, Ma>ati Cit6, <$-<E-$< MCLE Co7pliance No# III-<<$%E;E, &-;;-$<

E5OY'A G+ 'ICAM oll of Attorneys 3o. 51689 I)P OR No# '<CC;E, Ma>ati Cit6, <$-<(-$< PTR OR No# MQT ;<'DC$', Ma>ati Cit6, <$-<E-$< MCLE Co7pliance No# III-<<$(DDD, <(-C<-$<

JOAQUIN MIGUE5 6+ HI6ON oll of Attorneys 3o. 777:8 I)P OR No# '<CCC$, Pa7pan3a, <$-<(-$< PTR OR No# MQT ;<'';D;, Ma>ati Cit6, <$-<E-$< MCLE Co7pliance No# III-<<$E<<;, <(-C<-$<

JO'E 5EMUE5 '+ ARENA' oll of Attorneys 3o. 7896+ I)P OR No# ';(DE(, Pan3asinan, (-;&-$< PTR OR No# MQT ;;%'<<', Ma>ati Cit6, E-<E-$< MCLE Co7pliance No# NI-

;;

Copy ;urnis$ed# OFFICE OF THE 'O5ICITOR GENERA5 $C( -7o!solo St!eet Le3aspi 1illa3e, Ma>ati Cit6 $;;D 1IR+ O'CAR C+ CA51ERON )u!eau of Co!!ections $%%< Muntinlupa Cit6 ATTY+ /ICENTE MI55ORA Counsel for Antonio <e=ano Suite %<C, Fil "a!cia To9e! Qala6aan - enue, Hue?on Cit6 ATTY+ F5ORANTE ARCEO BAUTI'TA Counsel for Antonio <e=ano No# $ -piton3 Roa0, Pila! 1illa3e Las PiJas Cit6 THE 1IRECTOR National )u!eau of In esti3ation Taft - enue, Manila 5EONI5A AG 1ANG5E Chief, C!i7inal Case Section Cou!t of -ppeals, Manila MC- "#R# H#C# No# <<CC&N THE ,RE'I1ING JU1GE Re3ional T!ial Cou!t )!anch ;%(, Pa!aJa8ue Cit6 MC!i7# Case No# DE-(<(N U,.NATURA5 'CIENCE AN1 RE'EARCH IN'TITUTE 7U,.N'RI8 Uni e!sit6 of the Philippines Ca7pus .ili7an, Hue?on Cit6 ATTY+ JOE5 5+ BO1EGON ;;<C-- ,est To9e! Philippines Stoc> E5chan3e Cent!e E5chan3e Roa0, O!ti3as Cente! Pasi3 Cit6

ME''R'+ HUBERT WEBB( ANTONIO 5EJANO MICHAE5 GATCHA5IAN( HO',ICIO FERNAN1E6

;C

,ETER E'TRA1A( MIGUE5 RO1RIGUE6 and GERAR1O BIONG cIo The .i!ecto! )u!eau of Co!!ections Muntinlupa Cit6 ATTY+ JO'E B+ F5AMINIANO Counsel for %ospicio ;ernande> $<$ Ma!ia Cla!a St!eet Sta# Mesa Hei3hts, Hue?on Cit6 ATTY+ RAMON MIGUE5 ONG'IA0O Counsel for odri(ue>, ?n(sia/o and 'ela Cru> ;n0 Fl!#, $C( Se0eno St!eet Salce0o 1illa3e, Ma>ati Cit6 ATTY+ ACEREY C+ ,ACHECO Counsel for Peter Estada $$th Floo!, E e!-"otesco Co!po!ate Cente! $DE' C#M# Recto - enue, Manila ATTY+ RICAR1O /A5MONTE Counsel for @erardo Bion( Ma!i ic=s -pt#, Malabo Ma6san, 1alen?uela Cit6 MR+ 5AURO /I6CON1E No# '<, ,# 1in?ons St!eet )F Ho7es, Pa!aJa8ue Cit6 $%<< MR'+ BETH WEBB cIo -3ui!!e an0 -3ui!!e La9 Office ;$<( -tlanta Cente! No# C$ -nnapolis St!eet, "!eenhills San *uan, Met!o Manila 1R+ ,RO',ERO CABANAYAN Fo!7e! Chief, Me0ico-Le3al .i ision cIo National )u!eau of In esti3ation Taft - enue, Manila CHIEF 'TATE ,RO'ECUTOR C5ARO ARE55ANO .epa!t7ent of *ustice Manila ATTY FRANCI'CO C+ GATCHA5IAN Counsel for accused-appellant Mic$ael A. @atc$alian $<< ,# 1in?ons St#, )F Ho7es, Pa!aJa8ue Cit6 E5planation on Manne! of Se! ice

;(

Se! ice of the fo!e3oin3 Petition 9as 7a0e b6 !e3iste!e0 7ail 0ue to the li7ite0 nu7be! of 7essen3e!s in un0e!si3ne0 counsel=s La9 Fi!7 an0 the nu7be! of pa!ties in ol e0, 9hich 7a>es pe!sonal se! ice on all of the7 i7p!acticable# JO'E 5EMUE5 '+ ARENA' JO'E 5EMUE5 '+ ARENA'

L"SF*/HI!7!276 0ocsI*/HIP# # ,ebbFU!3ent Motion to -c8uit4

;E