|
By Jonathan M. Hicap, Reporter
Last of two parts
AT THE start of the probe of the Vizconde
murders in 1991, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) was
already investigating Hubert Webb as a suspect in the crime. But it
took the Department of Justice four more years to file the case
against him and six others suspected of killing the three members of
the Vizconde family.
In his testimony Robert Heafner, the former
legal attaché of the Federal Bureau of Investigation assigned to
the US Embassy in Manila, said that on December 27, 1991, or six
months after the Vizconde murders, then NBI director and now Sen.
Alfredo Lim and then NBI Assistant Director Epímaco Velasco came
to his office at the US Embassy to verify Hubert Webb’s presence
in the US.
As a suspect in the crime, Hubert relied on only
one line of defense: He was in the United States on June 30, 1991,
when the Vizconde family members were murdered.
His lawyers used this defense to rebut the
testimony of Jessica Alfaro, who said she acted as the “lookout”
when Hubert and his co-accused killed Estrellita, Carmela and Anna
Marie Jennifer in the Vizconde house on Vinzons Street, BF Homes,
Parañaque.
Alfaro gave a detailed account of how she saw
Hubert, partially naked, on top of Carmela, raping her.
The defense pounced on Alfaro’s two
conflicting affidavits to paint her as a lying and cunning state
witness.
It questioned Alfaro’s two testimonies before
the Supreme Court, which in turn dismissed the petition. The High
Court said the justice department’s “panel believes that the
inconsistencies in Alfaro’s two sworn statements have been
sufficiently explained, especially so where there is no showing that
the inconsistencies were deliberately made to distort the truth.”
The Court declared: “Consequently, the
probative value of Alfaro’s testimony deserves full faith and
credit. As it has been often noted, ex parte statements are
generally incomplete because they are usually executed when the
affiant’s state of mind does not give her sufficient and fair
opportunity to comprehend the import of her statement and to narrate
in full the incidents which transpired.”
Voluminous documents and testimonies
The defense produced stacks of signed
testimonies and documentary evidence to support Webb’s alibi that
he was in the US from March 9, 1991, to October 26, 1992. It also
presented people who had come into contact with Hubert in the US and
his immigration record, employment papers and proof of purchases.
Gloria Webb, Hubert’s aunt, testified that she
and Hubert boarded United Airlines flight UA-808 for San Francisco,
California, on March 9, 1991, and arrived in the US on the same day.
Ferdinand Sampol, a Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation employee at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, said
he stamped the date of Hubert’s departure on his passport. Their
testimonies were certified by former Immigration Commissioner Andrea
Domingo and Bella Estrada, an Immigration employee, that one “H.
Webb” left Manila on March 9, 1991, on United Airlines flight
8080.
In its investigation the NBI sought the help of
the US Embassy in Manila, which in turn asked the US Federal Bureau
of Investigation, the US State Department, the US Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) and other agencies to check their
records on Hubert’s presence in the US as he had claimed and to
provide certifications.
The following persons made their affidavits
for the defense:
• Dorothy Wheelock, an American friend of
Elizabeth Webb, who said Hubert joined her and her family on a trip
to Lake Tahoe, California, in April 1991.
• Jennifer Claire Cabrera, a friend of Hubert
and a neighbor of the Webbs, who testified she received letters and
a phone call from Hubert from the US in June and July 1991.
• Steven Keeler, an American who worked with
Hubert in the Environment First Termite Control company in South
Laguna Beach, California, who said he saw Hubert on several
occasions in California from June to July 1991.
• Christopher Esguerra, an American and a
relative of Gloria Webb, who testified he saw Hubert on several
occasions in California from March to May 1991.
• Louis Whitaker, an American, who said he met
Hubert in the house of his aunt in California on June 29, 1991.
• Sonia Rodriguez, a friend of Freddie Webb,
who said she saw Hubert in the house of Susan Brottman in the US on
June 30, 1991.
• Honesto Aragon, former NBI Director Antonio
Aragon’s nephew, who testified he was with Hubert in the US on
June 28-29, 1991.
• Antonio Rodriguez, son of Sonia and Jack
Rodriguez, who said Hubert stayed at the Rodriguez family’s house
in Florida from August 1991 to August 1992.
• Singer Gary Valenciano, who testified that
he met Hubert in Florida at the home of Jack and Sonia Rodriguez in
November 1991.
• Victor Yap, a stranger, who said he
videotaped Freddie and Elizabeth Webb with Hubert in Disneyland,
Anaheim, California, on July 3, 1991. The videotape was presented in
court.
US certifies Hubert was in the US
The most important and compelling pieces of
evidence for the defense were the certifications issued by the US
government indicating that Hubert entered the US on March 9, 1991,
and left on October 26, 1992.
