652 GUIYAB, JR.

, ROBERTO LAO, PABLO FORMARAN, and NATIONAL

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, AND HONORABLE AMELITA G.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED TOLENTINO, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Parañaque, Branch 274, respondents.
Webb vs. De Leon G.R. No. 121297. August 23, 1995.*

G.R. No. 121234. August 23, 1995.* ANTONIO L. LEJANO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE RAUL E. DE
LEON, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque,
HUBERT J. P. WEBB, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE RAUL E. DE LEON, Branch 258, HONORABLE ZOSIMO V. ESCANO, the Presiding Judge of
the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 258, the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 259, PEOPLE OF THE
HONORABLE ZOSIMO V. ESCANO, the Presiding Judge of the Regional PHILIPPINES, ZENON L. DE GUIA, JOVENCITO ZUÑO, LEONARDO
Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 259, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, GUIYAB, JR., ROBERTO LAO, PABLO FORMARAN, and NATIONAL
ZENON L. DE GUIA, JOVENCITO ZUÑO, LEONARDO GUIYAB, JR., BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, and HONORABLE AMELITA G.
ROBERTO LAO, PABLO FORMARAN, and NATIONAL BUREAU OF TOLENTINO, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
INVESTIGATION and HONORABLE AMELITA G. TOLENTINO, the Parañaque, Branch 274, respondents.
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 274, Criminal Procedure; Preliminary Investigation; Preliminary investigation
respondents, should determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
LAURO VIZCONDE, Intervenor. grounded belief that a crime cognizable by the RTC has been committed
______________ and that respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
—We start with a restatement of the purpose of a preliminary investigation.
* SECOND DIVISION. Section 1 of Rule 112 provides that a preliminary investigation should
determine “x x x x whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-
653 grounded belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has
been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 should be held for trial.”

653 Same; Same; Probable Cause; If the investigating fiscal finds cause to hold
the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and corresponding
Webb vs. De Leon information.—Section 4 of Rule 112 then directs that “if the investigating
fiscal finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the
G.R. No. 121245. August 23, 1995.* resolution and corresponding information.

MICHAEL A. GATCHALIAN, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE RAUL E. 654

