Deconstructing Public Opinion: Is Hubert Webb guilty? (2nd in Series of 3; UPDATED)

Much can still be learned as we anticipate the results of the Supreme Court deliberation on the Vizconde case and Hubert Webb’s motion for acquittal later this November.

More than ten years ago, we saw how print and broadcast media had been effective in shaping public views which in turn, played an influential role in yielding the results of the trial. Back then, most people relied on what media fed and on what went around as hearsays.

But times have changed. Documents and other important information are now available on the Internet. It just takes a couple of keywords, links and clicks to access them. Hence, the discerning public can now make better-informed opinions.

Now, as we take on the hefty task of deconstructing the old public mindset, it is important to begin with the right frame of mind: Hubert Webb is innocent until proven guilty.

Then, let us challenge our frame of mind by applying logic on hard facts. Such that:

1. IF HUBERT WEBB IS GUILTY, then he must be in the scene of the crime when the Vizconde killings happened.

	[A] Prosecution Hubert Webb is Guilty	[B] Defense Hubert Webb is Innocent
Material Evidences Supporting Column [A. B]	None	1. record of departure including ticket, ticket receipt,(with accompanying testimony from raja tours owner Bibay Nolasco), airline manifest (with accompanying testimony from a northwest airline official), passport with departure stamp from the Bureau of Immigration 2. record of entry which includes an F.B.I. report, a note verbal issued by the U.S. government signed by Secretary of State Madeline Albright stating that Hubert Webb was in the U.S. Testified to by no less than both Foreign Affairs Secretary Domingo Siazon and Consul General Leo Herrera Lim (certification from US Immigration and naturalization service signed (w seal) by Madelaine Albright, Warren Christopher and Atty. General Janet Reno verified proofs/documents by US state secretary (Albright) and FBI (Bob Heafner) 3. records of his stay which include: Videos - one in Disneyland (testified to by a complete stranger who saw Freddie Webb and decided to take his video, with Hubert seen on the background). Another at Lake Tahoe where he was seen playing in the snow. And lastly, another video at a cousins wedding ceremony. Records of employment in the form of several encashed checks in his name Hubert Jeffrrey Webb before and after the crime. California Drivers License aquired during his stay, certified by the Department of Motor Vehicles California. 4. records of his departure from the U.S. which includes again the certification from the U.S. stating his date of departure, airline manifest testified by an authority from Philippine Airlines and passport showing entry into the Philippines. These only prove he was in the United States four months prior and fifteen months after the massacre occured. Hubert has only one record of going to the U.S. He left Manila on March 1991 and arrived back to the Philippines October 1992.
Statements / Testimonies Supporting Column [A. B]	1. Jessica Alfaro (eye witness) - positively identified Hubert Webb and others as perpetrators 2. Nerissa Rosales and Mila Gaviola* (former housemaids of the Webbs) - one testified that she washed Hubert Webb's shirt with blood stains on stomach and chest areas 3. Carlos Cristobal - doubted if Hubert Webb was the same person who was his co-passenger 4. Lolita Birrer (former live-in partner of Policeman Gerardo Biong) - claimed that Biong helped Hubert Webb and others clean up the crime scene 5. Normal White and Justo Cabanacan (BF Homes security guards) - Cabanacan testified that he flagged down the vehicle of Hubert Webb because it did not have the local village sticker around the last week of May or the first week of June 1991; did not ask for ID nor logged Hubert Webb as visitor since he was the son of then Cong. Freddie Webb, a well-known man 6. Lauro Vizconde - testified that in one of his phone conversations with Carmela when he was still in the USA, Carmela mentioned to him that she had turned down a suitor whom she called "Bagyo," who is a son of a politician in Paranaque and comes from an affluent family. (Carmela never mentioned the identity of the suitor.)	