The NBI had worked closely with the US Embassy
to get information in the US on Hubert’s whereabouts in America.
In his 1995 affidavit the FBI legal attaché,
Robert Heafner, said he had been “deeply involved” since
December 1991 in helping the Philippine government seek vital
information on Hubert’s stay in the US.
During the early period of the trial, Heafner
was subpoenaed by Branch 274 of the Parañaque Regional Trial Court
to testify on the Vizconde case. But he was prohibited from
testifying because he had a diplomatic status at the time. He
retired from the FBI in 1998.
Heafner said that on December 27, 1991, then-NBI
Director Alfredo Lim and then-NBI Assistant Director Epímaco
Velasco came to his office at the US Embassy to verify Hubert
Webb’s presence in the US.
In reply, Heafner wrote to Lim on January 10,
1992, about the initial finding that showed Hubert was issued a
California driver’s license on August 9, 1991, with his address
listed in Anaheim, California. The letter also showed personal
information on Hubert based on his visa application at the US
Embassy.
Heafner said the FBI verified that Hubert was
issued his license on June 14, 1991, which was computerized on
August 19, 1991.
On July 6, 1993, Heafner wrote to NBI Director
Velasco to confirm that Hubert, based on the FBI’s investigation,
entered the US in 1991.
“A review of the US Government Records
revealed that Hubert Webb, born 11/7/68, Philippines, entered the
United States on 3/9/91 (March 9, 1991) at San Francisco,
California,” Heafner said in his letter.
The information came from the US Immigration and
Naturalization Office in San Francisco and from the US INS Central
Office in Washington, D.C.
Heafner said a review of the US Customs Treasury
Enforcement Computer System I-94 arrival/departure record revealed
the same information.
He emphasized that two agencies, the INS
and US Customs Service, “separately verified the arrival of Hubert
Webb in the US.”
“When a visitor arrives in the United
States,” he said, “the US INS stamps the date of arrival on both
the visitor’s passport and the I-94 form.”
Heafner noted that because of the information on
Hubert’s arrival in the US, “the NBI had advised that it had
discontinued investigating Webb as a suspect, in part because US
Government Records had showed that he had been in the US.”
He said the NBI requested no additional
information from US sources until June 1995, when its acting
director, Antonio Aragon, asked about Hubert’s employment record,
his contacts in the US and his departure record.
On July 7, 1995, then-NBI Director Mariano Mison
asked the US Embassy to look into the background of Alex del Toro,
husband of Rose Manlapit, Hubert’s relative.
Del Toro had testified that Hubert worked for
him in his pest-control company from June 11 to July 10, 1991.
In his letter to Mison on July 17, 1995, Heafner
said the FBI field office in Los Angeles, California, verified that
del Toro owned the Environment First Termite Control company in
South Laguna Beach, California.
Hubert, the FBI noted, worked for the company
starting in June 1991 on an “as-needed” basis.
As proof, del Toro produced the company payroll
showing that it issued Hubert a check for $150 on June 10, 1991, and
another for $290.25 on June 16, 1991.
Heafner told Mison that del Toro also issued
Hubert work orders on different dates in June 1991 including the
28th.
To verify who cashed the checks, the FBI got
copies of del Toro’s documents and found that Hubert endorsed the
checks and cashed them.
Another crucial evidence was the testimony of
John Pavlisin, owner of Orange Cycle, a bicycle store in Orange
City, California. A check on Pavlisin’s records showed that he
sold a Cannondale bicycle to Hubert on June 30, 1991.
Heafner said Pavlisin “advised he has been in
business for 26 years and maintains all his records of bicycle
sales.” Heafner said the duplicate receipt issued to Hubert “was
verified as legitimate.” The original copy was issued to Elizabeth
Webb, Hubert’s mother.
The FBI also interviewed other persons who had
verified Hubert’s presence and employment in the US.
On July 25, 1995, Heafner wrote to then-Justice
Secretary Teofisto Guingona in response to requests by government
officials to clarify the words “US Government Records” Heafner
had used in previous letters.
Heafner reiterated that according to FBI files,
Moreen Auyeung, supervisory clerk of the US INS in San Francisco,
said that on January 16, 1992, she verified that Hubert arrived
on March 9, 1991, under the Nonimmigrant Information System.
A check by the FBI Washington Field Office also
showed that Hubert entered the US on that date. US Customs also
verified Hubert’s arrival in the US.
Authenticated copies of documents from the
California Department of Motor Vehicles also showed Hubert bought a
car on July 5, 1991.
On August 30, 1995, the Philippine Embassy in
Washington, D.C., asked the US State Department to verify Hubert’s
arrival in and departure from the US.
