Webb v. de Leon [GR 121234, 23 August 1995], also Gatchalian v. de Leon [GR 121245], and Lejano v.

de Leon [GR 121297]

Second Division, Puno (J) : 2 concur, 1 on leave

Facts: This was a highly-publicized case (dubbed as Vizconde Massacre, and involves a son of a Philippine Senator). On 19 June
1994, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) a letter-complaint charging petitioners
Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian. Antonio J. Lejano and 6 other persons, with the crime of Rape with Homicide. Forthwith, the DOJ
formed a panel of prosecutors headed by Assistant Chief State prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuno to conduct the preliminary investigation of
those charged with the rape and killing on 30 June 1991 of Carmela N. Vizconde, her mother Estrellita Nicolas-Vizoonde, and sister
Anne Marie Jennifer in their home at Paranaque. During the preliminary investigation, the NBI presented the sworn statements of Maria
Jessica Alfaro, 2 former housemaids of the Webb family, Carlos Cristobal (a plane passenger), Lolita Birrer (live-in partner of Biong), 2
of Vizcondes maids, Normal White (a security guard) and Manciano Gatmaitan (an engineer). The NBI also submitted the autopsy
report involving Estrellita (12 stab wounds), Carmela (9 stab wounds), and Jennifer (19 stab wounds); and the genital examination of
Carmela confirming the presence of spermatozoa. The NBI submitted photocopies of the documents requested by Webb in his Motion
for Production and Examination of Evidence and Documents, granted by the DOJ Panel. Webb claimed during the preliminary
investigation that he did not commit the crime as he went to the United States on 1 March 1991 and returned to the Philippines on 27
October 1992. The others Fernandez, Gatchalian, Lejano, Estrada, Rodriguez and Biong submitted sworn statements, responses,
and a motion to dismiss denying their complicity in the rape-killing of the Vizcondes. Only Filart and Ventura failed to file their counter-
affidavits though they were served with subpoena in their last known address. On 8 August 1995, the DOJ Panel issued a 26-page
Resolution "finding

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 16 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

probable cause to hold respondents for trial" and recommending that an Information for rape with homicide be filed against Webb, et.
al. On the same date, it filed the corresponding Information against Webb, et. al. with the RTC Paranaque. Docketed as Criminal Case
95-404 and raffled to Branch 258 presided by Judge Zosimo V. Escano. It was, however, Judge Raul de Leon, pairing judge of Judge
Escano, who issued the warrants of arrest against Webb, et. al. On 11 August 1995, Judge Escano voluntarily inhibited himself from the
case to avoid any suspicion about his impartiality considering his employment with the NBI before his appointment to the bench. The
case was re-raffled to branch 274, presided by Judge Amelita Tolentino who issued new warrants of arrest against Webb, et. al. On 11
August 1995, Webb voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities at Camp Ricardo Papa Sr., in Taguig. Webb, et. al. filed petitions for
the issuance of the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction with the Supreme Court to: (1) annul and set aside the Warrants of Arrest issued against petitioners by
respondent Judges Raul E. de Leon and Amelita Tolentino in Criminal Case No. 95- 404; (2) enjoin the respondents from conducting
any proceeding in the aforementioned criminal case; and (3) dismiss said criminal case or include Jessica Alfaro as one of the accused
therein. Gatchalian and Lejano likewise gave themselves up to the authorities after filing their petitions before the Court.

Issue: Whether the attendant publicity of the case deprived Webb, et.al, of their right to fair trial.

Held: Pervasive and prejudicial publicity under certain circumstances can deprive an accused of his due process right to fair trial.
Herein, however, nothing in the records that will prove that the tone and content of the publicity that attended the investigation of
petitioners fatally infected the fairness and impartiality of the DOJ Panel. The DOJ Panel is composed of an Assistant Chief State
Prosecutor and Senior State Prosecutors; and their long experience in criminal investigation is a factor to consider in determining
whether they can easily be blinded by the klieg lights of publicity. At no instance in the case did Webb, et. al. seek the disqualification of
any member of the DOJ Panel on the ground of bias resulting from their bombardment of prejudicial publicity. Further , on the
contention of the denial of their constitutional right to due process and violation of their right to an impartial investigation, records show
that the DOJ Panel did not conduct the preliminary investigation with indecent haste. Webb, et. al. were given fair opportunity to prove
lack of probable cause against them. Still, the Supreme Court reminds a trial judge in high profile criminal cases of his/her duty to
control publicity prejudicial to the fair administration of justice. The 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.