DE LEON, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque,
Branch 258, HONORABLE ZOSIMO V. ESCANO, the Presiding Judge of
the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 259, PEOPLE OF THE 654
PHILIPPINES, ZENON L. DE GUIA, JOVENCITO ZUÑO, LEONARDO
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED suspects. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing
evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable
Webb vs. De Leon doubt and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of
guilt. As well put in Brinegar v. United States, while probable cause
He shall certify under oath that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized demands more than “bare suspicion,” it requires “less than evidence which
officer, has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses, that would justify x x x conviction.” A finding of probable cause merely binds
there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.
that the accused is probably guilty thereof x x x.”
655
Same; Same; Same; In determining probable cause, facts and circumstances
are weighed without resorting to technical rules of evidence, but rather VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995
based on common sense which all reasonable men have.—The need to find
probable cause is dictated by the Bill of Rights which protects “the right of 655
the people to be secure in their persons x x x against unreasonable searches
and seizures of whatever nature x x x.” An arrest without a probable cause Webb vs. De Leon
is an unreasonable seizure of a person, and violates the privacy of persons
which ought not to be intruded by the State. Probable cause to warrant arrest Same; Same; Same; Probable cause merely implies probability of guilt and
is not an opaque concept in our jurisdiction. Continuing accretions of case should be determined in a summary manner.—Considering the low
law reiterate that they are facts and circumstances which would lead a quantum and quality of evidence needed to support a finding of probable
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been cause, we also hold that the DOJ Panel did not gravely abuse its discretion
committed by the person sought to be arrested. Other jurisdictions utilize in refusing to call the NBI witnesses for clarificatory questions. The
the term man of reasonable caution or the term ordinarily prudent and decision to call witnesses for clarificatory questions is addressed to the
cautious man. The terms are legally synonymous and their reference is not sound discretion of the investigator and the investigator alone. If the
to a person with training in the law such as a prosecutor or a judge but to the evidence on hand already yields a probable cause, the investigator need not
average man on the street. It ought to be emphasized that in determining hold a clarificatory hearing. To repeat, probable cause merely implies
probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances without probability of guilt and should be determined in a summary manner.
resorting to the calibrations of our technical rules of evidence of which his Preliminary investigation is not a part of trial and it is only in a trial where
knowledge is nil. Rather, he relies on the calculus of common sense of an accused can demand the full exercise of his rights, such as the right to
which all reasonable men have an abundance. confront and cross-examine his accusers to establish his innocence. In the
case at bar, the DOJ Panel correctly adjudged that enough evidence had
Same; Same; Same; A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on been adduced to establish probable cause and clarificatory hearing was
evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and unnecessary.
was committed by the suspects.—Given these conflicting pieces of evidence
of the NBI and the petitioners, we hold that the DOJ Panel did not gravely Constitutional Law; Searches and Seizure; Section 2, Article III of the
abuse its discretion when it found probable cause against the petitioners. A Constitution deals with the requirements of probable cause both with
finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more respect to issuance of warrants of arrest and search warrants.—The issuance
likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the of a warrant of arrest interferes with individual liberty and is regulated by
no less than the fundamental law of the land. Section 2 of Article III of the do not provide for a similar procedure to be followed in the issuance of
Constitution provides: “Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their warrants of arrest and search warrants. With respect to warrants of arrest,
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and section 6 of Rule 112 simply provides that “upon filing of an information,
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no the Regional Trial Court may issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.”
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or Criminal Procedure; Arrests; Searching examination of witnesses is not
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and necessary before issuing warrants of arrest against them and the issuance of
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to an order of arrest is not required prior to issuance of a warrant of arrest.—
be seized.” The aforequoted provision deals with the requirements of Clearly then, the Constitution, the Rules of Court, and our case law
probable cause both with respect to issuance of warrants of arrest and search repudiate the submission of petitioners that respondent judges should have
warrants. conducted “searching examination of witnesses” before issuing warrants of
arrest against them. They also reject petitioners’ contention that a judge
Same; Same; The items sought should be in fact seizable by virtue of being must first issue an order of arrest before issuing a warrant of arrest. There is
connected with criminal activity and the items will be found in the place to no law or rule requiring the issuance of an Order of Arrest prior to a warrant