1. Atty. Artemio Sacaguing (NBI) - testified that Alfaro was supposed to bring someone who witnessed the Vizconde killings (as relayed by NBI agent Cresencio "Jun" Nombres) but instead volunteered herself as eyewitness when she could not produce the witness 2. Judge Antonio Carpio (not yet in SC at time of trial) - testified that he had a phone conversation with Sen. Freddie Webb on June 29, 1991 where the latter mentioned that he and his wife were looking for a job for Hubert Webb 3. Rafael Jose, Paolo Santos and Joselito Escobar (friends) - relate despedida party organized for Hubert Webb on March 8, 1991 4. Miguel Munoz (security personnel of former Senator Freddie Webb) - testified that he accompanied Hubert Webb and parents at the airport on March 9, 1991 5. Cristina Magpusao (secretary of Webbs) - testified that she gave money to Hubert Webb for his terminal fee on March 1991 6. Victoria Ventoso (former housemaid of Webbs) - testified that Hubert Webb left for the US sometime in March 1991 and had not come back at the time she left the household in May 1992 7. Gloria Webb (Hubert Webb's aunt), Christopher Esguerra (Gloria's grandson) and Dorothy Wheelock - testified that Hubert Webb was in the States; accompanied Hubert Webb in Lake Tahoe on April 1991) 8. Gary Valenciano (performing artist) - testified that he was introduced to Hubert Webb at the Rodriguez residence in Orlando, Florida, USA in Novermber 1991
Remarks	1. Alfaro, along with housemaids and security guard, is said to have emerged as witnesses only 4 years after the crime. 2. Alfaro has 2 affidavits dated April 28 and May 22, 1995, which contradict on the ff. items: a. knowing Carmela prior to the date of the killings; b. seeing the dead bodies; c. seeing the alleged rape of Carmela d. how Webb, Lejano and Ventura entered the house e. if Alfaro entered the house 3. Court and DOJ Panel ruled that misdescription and inconsistencies did not erode Alfaro’s credibility. 4. DOJ Panel rules that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification made by a prosecution witness. … claim of alibi is mainly supported by friends and relatives. 5. As per CA, time and space as requisites of acquittal are not supported by clear and convincing evidence; dates of departure and arrival in passport does not fully entail that Hubert Webb is not in the Philippines on June 30, 1991. 6. US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) certifications, dated August 10 and 31, 1995, respectively, were given little weight by both RTC and CA because of the purported omissions or oversights of certain Phil. or US Officials: (a) Aug 10 cert stated that there was no entry/exit of Hubert Webb on June 29, 1991; (b) Aug 31 cert stated Hubert Webb entered USA on 09 March 1991 and departed only on 26 October 1992. Testimony of Sec. Domingo Siazon, Jr. was deemed to prove the physical receipt and transmittal of docs. but not their content. (See Col B Row 2 #2)	1. Judge Tolentino admitted only 10 out of 142 evidences offered by Hubert Webb. 2. As per Fritz Webb, brother of Hubert Webb, the NBI presented 2 housemaids (and 2 security guards) but only 1 housemaid showed up during the trial. (Addendum as per CA 2005, only White testified.) 3. Defense questioned Alfaro's credibility on the ff. grounds: a. Contents of Alfaro’s first affidavit; b. Alfaro’s motive in testifying against Hubert Webb et. Al. – Alfaro allegedly admitted that brother Patrick Alfaro was a drug addict and was arrested once by the NBI for illegal possession of drugs and that he is presently in the United States c. Educational attainment – cross-examination showed that Alfaro lied in her direct testimony 4. Alfaro was said to be a former NBI asset who was quoted by then NBI Head Agent Artemio Sacaguing saying, “Sir, papapelan ko yan…" 5. Housemaids agency owner’s records show that the maids were no longer with the Webbs when the killings happened on June 30, 1991. 6. Re: INS certifications. Justice Dacudao, in his dissenting opinion, believes that omission was adequately explained by defense; oversight because the rules on protocol and standard procedure were not religiously observed by Phil and US officials. 7. None of the evidences presented by Hubert Webb were proven false or refuted by the Prosecution.

