Title
Webb vs. De Leon
Case
G.R. No. 121234
Decision Date
Aug 23, 1995
Hubert Webb et al. charged with 1991 Vizconde rape-homicide; alibi contested; DOJ found probable cause; SC upheld due process, warrants, and Alfaro as state witness.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 121234)

Procedural History

  1. June 19, 1994: NBI letter-complaint filed with DOJ charging eight individuals, including petitioners, with rape-homicide.
  2. DOJ forms panel under Asst. Chief State Prosecutor Zuno to conduct preliminary investigation.
  3. August 8, 1995: Panel issues resolution finding probable cause; files information as Crim. Case No. 95-404 in RTC-Parañaque.
  4. Branch 258 (Escano) raffled; warrants issued by pairing judge de Leon; Escano inhibits; re-raffle to Branch 274 (Tolentino).
  5. Petitioners surrender and file petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court.

Evidence Presented by Prosecution

• Principal witness Maria Jessica M. Alfaro: Two sworn statements (Apr. 28 & May 22, 1995) detailing planning, entry, sexual assault, murders.
• Former Webb household maids (Nerissa Rosales, Mila Gaviola): Placed Webb at home on June 29–30, 1991; noted bloodstains on his clothing.
• Carlos J. Cristobal: Passenger on United Flight 808; doubts Webb’s co-passenger status.
• Lolita Birrer: Ex-partner of Gerardo Biong; narrated his conduct covering up crime scene.
• Autopsy reports: Multiple stab wounds on victims; presence of spermatozoa in Carmela.

Evidence Presented by Petitioners

• Alibi (Webb): In United States Mar. 9, 1991–Oct. 27, 1992; supported by witnesses, purchase receipts (bicycle, Toyota), California driver’s license, US Embassy correspondence.
• Alibi (Gatchalian & Lejano): In Muntinlupa watching video from 11 p.m. June 29 to 3 a.m. June 30, 1991; uncorroborated by independent evidence.

DOJ Panel Resolution

• Granted production of evidence motion; NBI produced photocopies of original Alfaro affidavit (claimed lost); petitioners later obtained original via subpoena.
• Held Alfaro’s minor inconsistencies do not destroy credibility (falsus in uno doctrine).
• Weighed inculpatory evidence against alibi/denial; concluded alibi weak vs. positive identification.
• Found “sufficient ground to engender a well-grounded belief” (Rule 112 §1) and recommended filing of information.

Issuance of Arrest Warrants

• RTC Judges de Leon and Tolentino reviewed DOJ Panel report, sworn statements and counter-affidavits.
• Personally determined probable cause (Const. Art. III, §2) and issued warrants of arrest without new hearings.
• Conformed with Rule 112 §6: no requirement for separate order of arrest or personal hearing of witnesses by judge.

Issues Raised by Petitioners

  1. DOJ Panel’s alleged grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause based on weak, inconsistent testimony.
  2. RTC judges’ failure to conduct preliminary examination before issuing warrants.
  3. Denial of due process and impartiality (hasty investigation, media publicity).
  4. Exclusion of Alfaro from information despite alleged conspiracy.
  5. Suppression of exculpatory evidence (original Alfaro affidavit, FBI report).

Supreme Court Analysis – Probable Cause

• Probable cause defined as facts/circumstances leading a prudent person to believe crime committed by accused.
• Rule 112 prescribes summary preliminary investigation to determine probable cause; not guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Court defers to prosecutorial discretion absent grave abuse.
• Found no abuse: Alfaro credible; supporting statements corroborative; alibi and denials insufficient.

Supreme Court Analysis – Warrants of Arrest

• Constitution requires judge’s personal determination of probable cause on prosecutor’s record; no personal witness examination mandated.
• Distinguished search warrant procedure (Rule 126) from arrest warrants (Rule 112).
• Short interval between record submission and warrant issuance not indicative of lack of review.
• Allado v. Diokno distinguished on factual insufficiency—unlike present case.

Supreme Court Analysis – Due Process and Impartiality

• Petitioners had ample opportunity to present evidence and motions over a 27-day span before resolution.
• DOJ Order No. 223 permits filing information during pendency of appeal to Secretary of Justice.




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.