be searched.—“It is generally assumed that the same quantum of evidence of arrest.
is required whether one is concerned with probable cause to arrest or
probable cause to search. But each requires a showing of probabilities as to Same; Same; Before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine
somewhat different facts and circumstances, and thus one can exist without personally the probability, not the certainty of guilt of an accused.—In the
the other. In search cases, two conclusions must be supported by substantial case at bar, the DOJ Panel submitted to the trial court its 26-page report, the
evidence: that the items sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being two (2) sworn statements of Alfaro and the sworn statements of Carlos
connected with criminal activity, and that the items will be found in the Cristobal and Lolita Birrer as well as the counter-affidavits of the
place to be searched. It petitioners. Apparently, the painstaking recital and analysis of the parties’
evidence made in the DOJ Panel Report satisfied both judges that there is
656 probable cause to issue warrants of arrest against petitioners. Again, we
stress that before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine
personally the probability, not the certainty of guilt of an accused. In doing
656 so, judges do not conduct a de novo hearing to determine the existence of
probable cause. They just personally review the initial determination of the
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial
evidence. The sufficiency of the review process cannot be measured by
Webb vs. De Leon merely counting minutes and hours. The fact that it took the respondent
judges a few hours to review and affirm the probable cause determination of
is not also necessary that a particular person be implicated. By comparison, the DOJ Panel does not mean they made no personal evaluation of the
in arrest cases there must be probable cause that a crime has been evidence attached to the records of the case.
committed and that the person to be arrested committed it, which of course
can exist without any showing that evidence of the crime will be found at
premises under that person’s control.” Worthy to note, our Rules of Court
Same; Same; The various types of evidence extant in the records of the case reconsideration within ten (10) days from receipt of the resolution and shall
provide substantial basis for a finding of probable cause against petitioner. continue to run from the time the resolution denying the motion shall have
—Petitioners’ reliance on the case of Allado vs. Diokno been received by the movant or his counsel.” Without doubt then, the said
DOJ Order No. 223 allows the filing of an Information in court after the
657 consummation of the preliminary investigation even if the accused can still
exercise the right to seek a review of the prosecutor’s recommendation with
the Secretary of Justice.
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995
Same; Trial; The power of the court to discharge a state witness under
657 Section 9, Rule 119 is a part of the exercise of jurisdiction but is not a
recognition of an inherent judicial function.—We thus hold that it is not
Webb vs. De Leon constitutionally impermissible for Congress to enact R.A. No. 6981 vesting
in the Department of Justice the power to determine who can qualify as a
is misplaced. Our Allado ruling is predicated on the utter failure of the witness in the program and who shall be granted immunity from
evidence to show the existence of probable cause. Not even the corpus prosecution. Section 9 of Rule 119 does not support the proposition that the
delicti of the crime was established by the evidence of the prosecution in power to choose who shall be a state witness is an inherent judicial
that case. Given the clear insufficiency of the evidence on record, we prerogative. Under this provision, the court is given the power to discharge
stressed the necessity for the trial judge to make a further personal a state witness only because it has already
examination of the complainant and his witnesses to reach a correct
assessment of the existence or non-existence of probable cause before 658
issuing warrants of arrest against the accused. The case at bar, however,
rests on a different factual setting. As priorly discussed, the various types of
evidence extant in the records of the case provide substantial basis for a 658
finding of probable cause against the petitioner. The corpus delicti of the
crime is a given fact. There is an eyewitness account of the imputed crime SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
given by Alfaro. The alibi defense of petitioner Webb is also disputed by
sworn statements of their former maids. It was therefore unnecessary for the Webb vs. De Leon
respondent judges to take the further step of examining ex parte the
complainant and their witnesses with searching questions. acquired jurisdiction over the crime and the accused. The discharge of an
accused is part of the exercise of jurisdiction but is not a recognition of an
Same; Same; An appeal/motion for reinvestigation from a resolution finding inherent judicial function. Moreover, the Rules of Court have never been
probable cause shall not hold the filing of the information in court.—An interpreted to be beyond change by legislation designed to improve the
appeal/motion for reinvestigation from a resolution finding probable cause, administration of our justice system.
however, shall not hold the filing of the information in court. SECTION 2.
When to Appeal.—The appeal must be filed within a period of fifteen (15) Same; R.A. 6981, Witness Protection Program; For a more effective
days from receipt of the questioned resolution by the party or his counsel. administration of criminal justice, there was a necessity to pass a law
The period shall be interrupted only by the filing of a motion for protecting witnesses and granting them certain rights and benefits to ensure
their appearance in investigative bodies/courts.—R.A. No. 6981 is one of VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995
the much sought penal reform laws to help government in its uphill fight