2. IF HUBERT WEBB IS GUILTY, then his DNA should match the semen samples found in the scene of the crime.

But apparently, the semen specimen cannot be located.

Here are the events that took place:

• October 1997 - Hubert Webb requested DNA testing of semen specimen
• November 25, 1997 – RTC Judge Tolentino denied Hubert Webb’s motion for DNA Testing
- Reason was “the proposed DNA examination would not serve the ends of justice but only lead to the complication and confusion of the case”
• April 20, 2010 – SC granted Hubert Webb’s request for DNA testing
• NBI claimed that semen specimen is no longer in its custody – claiming that the specimen was handed to trial court
• Trial court denied NBI claim
• October 2010 – Hubert Webb files an urgent motion for acquittal on the ground that he has been denied “the fullest extent of his constitutional right to due process” because the State can no longer produce the semen specimen that was in its custody.

Is Hubert Webb guilty? The decision is left on the discretion of the reader.

* * *

Deconstructing public opinion is a giant task that ironically requires a simple process. Similarly, the Vizconde-cum-Hubert Webb case should not have been as complicated as it had been if everyone remained true to the essence of the quest for justice for the Vizcondes.

Hopefully, with all these details at hand, the public will be in a better position to make opinions. At the same time, further research on the case - from both sides - is encouraged. May vigilance encourage the SC to come up with a fair and reasonable decision.

Do you think Hubert Webb is innocent? Then “Like” the Justice for Hubert Webb page on Facebook.
Why are we tackling Hubert Webb on Beyond Lipstick and High Heels? Read On Vizconde Massacre, Hubert Webb and the Quest for True Justice (1st in Series of 3).

Also read The Blind Lady: Face-to-Face with Hubert Webb in Bilibid (Last in Series of 3).

Need to know more?

1. Cheche Lazaro: Dalawang Mukha ng Hustisya, Part 4 of 8, Probe TV.

2. Copy of Urgent Motion to Acquit Hubert Jeffrey Webb.

3. Court of Appeals Decision, 2005.

4. Court of Appeals Special Division of Five Resolution, 2007.

5. Court of Appeals Dissenting Opinion (Justice Renato Dacudao).

6. Court of Appeals Dissenting Opinion (Justice Lucenito Tagle).

7. FAQs on "The Hubert Webb Case"

8. Jonathan M. Hicap: Questions Linger on Vizconde Case, The Manila Times 17 Jan 2005.

9. Jonathan M. Hicap: Hubert's main defense: 'I was in California,' The Manila Times 17 Jan 2005.

10. Photos and clippings.

11. Philippine Jurisprudence.

a. G.R. No. 121234 August 23, 1995

b. G.R. No. 127262 July 24, 1997

c. G.R. No. 132577 August 17, 1999

d. G.R. No. 142262 August 29, 2006

12 Stuart Santiago: Revisiting Hubert Webb.

13. Transcripts and Highlights.

14. Urgent Motion to Acquit Hubert Webb, submitted to Supreme Court


Latest Update: 09 Dec 2010

On Vizconde Massacre, Hubert Webb and the Quest for True Justice (1st in Series of 3)

As we speak of women's issues on this blog, it is impossible to miss one that has gripped the consciousness of Filipinos for years.

The Vizconde Massacre is a harrowing story of violence inflicted against women---a proof that it happens even inside one's own home in a gated community of a bustling city. The brutal killings of the Vizconde women stunned the nation and started a serious quest for justice.

But the quest proved to be a long one. The story of the Vizconde Massacre wasn't just a single story; it varied as told by a number of witnesses. It was hard to tell which made up the truth and the lies.

But to Judge Amelita Tolentino of the Paranaque Regional Trial Court, the truth was the account of star witness Jessica Alfaro. She found Hubert Webb and friends and seven other young men – all scions of wealthy and prominent clans – guilty beyond reasonable doubt hence, sentencing them to life imprisonment. (Note: According to Webb, he only knows two of the seven other accused.)

Justice, then, seemed to have been served.

* * *

Ten years later, the public has taken a revived interest on the Vizconde Massacre albeit, on a different light. Crucial details and untold stories from the trial that ran for years have surfaced. These include a denied request for DNA testing by Hubert Webb's camp, inconsistencies in eye witness accounts, an unacknowledged note verbale from the US government, and so on.

It seems that the quest now has become Justice for Hubert Webb.

* * *

I find all those details disturbing. For somebody who literally grew up with the slow development of the Vizconde Massacre case, I had to rack my brains to find out why I was bent on believing certain things at the time the Paranaque RTC trial ran from 1995 to 2000. (Of course, given my age then, my opinions were not as better-founded as now.)

It has been 15 years since the name of Hubert Webb surfaced as a prime suspect in the Vizconde Massacre. If Hubert Webb was innocent, then it means that he lost 15 years of his life by being kept in bars for a crime he did not do. Likewise, it means that justice has never been really served for the Vizcondes.

The Supreme Court should assess the case of the Vizconde Massacre with a fresh perspective. This time, they should put due consideration to the evidences presented by Webb's camp, which were mostly not accepted by the RTC and Court of Appeals.

I refuse to take a stand regarding the guilt or innocence of Hubert Webb; instead, I call for due process and a fair trial. Justice should not be about putting men behind bars just for the sake of naming perpetrators. It's easy to lose the essence of the quest for justice along the lines of power, politics and personalities.

The Vizconde Massacre remains unsolved.

