Hubert Webb (VIZCONDE Massacre) et al: "Not Guilty" [Merged Threads]

[jimnyeatworld]

american citizen ba si Freddie Webb saka yun anak niya?

[oliver1013]

And the plot thickens.....

[olidotcom]

We used to lived near the Webbs in UBF. I can attest that Hubs was an asshole in our village that time. A typical spoiled brat. But, we have to respect the SC decision.

no offense meant or anything mam.. but being an a$$ or a spoiled brat does not mean he did or capable of doing that 'inhumane' action.

as you said.. you didnt say/write that he did it.. so i guess you're just adding fuel to the fire lang?

peace po.

[oliver1013]

Si OJ Simpson din diba, ano ba ngyari dun? shoot na lahat may pinasukat ata na gwantes at hindi kasya, giba na lahat.

[waken]

ganito lang yan the SC's decision didn't say that Hubert and company didn't committed the crime it just said that the prosecutors didn't have enough to prove their guilt, iba yun not guilty sa acquitted,.

so i guess
its the same thing as SC saying that he should not have been prosecuted kasi wala naman ebidensya?

[olidotcom]

sharing lang...

weblink from abs-cbn news.com

<H1>SC: Justice served if you think Webb et al guilty

By Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 12/15/2010 4:22 PM | Updated as of 12/15/2010 5:01 PM
Tweet





MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court has reacted to comments from quarters who are unhappy about the Vizconde massacre case decision acquitting accused-appellants Hubert webb, et al.
Court Administrator and spokesman Justice Midas Marquez told reporters in a news conference that those saying "justice was not served" because of the high court's ruling, in the belief that Webb and company are indeed guilty of the murders of Estrellita, Carmela and Anna Marie Jennifer, might want to consider the fact that a sentence of reclusion perpetuamay be served a maximum of 14 years on the premise that the person convicted of final judgment is able to avail of good conduct time allowance or GCTA.
Good conduct time allowance allows a prisoner to earn time credit for satisfactory progress or good behavior while incarcerated. This time, credit will be deducted from his period of sentence.
Reclusion perpetuahas a corresponding sentence of 20 years and one day to 40 years imprisonment.
Marquez said that after 10 years in a jail facility, an inmate is already a candidate for good conduct time allowance, which is equivalent to 15 days in a month.
"Nababawasan ang iyong sentensya. Yung 20 years, nababawasan. Sa rough estimate ko, ang pinakamatagal na ilagi ng isang akusado na convicted of murder and meted reclusion perpetua (granting he is of good behavior all throughout incarceration)… 14 years lamang. Because after 10 years, for one month pwede ka 15 days GCTA. Ang maximum period of actual detention nasa 14 years plus lang," Marquez said.
"A convict convicted of final judgment, makukulong ng 14 plus years...We can all say justice has been served," Marquez said.
Marquez, however, clarified that this thought may be considered a consolation only by people who believe Webb, et al are guilty of the crime, since those who believe in their innocence will have a totally different view - that their 15-year incarceration was an injustice.

</H1>

[shadow]

so i guess
its the same thing as SC saying that he should not have been prosecuted kasi wala naman ebidensya?

nope! ang layo..he should prosecuted but evidences should stand on court.

[lancy09]

wala yatang forensic evidence kahit finger print. puro testimony lang. and i remember during 1990s, NBI was known (or even until now) to fabricate evidence just to stand their case in the court. at para matapos lang ang kaso. Kahit yung accused ang totoong gumawa ng krimen, hindi mapatunayan sa korte kasi hindi magaling ang NBI/PNP sa pagkilekta ng evidence.

[Marichelle]

no offense meant or anything mam.. but being an a$$ or a spoiled brat does not mean he did or capable of doing that 'inhumane' action.

as you said.. you didnt say/write that he did it.. so i guess you're just adding fuel to the fire lang?

peace po.

None taken. But what "fire" are you talking about? If I wrote that Hubs is a school-church-house kind of kid, will I still get this kind of reaction(s)?

Ok. He might be not a typical goodie-of-kid at that time but it does not mean he did the crime.

[oliver1013]

Di ba pwede magpatulong sa foreign experts ang Pilipinas, FBI, Scotland yard, heck even the Mossad or Chuck Norris.

[safeorigin]

ewan ko lang...

baka pati sila sumuko sa luma ng mga ebidensya

[vito corleone]

Di ba pwede magpatulong sa foreign experts ang Pilipinas, FBI, Scotland yard, heck even the Mossad or Chuck Norris.

yup, that means kailangan din nilang dalhin ang mga equipment or tools nila kasi siguradong wala tayo nun

malamang maraming nasasayang na kaso dahilan lang ng scrappy police investigation work. . .basta makapag log ng report (na minsan e depende kung sino ang nagbigay ng mas malaki, sa kanya pabor ang report) ayos na. . .

yung soco, sa abs-cbn lang yata yun dito sa pilipinas

[waken]

nope! ang layo..he should prosecuted but evidences should stand on court.

Ah kasi winala ung evidence na semen..

saktong sakto noh?
kung kelan pinayagan sila magpa dna testing kelan nmn nawala o_O

biruin mo kung nag negative un.. labas ang utot ng NBI

pero nung 1st trial rineject ung dna testing nandun pa daw ung evidence

[roninblade]

Ah kasi winala ung evidence na semen..

if there was ever any evidence in the first place; baka gawa-gawa lang din ng nbi yun kaya biglang "nawala" nung hinahanap na for testing.

[jansky]

Ah kasi winala ung evidence na semen..

saktong sakto noh?
kung kelan pinayagan sila magpa dna testing kelan nmn nawala o_O

biruin mo kung nag negative un.. labas ang utot ng NBI

pero nung 1st trial rineject ung dna testing nandun pa daw ung evidence

baket nga pala nireject ?

