Justice Secretary Serafin Cuevas did his person and his portfolio a great disservice when on the eve of the rendering of the verdict on the Vizconde massacre case, he gleefully set the public up for a guilty life-term verdict. "The evidence is insurmountable," he gloated, and certainly there will be a conviction. One would have expected from the man juridical silence, prudence and serenity. After all, his was a lofty perch in the government and, to boot, Secretary Cuevas was a former member of the Supreme Court. But he joined and even fueled the mass hysteria that had doomed the Webbs from the outset. It was strange -- our secretary of justice riding a broomstick before judgment was rendered by Judge Amelita Tolentino.
After the verdict, Secretary Cuevas appeared on Gene Orejana's On-Line to quash whatever argument was lifted in behalf of Hubert Webb. He airily dismissed columnist Ramon Tulfo's video coverage of Hubert's presence in the United States by stating Tulfo was paid a commission by the Webbs. So Tulfo was a mercenary without conviction. And so was Rene Saguisag, who was paid a handsome lawyer's fee. I wonder what he would have said of me. I know, like some blighted people, Secretary Cuevas would have said I stashed millions in my bank for defending the cause of the Webbs. How much, Mr. Secretary?
In the On-Line program, the good secretary also found nothing wrong with the fact the NBI never subjected the semen collected from Carmela Vizconde's private part to a DNA test. That would have conclusively proved 99.99 percent, that's how accurate it is) whether it was really Hubert who pumped and then wantonly killed Carmela. Nothing wrong? DNA tests are standard practice in many countries. And Mr. Cuevas knows that. He swore by the testimonies of former Webb household help Mila Gaviola (that blood-drenched shirt) but made no mention of the fact the maid was never subjected to a lie-detector test. And that she was no longer working for the Webbs long before that fateful day.
For that matter, Jessica Alfaro was never subjected by the NBI to a lie detector test. It was her testimony -- contradictory and tortured in many parts -- that sent Hubert and his co-accused to prison for the rest of their lives. But she was the NBI's Queen of Sheba and treated royally.
If I mention the contretemps of Secretary Cuevas, it is for the purpose of underscoring one shocking, startling factor. He too rode the wave of mass hysteria. He too joined the gallery to hoot, to jeer, to taunt the accused. I find that revolting. Like Judge Tolentino, he demolished every piece of evidence mustered by Webb's defense in that trial. All who testified they saw Hubert in America, including Gary Valenciano, were given short shrift. They were close friends and relatives of the Webbs residing in the US and therefore concocted their testimonies to favor Hubert.
This too was an argument used by Sen. Rene Cayetano when he was private prosecutor during the Vizconde murder trial. How can these relatives tell the truth? They had to lie, said Cayetano. How biased, blind and prejudiced we can all be? Of course when we bring pictures home from our visits abroad, they are pictures of us with our relatives and friends. Not with Al Gore, Ricky Martin, John McCain and Bill Gates. But again, the judge ignored or dismissed a whole stack of pictures showing Hubert with Filipino friends and relatives in America. I saw all those pictures.
Judge Tolentino dismissed everything, everything, everything the defense presented.
She even haughtily dismissed Foreign Affairs Secretary Domingo Siazon who sought to testify on US Department of State documents confirming and authenticating the presence of Hubert in the US between the dates March 9, 1991 and October 27, 1992. I have seen all these documents. I had interviewed Robert Hefner, FBI agent in residence at the US embassy here, and Hank Henrickson, second man in the embassy and political point-man. I was assured the documents were public and official documents of the US government and therefore solid as marble.
But no, Judge Tolentino would have none of this. What to her would have validity under the rules of evidence was for Secretary of State Warren Christopher to present himself in her court and testify. And this held true for Madeleine Albright who succeeded Christopher. She too had to come over and testify. Is this how justice is practiced in the Philippines? Does this kind of justice explain why none of over 20 convicted members of the Aquila Legis Ateneo law fraternity who ruthlessly killed Lenny Villa in fraternity rites ever spent a day in jail?