79 People v. Sanchez [GR 121039-45, 18 October 2001]

Resolution of First Division, Melo (J) : 3 concur

Facts: (The Sarmenta-Gomez rape-slay) On 28 June 1993, Luis and Rogelio "Boy" Corcolon approached Eileen Sarmenta and Allan
Gomez, forcibly took the two and loaded them at the back of the latter's van, which was parked in front of Cafe Amalia, Agrix Complex,
Los Banos, Laguna. George Medialdea, Zoilo Ama, Baldwin Brion and Pepito Kawit also boarded the van while Aurelio Centeno and
Vicencio Malabanan, who were also with the group, stayed in the ambulance. Both vehicles then headed for Erais Farm situated in
Barangay Curba, which was owned by Mayor Antonio Sanchez of Calauan, Laguna. The two youngsters were then brought inside the
resthouse where Eileen was taken to the Mayors room. Allan was badly beaten up by Luis, Boy, Ama and Medialdea and thereafter
thrown out of the resthouse. At around 1:00 a.m. of the next day, a crying Eileen was dragged out of the resthouse by Luis and
Medialdea her hair disheveled, mouth covered by a handkerchief, hands still tied and stripped of her shorts. Eileen and Allan were
then loaded in the Tamaraw van by Medialdea, et. al. and headed for Calauan, followed closely by the ambulance. En route to Calauan,
gunfire was heard from the van. The van pulled over whereupon Kawit dragged Allan, whose head was already drenched in blood, out
of the vehicle onto the road and finished him off with a single gunshot

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 17 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

from his armalite. The ambulance and van then sped away. Upon reaching a sugarcane field in Sitio Paputok, Kilometro 74 of Barangay
Mabacan, Eileen was gang-raped by Luis Corcolon, Medialdea, Rogelio Corcolon, Ama, Brion and Kawit. After Kawits turn, Luis
Corcolon shot Eileen with his baby armalite. Moments later, all 8 men boarded the ambulance and proceeded to Calauan, leaving the
Tamaraw van with Eileens remains behind. Initially, the crime was attributed to one Kit Alqueza, a son of a feared general (Dictador
Alqueza). Luis and Rogelio Corcolon were also implicated therein. However, further investigation, and forensic findings, pointed to the
group of Mayor Sanchez. Centeno and Malabanan bolstered the prosecution's theory. On 11 March 1995, Judge Harriet O. Demetriou
of the Regional Trial Court (Pasig City, Branch 70) found Mayor Sanchez, Medialdea, Ama, Brion, Luis Corcolon, Rogelio Corcolon and
Kawit guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide, ordering them to pay Eileen Sarmenta the amount of P50,000
and additionally, the amount of P700,000.00 to the heirs of Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez as additional indemnity. On 25 January
1999, the Supreme Court, through Justice Martinez, affirmed in toto the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Antonio
Sanchez, Zoilo Ama, Baldwin Brion and Pepito Kawit seasonably filed their respective motions for reconsideration. The Office of the
Solicitor General filed its Comment on 6 December 1999. Sanchez avers that he is a victim of trial and conviction by publicity, besides
claims that principal witness Centeno and Malabanan lack credibility, that the testimony of his 13- year old daughter should have been
given full faith and credit, and that the gargantuan damages awarded have no factual and legal bases. Ama, Brion and Kawit maintain
that Centeno and Malabanan were sufficiently impeached by their inconsistent statements pertain to material and crucial points of the
events at issue, besides that independent and disinterested witnesses have destroyed the prosecutions version of events. On 2
February 1999, Justice Martinez retired in accordance with AM 99-8-09. The motions for reconsideration was assigned to Justice Melo
for study and preparation of the appropriate action on 18 September 2001.

Issue: Whether the publicity of the case impaired the impartiality of the judge handling the case.

Held: Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. The mere fact that the trial of Mayor Sanchez, et.
al., was given a day-to-day, gavel-to-gavel coverage does not by itself prove that publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge and
impaired his impartiality. The right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible to a free press. Responsible reporting enhances an
accused's right to a fair trial. The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against the miscarriage of justice by
subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism. Our judges are learned in the law
and trained to disregard off-court evidence and on camera performances of parties to a litigation. Their mere exposure to publications
and publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect their impartiality. To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be allegation
and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced by the barrage of publicity. Records herein do not show that the trial judge
developed actual bias against Mayor Sanchez, et. al., as a consequence of the extensive media coverage of the pre-trial and trial of his
case. The totality of circumstances of the case does not prove that the trial judge acquired a fixed position as a result of prejudicial
publicity which is incapable of change even by evidence presented during the trial. Mayor Sanchez, et. al., has the burden to prove this
actual bias and he has not discharged the burden.