[andywesteast]

baket nga pala nireject ?

Takot ang NBI na hindi sila Webb at. al. galing yung Sperm sample.

Kung ako si Vizconde, Ill push for the DNA testing din, bakit sya ayaw din? This will settle once and for all the guilt of the suspects.

[_Qwerty_]

ni reject kasi that time hindi pa tayo capable of doing DNA testing at hindi pa tinatanggap sa korte yan dati..

[safeorigin]

multo ikaw ba yan?

DNA = Di Namin Alam

[Monseratto]

The NBI seems to deserve the rebuke they are recieving lately. Also it took the SC 13 years to finally resolve the use of DNA in this case... Interesting read from Manang Winnie!

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquirer...g-semen-sample

The case of the ‘missing’ semen sample

By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 22:56:00 06/18/2010

IN THE STATE OF TEXAS ALONE, 40 PEOPLE have been exonerated since 1994 of crimes they had been convicted of committing, thanks to DNA testing. They had already served a total of 558 years in prison (an average of 14 years per prisoner) before post-conviction DNA tests on existing evidence showed their innocence. According to the Innocence Project (affiliated with the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University), across the United States 254 people have been likewise exonerated.

Hubert Webb, during his trial along with six other co-accused (let us call them the “Vizconde Seven”) in the rape-murder of Carmela Vizconde and the murders of her mother and sister, petitioned Judge Amelia Tolentino that his DNA be tested against the semen specimen taken from Carmela by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

One would have thought that the reactions to that petition should have been a no-brainer: the prosecution would jump at the chance to establish, with 99-percent accuracy, that the semen sample extracted from the rape-murder victim would match the semen sample of Hubert, who they insisted was the perpetrator. And Judge Tolentino would jump at the chance to have the trial speeded up by such damning and incontrovertible evidence.

Well, as it turns out, one would have thought wrong. The prosecution opposed Webb’s motion (why?) and Judge Tolentino took their side and denied it (why?). Not only that, she eventually found Webb and his co-accused guilty of the crimes, in a decision which, I have been informed was being used, as of 2004 (read my Feb. 7, 2004 column ) as a case study by the Philippine Judicial Academy on “How-Not-To-Decide-A-Case.” Unfortunately—and I also wrote about this—the Court of Appeals upheld that awful decision.

Webb filed his petition to have a DNA test on Oct 6, 1997. And after a series of appeals over a 13-year period (the Vizconde Seven languishing in jail in the meantime ), the Supreme Court finally came up with a decision a month ago (April 20, 2010), granting Webb’s motion to direct the NBI to submit the semen specimen recovered from Carmela Vizconde’s body to the UP Natural Science Research Institute for DNA analysis. The Court further ordered the NBI and the UPNSRI to report to it within 15 days from notice regarding compliance.

Webb and his family were euphoric. Finally, the chance, so long denied, to prove his innocence—because in this country, alas, the justice system as practiced seems to presume the defendant guilty until he can prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt.

The euphoria lasted for a week—because on April 27, 2010, the NBI reported to the high tribunal that it (the NBI) no longer had custody over the semen sample taken from Carmela’s body. Where was it? According to the NBI, it had been submitted as evidence to Judge Tolentino’s trial court when NBI Medico-Legal Chief Prospero A. Cabanayan testified at the end of January and the beginning of February of 1996.

Which claim, apparently, is nonsense.

First, the trial court itself (through the clerk of court) explained that the pieces of evidence submitted by Cabanayan were not the slides containing the semen samples from Carmela but photographs of those slides. And the records of the case support the clerk of court’s explanation. They apparently show not only that the prosecution itself did not offer the slides in evidence, but also that Cabanayan, when asked on Feb. 6, 1996 to produce the slides, which he had promised to bring during the previous hearing, admitted that he “forgot all about it” when he came to the hearing.

Second, a letter from the NBI to Webb, dated April 23, 1997, signed by Dr. Renato Bautista of the NBI Medico-Legal Division, stated that the Vizconde specimen gathered was still existing and in the custody of the NBI, preserved in slides. If, as the NBI recently claims, the NBI had submitted the slides to the trial court in 1996, how could they have been in the custody of the NBI in 1997, as Doctor Bautista asserted?

In other words, the Vizconde specimens never left the custody of the NBI. And yet, not only can the NBI not produce them, it had the temerity to try to lay the blame on the trial court. What can one surmise from this? At best, gross negligence on the part of the prosecution (NBI) because of its failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence until final conviction; and at worst, willful suppression of such evidence.

Whether one or the other, it is not Hubert’s fault that DNA testing is no longer a possibility for him. It is only just that he should not be penalized for it. The Vizconde Seven have already been incarcerated (15 years) far longer than the average time served by their Texas counterparts who were finally exonerated.

What can be done?

Acquit him—on the ground that he was denied his constitutional right to due process? He certainly was denied the right to a test which could be potentially exculpatory. This is surely an infinitely stronger ground than some of the Court’s recent decisions are based on.

That would certainly be the best solution. Only consider that the case against the original set of suspects (there were two or three sets before the NBI hit on the Vizconde Seven) was dismissed because they were not apprised of their right to a lawyer before they were interrogated; surely Webb’s rights were even more violated.

At the very least, it would make up for the outrageous Tolentino decision. There would be justice for Hubert Webb—at last.

[niky]

baket nga pala nireject ?

Because we didn't have the equipment at the time, and it would have to be analyzed in the US.

Then after the analysis, the evidence would be inadmissible, because the judge would not be able to subpoena the FBI director... same reason that the immigration documents are inadmissible, because the judge wanted Albright herself to attend the hearings instead of the immigration officer.