against crime, one certain cause of which is the reticence of witnesses to 659
testify. The rationale for the law is well put by the Department of Justice,
viz: “Witnesses, for fear of reprisal and economic dislocation, usually refuse Webb vs. De Leon
to appear and testify in the investigation/prosecution of criminal
complaints/cases. Because of such refusal, criminal complaints/cases have investigation. Instead, Rule 112 installed a quasi-judicial type of
been dismissed for insufficiency and/or lack of evidence. For a more preliminary investigation conducted by one whose high duty is to be fair
effective administration of criminal justice, there was a necessity to pass a and impartial. As this Court emphasized in Rolito Go vs. Court of Appeals,
law protecting witnesses and granting them certain rights and benefits to “the right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before being bound
ensure their appearance in investigative bodies/courts.” Petitioner Webb’s over for trial for a criminal offense, and hence formally at risk of
challenge to the validity of R.A. No. 6981 cannot therefore succeed. incarceration or some other penalty, is not a mere formal or technical right;
it is a substantive right.” A preliminary investigation should therefore be
Same; Preliminary Investigation; Failure to provide discovery procedure scrupulously conducted so that the constitutional right to liberty of a
during preliminary investigation does not negate its use by a person under potential accused can be protected from any material damage.
investigation when indispensable to protect his constitutional right to life,
liberty and property.—This failure to provide discovery procedure during Same; Same; Due Process; Right to compel the disclosure of exculpatory
preliminary investigation does not, however, negate its use by a person facts during preliminary investigation is rooted in the constitutional
under investigation when indispensable to protect his constitutional right to protection of due process which is operational even at that stage.—We
life, liberty and property. Preliminary investigation is not too early a stage uphold the legal basis of the right of petitioners to demand from their
to guard against any significant erosion of the constitutional right to due prosecutor, the NBI, the original copy of the April 28, 1995 sworn
process of a potential accused. As aforediscussed, the object of a statement of Alfaro and the FBI Report during their preliminary
preliminary investigation is to determine the probability that the suspect investigation considering their exculpatory character, and hence,
committed a crime. We hold that the finding of a probable cause by itself unquestionable materiality to the issue of their probable guilt. The right is
subjects the suspect’s life, liberty and property to real risk of loss or rooted on the constitutional protection of due process which we rule to be
diminution. In the case at bar, the risk to the liberty of petitioners cannot be operational even during the preliminary investigation of a potential accused.
understated for they are charged with the crime of rape with homicide, a It is also implicit in section (3) (a) of Rule 112 which requires during the
non-bailable offense when the evidence of guilt is strong. preliminary investigation the filing of a sworn complaint which shall “x x x
state the known address of the respondent and be accompanied by affidavits
Same; Same; A preliminary investigation should be scrupulously conducted of the complainant and his witnesses as well as other supporting documents
so that the constitutional right to liberty of a potential accused can be x x x.”
protected from any material damage.—Attuned to the times, our Rules have
discarded the pure inquisitorial system of preliminary Constitutional Law; Right To Fair Trial; Prejudicial Publicity; To warrant a
finding of prejudicial publicity there must be an allegation and proof that
659 the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that might be, by the
barrage of publicity.—We recognize that pervasive and prejudicial publicity
under certain circumstances can deprive an accused of his due process right
to fair trial. Thus, in Martelino, et al. vs. Alejandro, et al., we held that to hampered by innumerable petitions compelling the review of the exercise of
warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity there must be allegation and proof discretion on the part of fiscals or prosecuting attorneys if each time they
that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, decide to file an information in court their finding can be immediately
by the barrage of publicity. In the case at bar, we find nothing in the records brushed aside at the instance of those charged (Ocampo IV v. Ombudsman,
that will prove that the tone and content of the publicity that attended the 225 SCRA 725, 730 [1993]). The Court, therefore, must look askance at
investigation of petitioners fatally infected the fairness and impartiality of unmeritorious moves that could give a dent in the efficient and effective
the DOJ Panel. Petitioners cannot just rely on the subliminal effects of administration of justice.
publicity on the sense of fairness of the DOJ Panel, for these are basically
unbeknown and beyond knowing. To be sure, the DOJ Panel is composed Same; Same; The validity and merits of a party’s defense or accusation as
of an Assistant Chief State Prosecutor and Senior State Prosecutors. Their well as the admissibility or inadmissibility of testimonies and evidence are
long experience in criminal investigation is a better ventilated during the trial stage than in the preliminary investigation
level.—Petitioners characterize the evidence against them to be inherently
660 weak and uncorroborated vis-a-vis their defenses. The weight or sufficiency
of evidence, to my mind, is best assayed in the trial proper. In the search for
truth, a trial has distinct merits over a preliminary investigation. We have
660 had occasion to stress that trial is to be preferred to ferret out the truth
(Abugotal v. Tiro, 66 SCRA 196, 201 [1975]). The validity and merits of a