Also read Deconstructing Public Opinion: Is Hubert Webb guilty? (2nd in Series of 3)

and The Blind Lady: Face-to-Face with Hubert Webb in Bilibid (Last in Series of 3).

RA 9710: Magna Carta of Women

Another milestone for Filipino women has been marked as PGMA enacted the Magna Carta of Women last August 14, 2009.

It was a long battle - having been opposed by different groups such as the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines. As usual, issues on family and life came into play. That it was anti-life and anti-family were proven wrong. The Magna Carta poses no threat to both. Quoting Sen. Jamby Madrigal, Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Youth, Women and Family Relations, from PinoyPress.com:

“The bill was crafted to be an effective tool for the further protection and empowerment of women, particularly the marginalized. It is a pro-life, pro- Filipina and pro-family measure. It is not a reproductive rights and same sex marriage bill that rabid religious groups and opponents of the measure have labeled it.”

The enactment of the Magna Carta is a strong nudge to finally implement, as a strategy, the gender mainstreaming of the country's primary institutions - family, school, workplace and government. Some question the need for such or why it is always the women who benefit from mainstreaming efforts. In response, it must be noted that women are the usual victims of discriminatory practices. Privilege blinds both men and women from seeing this. Plus, these practices that are long entwined with tradition are taken as norms and hence, the apathy.

A case in point: the single parent. Being one actually means having to provide both the economic and nurturing needs of the child. What puts women instead of men at a disadvantage is the fact that they comprise most of the solo parent population. (Only the US Single Parent Statistics was found on the Internet. It says that "in 2006, 5 out of every 6 custodial parents were mothers." The Philippines' should not be any different.)

(Note: Interestingly, the paragraph above was quoted in Conversations for a Better World. Read Philippines: A Pregnant Woman's Right to Study and Work, which is available in about 5 or more languages.)

Sadly, there are very few daycare centers and breastfeeding facilities that cater to children of working single mothers. While yaya or caregiver wages are relatively cheap in the Philippines, hiring one who can be trusted is an entirely different story.

The downloadable version of the Magna Carta, including the fast facts, are available at National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women website.

To close this post, here is a provision of the Magna Carta which, I bet, even the most privileged of women may be able to relate to:

Equal rights in all matters relating to marriage and family relations. The State shall ensure the same rights of women and men to: enter into and leave marriages, freely choose a spouse, decide on the number and spacing of their children, enjoy personal rights including the choice of a profession, own, acquire, and administer their property, and acquire, change, or retain their nationality. It also states that the betrothal and marriage of a child shall have no legal effect.

Voyeurism as a Breach of Trust

It has always been around but these days, voyeurism is just one hot topic that arouses the interest of every Filipino. Many are reacting. Gabriela steps in. And even the Senate takes the case on its hand.

Setting aside the fact that the hype on Hayden Kho is creating a tabloid out of the Philippine politics, we have to grasp the issue in bite sizes to be able to come up with real solutions. Judgment is necessary. Solutions, however, are preventive.

Good ol' Wikipedia defines voyeurism as:

"the sexual interest in or practice of spying on people engaged in intimate behaviors, such as undressing, sexual activity, or other activity usually considered to be of a private nature"

If we will be human enough to look at this definition as some stark reality, we have to ask ourselves whether this is normal or not. If not, what do childhood and early imagoes have to do with one's compulsive effort to videotape acts that occur in private places? And in which cases do we classify the voyeur as an offender?

(Since the first question is far too complex for a blogger to discuss, allow me to delve on the latter instead.)

Sad to say, existing Philippine laws do not have any sanctions on the recording of sexual activities; on the other hand, some countries have laws that explicitly declare the act as deviant and even criminal in cases when there is no consent from the other party involved.

Given the said limitation, we can only think about the Hayden Kho scandal as an ethical offense--particularly because it is a breach of trust.

Sex and everything else leading to it are basically like relationship contracts. Such contracts are made and entered into with the binding force of trust. Without the other's knowledge and consent, videotaping obviously violates this trust. An act that is done in the bedroom should not find itself replayed on public media.

Moreover, the act should not be passed on from the hands of men and women for reasons due to entertainment, money-making, and even just sheer curiosity. At the end of the day, circulating the videos can be just as damaging as the real offense.

The worst part of all these scandals lie on the fact that most, if not all, of the victims are women.

Photo Credit: http://www.microvideox.com/images/hidden_camera_hiddencamnight_0000.jpg