On September 1 the State Department issued a
diplomatic note saying that the US INS and a computer printout
verified that Hubert entered the US on March 9, 1991, and left on
October 26, 1992. The documents were authenticated by US Attorney
General Janet Reno and US State Secretary Warren Christopher.
On January 24, 1997, Steven Bucher, acting chief
of the Records Services Branch of the US INS, wrote to Phillip
Antweiler of the State Department reiterating that official records
showed that Hubert arrived in the US on March 9, 1991, and left on
October 26, 1992.
Hubert’s departure was certified on June 29,
1995, by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, which said that
he arrived in Manila from the US on October 27, 1992, on Philippine
Airlines flight PR 103 together with his mother Elizabeth and
brother Michael.
Agnes Tabuena of PAL also testified that Hubert
boarded the PAL flight from Los Angeles to Manila on that date.
Hubert’s PAL ticket indicated the departure date as October 26.
The Bureau of Immigration also stamped October 27 on Hubert’s
passport as his date of arrival in Manila.
Defense demands Tolentino’s recusal from the
case
Webb, Lejano, Fernandez, Rodriguez, Estrada and
Gatchalian were arraigned on September 4, 1995, and then filed
motions for bail.
Even before and during the trial, Hubert
filed several motions to recuse Judge Tolentino from the case,
accusing her of bias.
Supreme Court documents showed that Hubert and
Biong tried to disqualify Tolentino by filing a petition before her
court on August 21, 1995. Hubert alleged that Tolentino told
reporters that “failure of the accused to surrender following the
issuance of the warrant for his arrest is an indication of guilt.”
Tolentino dismissed the petition.
Two days later Hubert filed a second motion to
disqualify Tolentino. Biong also filed a similar motion. The judge
dismissed both motions.
Hubert’s difficulties were compounded by his
skin asthma; Judge Tolentino was no help in his case. On September
21, 1995, he filed an urgent motion to be hospitalized, complaining
that poor conditions at the Parañaque municipal jail were
aggravating his skin disease. Tolentino denied the motion on October
16.
The suspects sought bail although their crime
was nonbailable. The bail hearing started on October 9, 1995.
Alfaro as state witness
The prosecution presented Jessica Alfaro as its
star witness. The defense tried to destroy her credibility by
questioning her first affidavit, made at the NBI on April 28, 1995.
The defense said Alfaro lied by making two
inconsistent affidavits, thus her credibility as the principal
witness was dubious.
The prosecution objected and asked that
Alfaro’s first affidavit be stricken off the court records because
it was inadmissible evidence. Tolentino agreed, noting that the
document had been signed without the assistance of a lawyer.
The defense also questioned Alfaro’s motive
for testifying. It asked about Alfaro’s brother, Patrick, said to
be a drug addict who had been arrested by the NBI for possession of
illegal drugs. The prosecution objected, saying Patrick’s arrest
was irrelevant to the case. Tolentino sustained the objection.
Feeling that Tolentino had a deep-seated bias
against them, Hubert and his coaccused again filed a motion on
November 9, 1995, to recuse Tolentino from the case. She denied it
for lack of merit on November 28.
On November 15, 1995, the suspects filed two
petitions with the Supreme Court. Hubert, Lejano, Fernandez and
Biong petitioned for certiorari to overturn Tolentino’s decision
prohibiting Hubert from seeking hospitalization and disallowing
Alfaro’s first affidavit.
Gatchalian and Estrada also filed a petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the High Court questioning
Tolentino’s decision to bar the defense from cross-examining
Alfaro about her first affidavit.
On December 8 the defense filed another petition
with the Court questioning Tolentino’s November 8 decision denying
its motion for her recusal.
Mila Gaviola, former maid of the Webbs, then
testified that she saw Hubert at home on June 30, 1991.
Despite the objection of the defense, Tolentino
ordered an inspection of the Webbs’ house because Gaviola had
testified that there was a secret door “through which she peeped
to see” Hubert.
On January 12, 1996, Hubert filed a motion with
the Parañaque Regional Trial Court asking that his witnesses in the
US be allowed to give their depositions for use in the trial. The
witnesses were Steven Bucher and Debora Farmer of the US INS, Jaci
Alston and Ami Smalley of the US Department of Motor Vehicles, and
John Pavlisin, a resident of Orange City, California. Tolentino
denied the motion on February 6.
At the end of the hearings for bail the accused
filed a formal offer of evidence to which the prosecution filed its
objection.
On October 1, 1996, Tolentino admitted only 10
of the 142 pieces of evidence, the defense presented. On October 11
she denied bail to the accused.
The defense won a partial victory in the Court
of Appeals on June 21, 1996, when the court allowed Alfaro’s first
affidavit to be used in the trial but denied all other matters in
the petition.