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED party’s defense or accusation as well as the admissibility or inadmissibility
of testimonies and evidence are better ventilated during the trial stage than
Webb vs. De Leon in the preliminary investigation level. The ineluctable media attention
notwithstanding, truth as to their innocence or guilt is still best determined
factor to consider in determining whether they can easily be blinded by the at the trial.
klieg lights of publicity.
Same; Same; Warrant of Arrest; The judge does not have to personally
FRANCISCO, J., Concurring: examine the complainant and his witnesses in order to issue a warrant of
arrest as he can rely on the certification of the
Criminal Procedure; Preliminary Investigation; Courts should give defer, in
the absence of a clear showing of arbitrariness, to the finding and 661
determination of probable cause by prosecutors in preliminary
investigations.—Preliminary investigation, unlike trial, is summary in
nature, the purpose of which is merely to determine whether a crime has VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995
been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the
accused is guilty thereof (Paderanga v. Drilon, 196 SCRA 86, 92 [1991]). It 661
is not intended to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Courts should give
deference, in the absence of a clear showing of arbitrariness, as in this case, Webb vs. De Leon
to the finding and determination of probable cause by prosecutors in
preliminary investigations. If not, the functions of the courts will be unduly
prosecutors.—With respect to petitioners’ contention that public respondent
judge failed to personally examine and determine the existence of probable PUNO, J.:
cause for the issuance of a warrant, suffice it to say that the judge does not
have to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in order to Before the Court are petitions for the issuance of the extraordinary writs of
issue a warrant of arrest as he can rely on the certification of the certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application for temporary
prosecutor/s (Circular No. 12-Guidelines on Issuance of Warrants of Arrests restraining order and preliminary
[June 30, 1987]; Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393, 398 [1988]). There is
ample evidence and sufficient basis on record that support the trial court’s 662
issuance of the warrant as petitioners themselves do not contend that the
prosecutors’ certification was unaccompanied by the records of the 662
preliminary investigation to take their case outside the ambit of the rule.
Moreover, contrary to what the petitioners imply, the Court may not SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
determine how cursory or exhaustive the judge’s examination of the
certification, report and findings of the preliminary investigation and its Webb vs. De Leon
annexes should be as this depends not only upon the sound exercise of the
judge’s discretion in personally determining the existence of probable injunction to: (1) annul and set aside the Warrants of Arrest issued against
cause, but also from the circumstances of each case (Lim, Sr. v. Felix, 194 petitioners by respondent Judges Raul E. de Leon and Amelita Tolentino in
SCRA 292, 306 [1991]). Besides, respondent judge, being a public officer, Criminal Case No. 95-404; (2) enjoin the respondents from conducting any
enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duties (Rule proceeding in the aforementioned criminal case; and (3) dismiss said
131, Sec. 3 [m], Rules of Court). The issuance of the warrants of arrest criminal case or include Jessica Alfaro as one of the accused therein.1
against petitioners thus can not be said to be whimsical or arbitrary.
From the records of the case, it appears that on June 19, 1994, the National
PETITIONS for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with temporary Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed with the Department of Justice a letter-
restraining order and preliminary injunction. complaint charging petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian, Antonio
J. Lejano and six (6) other persons,2 with the crime of Rape with Homicide.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Forthwith, the Department of Justice formed a panel of prosecutors headed
by Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Jovencio R. Zuño to conduct the
     R.A.V. Saguisag and Robles, Ricafrente & Aguirre Law Firm for Hubert preliminary investigation3 of those charged with the rape and killing on
Webb. June 30, 1991 of Carmela N. Vizconde,4 her mother Estrellita Nicolas-
Vizconde,5 and her sister Anne Marie Jennifer6 in their home at Number 80
     Florante A. Bautista, Manuel M. Sunga and Rene B. Gorospe for W. Vinzons, St., BF Homes, Parañaque, Metro Manila.
Michael Gatchalian.
During the preliminary investigation, the NBI presented the following: (1)
     Perlas, Mendoza, Chan & Garciano for Antonio Lejano. the sworn statement dated May 22, 1995 of their principal witness, Maria
Jessica M. Alfaro who allegedly saw the commission of the crime;7 (2) the
     Renato L. Cayetano and Ma. Larrie Alinsunurin for Lauro Vizconde sworn statements of two (2) of the former housemaids of the Webb family
(complainant-intervenor).
in the persons of Nerissa E. Rosales and Mila S. Gaviola;8 (3) the sworn- in partner of Gerardo Biong, who narrated the manner of how Biong
statement of Carlos J. Cristobal who alleged that on March 9, 1991 he was investigated and tried to cover up the crime at bar;9 (5) the sworn
statements of Belen Dometita and Teofilo Minoza, two of the Vizconde
________________ maids, and the sworn statements of Normal White, a security guard and
Manciano Gatmaitan, an engineer. The autopsy reports of the victims were
1 Petitioner Webb filed his petition on August 11, 1995; petitioner also submitted and they showed that Carmela had nine (9) stab wounds,
Gatchalian on August 14, 1995 and petitioner Lejano on August 16, 1995. Estrellita twelve (12) and Jennifer nineteen (19).10 The genital examination
Mr. Lauro Vizconde intervened on August 17, 1995. of Carmela confirmed the presence of spermatozoa.11

