You are on page 1of 4

WEBB VS DE LEON 4.

The motion was granted by DOJ and the NBI


submitted the photocopies of the requested documents.
FACTS: Then Webb filed a civil case in RTC of Makati for the
purpose of obtaining the original of said sworn
1. June 1994, NBI filed with DOJ a letter-cvomplaint statement and has succeeded to obtain the original
charging petitioner HUbert Webb, and other persons copy. This was submitted to the DOJ together with his
with the crime of rape with homicide. Forthwith, DOJ other evidence. But Webb failed to obtain the document
formed a panel of prosecutors headed by assistant chief from US FBI.
state prosecutor to conduct the PI of the charged witht
the rape and killing of the ViZconde in their home in 5. During PI, Webb denied the crime as he went to the
Paranaque. US and was not in the Philippines when the crime
happened. This alibi was supported by the other
2. During the PI, NBI presented: (1) sworn statement of persons accused and the documentary evidence of
their principal witness Alfaro who allgedly saw the Webb's purchase of bicycle in the US, the driver's
commission of the crime. (2) sworn statements of two liscense State of California issued for him and the letter
former housemaids of the Webb (3) sworn statement of of the legal attache of the US embassy confirming his
Cristobal who allegedly that he was a passenger of arrival at San Francisco, California on March 9, 1991.
United Airlines bound for New York adn expressed doubt The other respondents submitted their sworn statement
on whether Webb was his co-passenger in the trip (4) as well.
sworn statement of Birrer, former live-in partner of
Biong, who narrated the manner of how Biong 6. On August 1995, DOJ Panel issued a resolution finding
investigated and tried to cover up the crime (5) sworn probable cause to hold the respondents for trial and
statements of two Vizconde maids, security guard and recommending that an information for rape with
engineer. (6) Autopsy reports of the victims showing the homicide be filed against petitioners and their co-
number of stab wounds and genital examination of the respondents, which was complied on the same date with
victims. the RTC of Paranaque. The case was raffled to branch
258 with Judge Escano, however it was Judge de Leon,
3. Before submitting his counter-affidavit, Webb filed pairing judge of Judge Escano who issued the warrant of
with DOJ panel a motion for production and examination arrest against the accused. BUt later, Judge Ecano
of evidence and documents for the NBI to produce some voluntarily inhibited himself from the case to avoid any
documents like (1) certification of US FBI on the suspicion considering that he was with NBI before his
admission to and stay of HUbert Webb in the US from appointment to the bench. The case was re-raffled again
MArch 9, 1991 to October 22, 1992 (2) Laboratory to branch 274 with Judge Tolentino who issued new
report of the medico legal officer (3) sworn statement of warrants of arrest against the accused, then Webb with
Biong (4) photographs of the fingerprints lifted from the other accused voluntarily surrendered to the police.
Vizconde residence taken during investigation (5)
investigation of NBI 7. In their petitions, the petitioners contend: (1) Judge
de Leon and Tolentino gravely abused their discretion
when they failed to conduct PI before issuing warrants The purpose of a preliminary investigation. Section 1 of
of arrest (2) DOJ panel gravely abused its discretion in Rule 112 provides that a preliminary investigation
holding that there is probable cause to charge them should determine "whether there is a sufficient ground
with the crime of rape and homicide (3) DOJ denied to engender a well-grounded belief that a crime
them their constitutional right to due process during the cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been
PI (40) DOJ panel unlawfully intruded into judicial committed and that the respondent is probably guilty
prerogative when it failed to charge Jessica Alfaro in the thereof, and should be held for trial.
information as an accused.
Given the conflicting pieces of evidence of the NBI and
ISSUE: the petitioners, we hold that the DOJ Panel did not
(1) Did DOJ Panel gravely abuse its discretion in holding gravely abuse its discretion when it found probable
there is probable cause to charge accused crime of rape cause against the petitioners. A probable cause
and homicide? NO needs only to rest on evidence showing that more
(2) Did respondent judges de Leon and Tolentino gravely likely than not, a crime has been committed and
abuse their discretion when they failed to conduct a was committed by the suspects. Probable cause
preliminary examination before issuing warrants of need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of
arrest against the accused? NO guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond
(3) Did the DOJ Panel deny them their constitutional reasonable doubt and definitely, not on evidence
right to due process during their preliminary establishing absolute certainty of guilt.
investigation? NO