On December 12, 1996, the accused filed with the
Supreme Court a motion questioning the appellate court’s denial of
matters in their petition.
The accused said the appellate court erred when
it ruled that there was no basis for recusing Tolentino from the
case. They said Tolentino had consistently shown bias against and
hostility toward them.
They alleged that by rejecting 132 of the 142
pieces of evidence, Tolentino had set the tone for their conviction.
They also protested Tolentino’s visit to the Vizconde house.
On July 24, 1997, the Supreme Court dismissed
the petition of the accused for lack of merit and allowed Tolentino
to continue hearing the case. The Court said the accused failed to
show that Tolentino had been biased against them.
The Court noted, however, that Tolentino erred
when she refused to admit the 132 pieces of evidence presented by
the defense, although these were later admitted in court through an
order issued by the judge. The Court also refused to disqualify
Tolentino, saying “the trial of the petitioners is about to end
and to assign a new judge to determine the guilt or innocence of
petitioners will not be in the best interest of justice.”
The Court reminded Tolentino “that our
ability to dispense impartial justice is an issue in every trial,
and in every criminal prosecution the judiciary always stands as a
silent accused. More than convicting the guilty and acquitting the
innocent, the business of the judiciary is to assure fulfillment of
the promise that justice shall be done and is done, and that is the
only way for the judiciary to get an acquittal from the bar of
public opinion.”
On August 17, 1999, the Supreme Court overturned
the decision of the Court of Appeals and ruled that Judge Tolentino
did not commit error when she barred the depositions of Bucher,
Farmer, Alston, Smalley and Pavlisin.
On February 6, 1998, the appellate court’s
Fourth Division had allowed the five witnesses to make their
testimonies before a consular officer in the US.
The Supreme Court said the trial court need not
get the testimony of the five witnesses regarding the documents they
presented, because these had already been admitted as evidence to
bolster Webb’s stay in the US.
Conviction
The Vizconde trial became a celebrated case in
the country because it had the elements of a soap opera.
On January 6, 2000, or nine years after the
murders of the Vizconde family, Judge Tolentino rendered her
decision.
Early in the morning, hundreds of people were
already cramming Branch 274 of the Parañaque Regional Trial Court.
The families of the accused attended to hear the
judgment. Among them were Freddie and Elizabeth Webb. Lauro Vizconde
was already there.
Television, radio and newspaper reporters were
on hand to cover the proceedings. The press was represented in huge
number.
At 8:30 a.m. a clerk of court started reading
the 186-page decision. It would take another clerk of court to
finish reading the verdict, which took almost five hours.
Tolentino sentenced to life imprisonment Hubert
Webb, Peter Estrada, Hospicio Fernandez, Michael Gatchalian, Antonio
Lejano II and Miguel Rodriguez and ordered them to indemnify the
Vizconde family P3 million for the murders of Estrellita, Carmela
and Anna Marie Jennifer.
Gerardo Biong, the Parañaque policeman, was
found guilty of burning bed sheets and other evidence in the crime
and was sentenced, to 11 years in prison.
Joey Filart and Artemio “Dong” Ventura were
not sentenced because they were not arraigned and escaped
prosecution. They remain at large.
Webb cried on hearing the verdict. His parents
and siblings were inconsolable. The other suspects also reacted the
same way.
Case review: Victory for Lauro or Hubert?
Lauro Vizconde told The Manila Times that when
the verdict was handed, he felt he had “partially gained
justice.”
Since then he has immersed himself in a crusade
against crime. He is active in the Volunteers Against Crime and
Corruption, an organization that helps victims of crimes and
monitors cases in courts. He is also a director in the
government-owned Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp.
Hubert is a ranking officer of the Sigue Sigue
Sputnik gang at the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City. Senator
Webb said the family visits Hubert every Sunday and celebrates with
him all occasions, including birthdays, in his cell.
Vizconde visits the graves of his family once or
twice a month. He also visits them on their birthdays or on
Christmas.
He is apprehensive about the Supreme Court’s
decision directing the appellate court to review the case, saying
times are different now.
“My greatest fear is the time element,”
Vizconde said.
He said the appellate court has six months to
decide the case.
And if the appellate court affirms the
conviction, the case goes automatically to the Supreme Court for
review. Vizconde estimates it would take another two years for the
High Court to issue a decision.
He fears that he may not live to see the final
outcome of the review.
It’s been 14 years since the gruesome murders
of his family, and Vizconde has learned to pardon Webb and the rest
of the group.
“I was able to forgive them but it doesn’t
mean that I’ve already forgotten [what they did],” he said.
Will Vizconde end up victorious as he did five
years ago or will Hubert Webb walk free and reclaim his freedom?
Part 1 |
|