2 The six (6) others were Miguel “Ging” Rodriguez, Joey Filart, Hospicio Before submitting his counter-affidavit, petitioner Webb filed with the DOJ
“Pyke” Fernandez, Artemio “Dong” Ventura, Peter Estrada and Gerardo Panel a Motion for Production and Examination of Evidence and
Biong. Documents for the NBI to produce the following:

3 The other members of the Panel were Senior State Prosecutor Leonardo “(a)Certification issued by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation on the
C. Guiab, Jr., State Prosecutor Roberto A. Lao and State Prosecutor Pablo admission to and stay of Hubert Webb in the United States from March 9,
C. Formaran, III. 1991 to October 22, 1992;
(b)Laboratory Report No. SN-91-17 of the Medico Legal Officer, Dr.
4 Then 19 years of age. Prospero A. Cabanayan, M.D.;
(c)Sworn Statements of Gerardo C. Biong (other than his Sworn Statement
5 Then 51 years of age. dated October 7, 1991);
(d)Photographs of fingerprints lifted from the Vizconde residence taken
6 Then 7 years of age. during the investigation;
(e)Investigation records of NBI on Engr. Danilo Aguas, et al.;
7 Resolution of the Zuño Panel, Annex “A” Petition, pp. 2-7. (f)List of names of 135 suspects/persons investigated by the NBI per
Progress Report dated September 2, 1991 submitted by Atty. Arlis Vela,
8 Ibid, pp. 7-8. Supervising Agent;
(g)Records of arrest, interview, investigation and other written statements of
663 Jessica Alfaro (other than the May 22, 1995 Sworn Statement) conducted by
the NBI and other police agencies;
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 (h)transmittal letter to the NBI, including the report of the investigation
conducted by Superintendent Rodolfo C. Sison, Regional Deputy Director,
663 NCRC;
_____________
Webb vs. De Leon
9 Ibid, pp. 8-12.
York and who expressed doubt on whether petitioner Webb was his co-
passenger in the trip; (4) the sworn statement of Lolita Birrer, a former live- 10 Ibid, p. 13.
 arrival at San Francisco, California on March 9, 1991 as a passenger in
11 Ibid. United Airlines Flight No. 808.

