Antonio Lejano vs.

People of the Philippines

FACTS:

On 30 June 1991, Estellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela and Jennifer were brutally slain at
their home in Paranaque City.  Four years later in 1995, the NBI announced that it had solved the
crime.  It presented star-witness Jessica Alfaro, one of its informers, who claimed that she had
witnessed the crime.  She pointed to Hubert Webb, Antonio Lejano, Artemio Ventura, Michael
Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Peter Estrada, Miguel Rodriguez and Joy Filart as the culprits.  She
also tagged police officer, Gerardo Biong, as an accessory after the fact.  Alfaro had been working as
an asset to the NBI by leading the agency to criminals.  Some of the said criminals had been so high-
profile, that Alfaro had become the “darling” of the NBI because of her contribution to its success. 
The trial court and the Court of Appeals found that Alfaro’s direct and spontaneous narration of
events unshaken by gruesome cross-examination should be given a great weight in the decision of
the case. In Alfaro’s story, she stated that after she and the accused got high of shabu, she was asked
to see Carmela at their residence.  After Webb was informed that Carmela had a male companion
with her, Webb became piqued and thereafter consumed more drugs and plotted the gang rape on
Carmela.  Webb, on the other hand, denied all the accusations against him with the alibi that during
the whole time that the crime had taken place, he was staying in the United States.  He had
apparently left for the US on 09 March 1991 and only returned on 27 October 1992.  As
documentary evidence, he presented photocopies of his passport with four stamps recording his
entry and exit from both the Philippines and the US, Flight’s Passenger Manifest employment
documents in the US during his stay there and US-INS computer generated certification
authenticated by the Philippine DFA.  Aside from these documentary alibis, he also gave a thorough
recount of his activities in the US

ISSUE:

Whether or not Webb’s documented alibi of his U.S. travel should be given more credence by the
Court than the positive identification by Alfaro.

HELD:

No, Webb’s documented alibi should not be given more credence

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

1. The positive identification of the offender must come from a credible witness; and

2. The witness’ story of what she personally saw must be believable, not inherently contrived.

The Supreme Court found that Alfaro and her testimony failed to meet the above criteria.  She did
not show up at the NBI as a spontaneous witness bothered by her conscience.  She had been
hanging around the agency for sometime as a stool pigeon, one paid for mixing up with criminals
and squealing on them.  And although her testimony included details, Alfaro had prior access to the
details that the investigators knew of the case.  She took advantage of her familiarity with these
details to include in her testimony the clearly incompatible acts of Webb hurling a stone at the front
door glass frames, for example, just so she can accommodate the crime scene feature.

To establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence that:

1. He was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and

2. That it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.

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