Flawed judgment - My Viewpoint

No one in his right mind would begrudge Lauro Vizconde his right to obtain justice for the massacre of his family and the vicious gang-rape of his young daughter. Those killers and rapists should burn in hell for all eternity. Our justice system should start that process by dispatching their miserable souls through lethal injections slowly, ever so slowly, injected into their veins so they can linger interminably in that twilight between the useless life they are about to leave and the deserved damnation to which they are about to be consigned.

Unfortunately, the decision of Judge Amelita Tolentino finding Hubert Webb et al. guilty and sentencing them to life imprisonment neither settles that question nor gives us comfort that the true killers have been brought to justice. I really cannot say whether or not the group of Webb, Estrada, Lejano, Gatchalian, Rodriguez, Fernandez and others are the perpetrators of the Vizconde family massacre. Unless evidence more definitive than any which has been produced thus far surfaces to lay that issue to rest, all I can say is that that kilometric decision of Judge Tolentino raised numerous questions in my mind. It was a rambling and mind-numbing presentation, certainly not one of those succinct but thoroughly presented and closely argued court decisions which are the mark of great judges. The text begged questions at practically every turn, cried out for logic and balance treatment in its most important conclusions.

For instance, I still cannot, for the life of me, comprehend the Judge's appreciation of the evidence regarding the location of Hubert Webb on June 29, 1991, the day the heinous crime was committed. I know all about alibi being the weakest defense, and all that. But was there any real basis for debunking the certifications issued by US and Philippine immigration authorities on Hubert's departure for the US on March 9, 1991 and his return to the Philippines on October 27, 1992? I know too all about the rumors about how he might have been "smuggled" back and forth so that he could have been at B.F. Homes, Parañaque on that fateful day. But rumors are not evidence. And to say that there was no evidence that it was impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime and that, therefore, the certifications are worthless violates, as far as I know, at least a couple of rules of evidence, as well as of logic. First, to reach that conclusion about the official certifications involves conjuring up pretty sophisticated and somewhat insulting conjectures, such as lying and perjury on the part of certain high government officials in Washington and Manila. Which is fine, if you have evidence of that. Otherwise, neither are these conjectures, at least last time I checked, evidence.

Also, when we resolve any doubts, if legitimate doubts there are, in favor of conviction, do we not run roughshod over the right of the accused to be presumed innocent? Sure, there may be lynch mobs outside the courtroom and the jailhouse yelling for the suspect to be hung from the nearest tree. But the constitutional presumption is there nevertheless, and judges are expected to be the faithful guardians of this most fundamental of rights.

This is the same problem I have with the Judge's pooh-poohing of all the testimonies of those witnesses who is swear they saw Hubert in the US on or around the crucial dates of the crime. Sure, they could have been lying and, yes, many were friends or relatives. But, to begin with, I didn't know kinship or friendship automatically made one a liar in the eyes of the court. Secondly, even if I am prepared to be skeptical about their testimonies, I would certainly look for some indication, the tiniest piece of evidence that they are lying or coloring the truth. Thirdly, when I go abroad, who is best to say I was there than friends, relatives and business associates I deal with. Do I expect strangers or people I had no dealings with to testify for me?

Even those testimonies which were dismissed since they vouched for Hubert Webb's presence in the US months after the crime play a supportive, corroborative role because they fall within that March, 1991 to October, 1992 window which the official certifications cover.

The Judge speaks of "selective memory and "hearsay." But it strikes me that to say that with conviction, one must have had access to testimony which demonstrated unselective memory or direct knowledge. Such as: Did any one other than Jessica Alfaro and former maid Mila Gaviola testify to the presence of Hubert in Manila on the day of the crime, or any other day between March, 1991 to October, 1992? If such evidence surfaced, then I would be convinced that, indeed, those "friendly" witnesses must have been lying.

The prosecution, both public and private, I'm sure, did their duty as they saw fit. They have already earned plaudits from those that truly believe they nailed the right parties. My problem is doubt, reasonable doubt -- a nagging, pervasive doubt that Judge Tolentino's decision has done little to dispel. Evidently, she doesn't have any doubts, reasonable or otherwise. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will.