664 The other respondents—Hospicio “Pyke” Fernandez, Michael Gatchalian,

Antonio “Tony Boy” Lejano, Peter Estrada, Miguel
664
______________
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
12 Ibid, pp. 13-14.
Webb vs. De Leon
13 Ibid, pp. 13-14.
(i)The names of NBI officials/agents composing the Task Force Jecares,
including their respective positions and duties; 14 Ibid, p. 14-16.
(j)Statements made by other persons in connection with the crime charged.”
The motion was granted by the DOJ Panel and the NBI submitted 15 Ibid, p. 15.
photocopies of the documents. It alleged it lost the original of the April 28,
1995 sworn statement of Alfaro. This compelled petitioner Webb to file 665
Civil Case No. 951099 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Br. 63,
for the purpose, among others, of obtaining the original of said sworn VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995
statement. He succeeded, for in the course of its proceedings, Atty. Arturo
L. Mercader, Jr., produced a copy of said original in compliance with a 665
subpoena duces tecum. The original was then submitted by petitioner Webb
to the DOJ Panel together with his other evidence. It appears, however, that Webb vs. De Leon
petitioner Webb failed to obtain from the NBI the copy of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Report despite his request for its production. Rodriguez and Gerardo Biong—submitted sworn statements, responses, and
a motion to dismiss denying their complicity in the rape-killing of the
Petitioner Webb claimed during the preliminary investigation that he did not Vizcondes.16 Only the respondents Joey Filart and Artemio “Dong”
commit the crime at bar as he went to the United States on March 1, 1991 Ventura failed to file their counter-affidavits though they were served with
and returned to the Philippines on October 27, 1992.12 His alibi was subpoena in their last known address.17 In his sworn statement, petitioner
corroborated by Honesto Aragon, Lecinia Edrosolano, Sylvia Climaco, Gatchalian alleged that from 11 o’clock in the evening of June 29, 1991
Gina Roque, Sonia Rodriguez, Edgardo Ventura and Pamela Francisco.13 until 3 o’clock in the morning of the following day, he was at the residence
To further support his defense, he submitted documentary evidence that he of his friends, Carlos and Andrew Syyap, at New Alabang Village,
bought a bicycle and a 1986 Toyota car while in the United States on said Muntinlupa watching video tapes. He claimed that his co-petitioner Lejano
dates14 and that he was issued by the State of California Driver’s License was with him.
No. A8818707 on June 14, 1991.15 Petitioner Webb likewise submitted the
letter dated July 25, 1995 of Mr. Robert Heafner, Legal Attache of the US On August 8, 1995, the DOJ Panel issued a 26-page Resolution “finding
Embassy, citing certain records tending to confirm, among others, his probable cause to hold respondents for trial” and recommending that an
Information for rape with homicide be filed against petitioners and their co- Webb vs. De Leon
respondents.18 On the same date, it filed the corresponding Information19
against petitioners and their co-accused with the Regional Trial Court of when they failed to conduct a preliminary examination before issuing
Parañaque. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 95-404 and raffled warrants of arrest against them; (2) the DOJ Panel likewise gravely abused
to Branch 258 presided by respondent judge Zosimo V. Escano. It was, its discretion in holding that there is probable cause to charge them with the
however, the respondent judge Raul de Leon, pairing judge of Judge crime of rape with homicide; (3) the DOJ Panel denied them their
Escano, who issued the warrants of arrest against the petitioners. On August constitutional right to due process during their preliminary investigation;
11, 1995, Judge Escano voluntarily inhibited himself from the case to avoid and (4) the DOJ Panel unlawfully intruded into judicial prerogative when it
any suspicion about his impartiality considering his employment with the failed to charge Jessica Alfaro in the Information as an accused.
NBI before his appointment to the bench. The case was re-raffled to Branch
274, presided by Judge Amelita Tolentino who issued new warrants of We find the petitions bereft of merit.
arrest against the petitioners and their co-accused. On August 11, 1995,
petitioner Webb voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities at Camp I
Ricardo Papa Sr., in Bicutan, Taguig. Petitioners Gatchalian and Lejano
likewise gave themselves up to the authorities after filing their petitions Petitioners fault the DOJ Panel for its finding of probable cause. They insist
before us. that the May 22, 1995 sworn statement of Jessica Alfaro is inherently weak
and uncorroborated. They hammer on alleged material inconsistencies
In their petitions at bar, petitioners contend: (1) respondent Judges de Leon between her April 28, 1995 and May 22, 1995 sworn statements. They
and Tolentino gravely abused their discretion assail her credibility for her misdescription of petitioner Webb’s hair as
semi-blonde. They also criticize the procedure followed by the DOJ Panel
______________ when it did not examine witnesses to clarify the alleged incredulities and
inconsistencies in the sworn statements of the witnesses for the NBI.
16 Ibid, pp. 16-18.
We start with a restatement of the purpose of a preliminary investigation.
17 Ibid, p. 18. Section 1 of Rule 112 provides that a preliminary investigation should
determine “x x x x whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-
18 Except Gerardo Biong who was recommended to be charged as an grounded belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has
accessory. been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and
should be held for trial.” Section 3 of the same Rule outlines the procedure
19 Annex “B,” Petition. in conducting a preliminary investigation, thus:

666 “SEC. 3. Procedure.—Except as provided for in Section 7 hereof, no

complaint or information for an offense cognizable by the Regional Trial
666 Court shall be filed without a preliminary investigation having been first
conducted in the following manner:
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
(a)The complaint shall state the known address of the respondent and be (f)Thereafter, the investigation shall be deemed concluded, and the
accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses as well as investigating officer shall resolve the case within ten (10) days therefrom.
other supporting documents, in such number of copies as there are Upon the evidence thus adduced, the investigating officer shall determine
respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official file. whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial.”
667 Section 4 of Rule 112 then directs that “if the investigating fiscal finds
cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 corresponding information. He shall certify under oath that he, or as shown
by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the
667 complainant and his witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to believe
that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty
Webb vs. De Leon thereof x x x.”