In my mind, Judge Tolentino rode mass hysteria and media voltage that wanted Hubert and his pals lynched. So did Senators Rene Cayetano and Tito Guingona who fell all over Lauro Vizconde after the verdict was rendered. Guingona was justice secretary at the time charges against the accused were filed in court. They were convicted by publicity from the beginning because they filled the role -- perfectly. They were scions of rich and powerful families, spoiled, roustabouts, drug-sniffers, bullies even. And so when Jessica Alfaro, no saint herself, pointed the finger at Hubert and the rest, Manila society was Niniveh reborn, swarming to the streets and temples for the approaching day of vengeance. There was a Marxist coloration to this, the poor and helpless against the rich and mighty.
Ergo, Hubert was guilty as hell, and to blazes with the evidence.
And so I find it sickening when I see Rene Cayetano and Tito Guingona, senators of the realm, and Serafin Cuevas, justice secretary, whooping it up like disciples in a swirling and epileptic trance during a religious revival. But I do expect the Supreme Court to -- since the verdict is on appeal -- look very closely, wisely and assiduously at the evidence and not be influenced by the same lynch mentality that still prevails today.
To me and many others, the core and center of Judge Tolentino's verdict was this: The Vizconde massacre was committed by Hubert and his pals "beyond reasonable doubt". I find that totally unconvincing. The US State Department's official findings, after thorough inquiry, was that Hubert was in the US during the time of the massacre. Isn't this reasonable doubt raised to decibel levels? The abject failure of the NBI to subject semen extracted from Carmela's vagina to DNA testing despite insistence on the part of Hubert, this column and other parties. Wasn't this reasonable doubt? Testimonies of the two Webb maids, not subjected to a lie detector test, were very questionable. And probably false. Again doubt.
Katrina Legarda and Theodore The, criminal lawyers of national repute, declared on TV after the verdict that both the cases of the prosecution and the defense had many holes, many infirmities, many inconsistencies. They indicated Tolentino's verdict of "beyond reasonable doubt" could not repeat not be established. If tried under the US jury system, the Vizconde massacre trial would have resulted in a hung jury. No verdict of innocent or guilty. Maybe a retrial would have been in order.
What was probably the most questionable aspect of Judge Tolentino's 186-page verdict was that it was simply a mirror image of the prosecution's case. It demolished every evidence in favor of Webb and the accused. It raised to the level of a papal encyclical (Veritatis Splendor) ex cathedra and beyond question and reproach the entire testimony of Jessica Alfaro. Her drug addiction, her many lies alone during the trial made her a questionable witness. Now we have the statement of former NBI director Salvador Mison admitting the possibility the Supreme Court could reverse Tolentino's decision and acquit Hubert Webb and his co-accused.
And in a fit of what could be called sadism, Mison said that even if acquitted, the accused would have "many years in jail by then." I find that utterly reprehensible on the part of a man who headed the NBI, our prime investigative agency.
I recall that famous case of Nicolo Sacco and Bartolome Vanzetti, a 7-year trial in America, which resulted in conviction and execution in April 1921. The real perpetrators of the crime confessed, particularly mastermind Celestino Madeiros. But so biased, so prejudiced, so bigoted was the State Supreme Court, it refused to upset the verdict. Sacco and Vanzetti were eventually found innocent. A similar case was that of Bruno Hauptmann accused of kidnapping the son of Charles Lindbergh, two-year-old Charles Augustus Jr. in March 1932 in New Jersey. Strong evidence eventually emerged that Hauptman could be innocent of the crime. The political lords of New Jersey refused to accept new and irrefutable evidence that Hauptman did not commit the crime. The mob demanded death. And so Hauptman was executed.
I do hope our Supreme Court will discover for itself there was a huge pile of reasonable doubt in the Vizconde massacre trial. Instead of a lone and -- I think a very biased and intolerant -- judge, we shall have a group of wise men, steeped in all the wisdom of legal jurisprudence, finally deciding the case. And they will decide on the basis of the evidence, not the wave of hate and intolerance that convicted Hubert Webb even before the trial began.