(4) Did the DOJ Panel unlawfully intrude into judicial Considering the low quantum and quality of
prerogative when it failed to charge Jessica Alfaro in the evidence needed to support a finding of probable
information as an accused? NO cause, we also hold that the DOJ Panel did not,
gravely abuse its discretion in refusing to call the
HELD: NBI witnesses for clarificatory questions. The
decision to call witnesses for clarificatory
(1) NO. Valid determination - Petitioner insist that the questions is addressed to the sound discretion of
May 22, 1995 sworn statement of Jessica Alfaro is the investigator and the investigator alone. If the
inherently weak and uncorroborated. They hammer on evidence on hand already yields a probable
alleged material inconsistencies between her April 28, cause, the investigator need not hold a
1995 and May 22, 1995 sworn statements. They assail clarificatory hearing.
her credibility for her misdescription of petitioner
Webb's hair as semi-blonde. They also criticize the Probable cause merely implies probability of guilt
procedure followed by the DOJ Panel when it did not and should be determined in a summary manner.
examine witnesses to clarify the alleged incredulities Preliminary investigation is not a part of trial and
and inconsistencies in the sworn statements of the it is only in a trial where an accused can demand
witnesses for the NBI. the full exercise of his rights, such as the right to
confront and cross-examine his accusers to establish his
innocence. In the case at bar, the DOJ Panel correctly Petitioners' reliance on the case of Allado vs. Diokno is
adjudged that enough evidence had been adduced to misplaced. Our Allado ruling is predicated on the utter
establish probable cause and clarificatory hearing was failure of the evidence to show the existence of
unnecessary. probable cause. Not even the corpus delicti of the crime
was established by the evidence of the prosecution in
(2) NO. Valid arrest -- In arrest cases, there must be a that case.
probable cause that a crime has been committed and
that the person arrested committed it. Section 6 of (3) NO. There is no merit in this contention because
Rule 112 provides that upon filing of an information, petitioners were given all the opportunities to be
the RTC may issue a warrant for the accused. Clearly heard. The DOJ Panel precisely requested the parties to
then, our laws repudiate the submission that respondent adduce more evidence in their behalf and for the panel
judges should have conducted searching examination to study the evidence submitted more fully.
of witnesses before issuing warrants of arrest against
them. (4) NO. Petitioners argument lacks appeal for it lies on
the faulty assumption that the decision whom to
In the case at bar, the DOJ Panel submitted to the trial prosecute is a judicial function, the sole prerogative of
court its 26-page report, the two (2) sworn statements the courts and beyond executive and legislative
of Alfaro and the sworn statements of Carlos Cristobal interference. In truth, the prosecution of crimes
and Lolita Birrer as well as the counter-affidavits of the appertains to the executive department of government
petitioners. Apparently, the painstaking recital and whose principal power and responsibility is to see that
analysis of the parties' evidence made in the DOJ Panel our laws are faithfully executed. A necessary component
Report satisfied both judges that there is probable cause of this power is the right to prosecute their violators
to issue warrants of arrest against petitioners. Again, we (See R.A. No. 6981 and section 9 of Rule 119 for legal
stress that before issuing warrants of arrest, judges basis).
merely determine personally the probability, not the
certainty of guilt of an accused. In doing so, judges do With regard to the inconsistencies of the sworn
not conduct a de novo hearing to determine the statements of Jessica Alfaro, the Court believes that
existence of probable cause. They just personally review these have been sufficiently explained and there is no
the initial determination of the prosecutor finding a showing that the inconsistencies were deliberately
probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial made to distort the truth.
evidence. The sufficiency of the review process cannot
be measured by merely counting minutes and hours. With regard to the petitioners complaint about the
The fact that it took the respondent judges a few hours prejudicial publicity that attended their preliminary
to review and affirm the probable cause determination investigation, the Court finds nothing in the records that
of the DOJ Panel does not mean they made no personal will prove that the tone and content of the publicity that
evaluation of the evidence attached to the records of attended the investigation of petitioners fatally infected
the case. the fairness and impartiality of the DOJ Panel.
Petitioners cannot just rely on the subliminal effects of
publicity on the sense of fairness of the DOJ Panel, for
these are basically unbeknown and beyond knowing.

You might also like