Scribd
Upload
283 views1 page

Webb V de Leon

The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The DOJ panel did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding probable cause to charge the petitioners with rape and homicide, as probable cause need only show that a crime more likely than not occurred and was committed by the suspects. 2) The respondent judges did not gravely abuse their discretion in issuing arrest warrants without a preliminary examination, as Philippine law only requires probable cause that a crime was committed and the person arrested committed it. 3) The inconsistencies in the testimony of witness Jessica Alfaro were sufficiently explained and did not erode her credibility, and her testimony was given full faith and credit in finding probable cause.

Uploaded by

Renzo Jamer
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
283 views1 page

Webb V de Leon

The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The DOJ panel did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding probable cause to charge the petitioners with rape and homicide, as probable cause need only show that a crime more likely than not occurred and was committed by the suspects. 2) The respondent judges did not gravely abuse their discretion in issuing arrest warrants without a preliminary examination, as Philippine law only requires probable cause that a crime was committed and the person arrested committed it. 3) The inconsistencies in the testimony of witness Jessica Alfaro were sufficiently explained and did not erode her credibility, and her testimony was given full faith and credit in finding probable cause.

Uploaded by

Renzo Jamer
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Webb v De Leon

G.R. No. 121234


August 23, 1995
Facts:
On June 19, 1994, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed with the Department of Justice a
letter-complaint charging petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian, Antonio J. Lejano and six (6)
other persons with the crime of Rape and Homicide of Carmela N. Vizconde, her mother Estrellita
Nicolas-Vizconde, and her sister Anne Marie Jennifer in their home at Number 80 W. Vinzons, St., BF
Homes Paranaque, Metro Manila on June 30, 1991. Forthwith, the Department of Justice formed a panel
of prosecutors headed by Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Jovencio R. Zuno to conduct the preliminary
investigation. Petitioners fault the DOJ Panel for its finding of probable cause. They assail the credibility
of Jessica Alfaro as inherently weak and uncorroborated due to the inconsistencies between her April 28,
1995 and May 22, 1995 sworn statements. They criticize the procedure followed by the DOJ Panel when
it did not examine witnesses to clarify the alleged inconsistencies. Petitioners charge that respondent
Judge Raul de Leon and, later, respondent Judge Amelita Tolentino issued warrants of arrest against them
without conducting the required preliminary examination. Petitioners complain about the denial of their
constitutional right to due process and violation of their right to an impartial investigation. They also
assail the prejudicial publicity that attended their preliminary investigation.
Issues:
1. WON the DOJ Panel likewise gravely abused its discretion in holding that there is probable cause to
charge them with the crime of rape and homicide?
2. WON respondent Judges de Leon and Tolentino gravely abused their discretion when they failed to
conduct a preliminary examination before issuing warrants of arrest against them?
Ruling:
1. No. The Court ruled that the DOJ Panel did not gravely abuse its discretion when it found probable
cause against the petitioners. A probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely
than not, a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects. Probable cause need not be
based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable
doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. Petitioners belittle the
truthfulness of Alfaro on two (2) grounds: (a) she allegedly erroneously described petitioner Webb's hair
as semi-blond and (b) she committed material inconsistencies in her two (2) sworn statement. The DOJ
Panel ruled that these alleged misdescription and inconsistencies did not erode the credibility of Alfaro. In
the case before us, complainant reasoned out that Alfaro was then having reservations when she first
executed the first statement and held back vital information due to her natural reaction of mistrust. This
being so, the panel believes that the inconsistencies in Alfaro's two sworn statements have been
sufficiently explained especially so where there is no showing that the inconsistencies were deliberately
made to distort the truth. Consequently, the probative value of Alfaro's testimony deserves full faith and
credit.
2. No. The Court ruled that respondent judges did not gravely abuse their discretion. In arrest cases, there
must be a probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested committed it.
Section 6 of Rule 112 simply provides that “upon filing of an information, the Regional Trial Court may
issue a warrant for the accused. Clearly the, our laws repudiate the submission of petitioners that
respondent judges should have conducted “searching examination of witnesses” before issuing warrants
of arrest against them.

You might also like