The said affidavits shall be sworn to before any fiscal, state prosecutor or The need to find probable cause is dictated by the Bill of Rights which
government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or protects “the right of the people to be secure in their
unavailability, a notary public, who must certify that he personally
examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed 668
and understood their affidavits.
(b)Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the investigating 668
officer shall either dismiss the same if he finds no ground to continue with
the inquiry, or issue a subpoena to the respondent, attaching thereto a copy SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
of the complaint, affidavits and other supporting documents. Within ten (10)
days from receipt thereof, the respondent shall submit counter-affidavits and Webb vs. De Leon
other supporting documents. He shall have the right to examine all other
evidence submitted by the complainant. persons x x x against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
(c)Such counter-affidavits and other supporting evidence submitted by the x x x.”20 An arrest without a probable cause is an unreasonable seizure of a
respondent shall also be sworn to and certified as prescribed in paragraph person, and violates the privacy of persons which ought not to be intruded
(a) hereof and copies thereof shall be furnished by him to the complainant. by the State.21 Probable cause to warrant arrest is not an opaque concept in
(d)If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not our jurisdiction. Continuing accretions of case law reiterate that they are
submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day period, the investigating facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
officer shall base his resolution on the evidence presented by the man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to
complainant. be arrested.22 Other jurisdictions utilize the term man of reasonable
(e)If the investigating officer believes that there are matters to be clarified, caution23 or the term ordinarily prudent and cautious man.24 The terms are
he may set a hearing to propound clarificatory questions to the parties or legally synonymous and their reference is not to a person with training in
their witnesses, during which the parties shall be afforded an opportunity to the law such as a prosecutor or a judge but to the average man on the
be present but without the right to examine or cross-examine. If the parties street.25 It ought to be emphasized that in determining probable cause, the
so desire, they may submit questions to the investigating officer which the average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the
latter may propound to the parties or witnesses concerned. calibrations of our technical rules of evidence of which his knowledge is nil.
Rather, he relies on the calculus of common sense of which all reasonable
men have an abundance. Webb vs. De Leon

Applying these basic norms, we are not prepared to rule that the DOJ Panel On whether Alfaro knew Carmela before the incident in question
gravely abused its discretion when it found probable cause against the
petitioners. Petitioners belittle the truthfulness of Alfaro on two (2) grounds: First Affidavit: She had NOT met Carmela before June 29, 1991.
(a) she allegedly erroneously described petitioner Webb’s hair as semi-
blond and (b) she committed material inconsistencies in her two (2) sworn Second Affidavit: ‘I met her in a party sometime in February, 1991.’
statements, thus:26
On whether Alfaro saw the dead bodies
“x x x
First Affidavit: She did not see the three dead persons on that night. She just
“To illustrate, the following are some examples of inconsistencies in the said ‘on the following day I read in the newspaper that there were three
two sworn statements of Alfaro: persons who were killed x x x’

______________ Second Affidavit: ‘I peeped through the first door on the left. I saw two
bodies on top of the bed, bloodied, and in the floor, I saw Hubert on top of
20 Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Carmela.’ On the alleged rape of Carmela Vizconde

21 Yee Sue Koy v. Almeda, 70 Phil. 141 [1940]. First Affidavit: She did not see the act of rape.

22 Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, a Second Affidavit: She saw Hubert Webb ‘with bare buttocks, on top of
Commentary, Vol. I, 1987 ed., pp. 86-87. Carmela and pumping, her mouth gagged and she was moaning and I saw
tears on her eyes.’
23 Brinegar v. US, 338 US 160 [1949].
On how Webb, Lejano, and Ventura entered the Vizconde house
24 Del Carmen, Criminal Procedure, Law and Practice, 3rd ed., p. 86.
First Affidavit: ‘By jumping over the fence, which was only a little more
25 Ibid. than a meter high.’

26 Petition, pp. 18-19. Second Affidavit: They ‘entered the gate which was already open.’

669 On whether Alfaro entered the Vizconde house

VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 First Affidavit: She never entered the house.

669
Second Affidavit: ‘I proceeded to the iron grill gate leading to the dirty
kitchen.’” Neither can we discredit Alfaro merely because of the inconsistencies in her
two sworn statements. In Angelo, the Court refused to discredit the
In its Resolution, the DOJ Panel ruled that these alleged misdescription and testimony of a witness accusing therein petitioner for the slaying of one
inconsistencies did not erode the credibility of Alfaro. We quote the Gaviano Samaniego even though said witness failed to name Angelo in his
pertinent ruling, viz:27 affidavit which was executed five (5) months earlier. Granting, the Court
continued, that a part of the witness’ testimony is untrue, such circumstance
____________ is not sufficient to discredit the entire testimony of the witness.

27 Annex “A,” Petition, pp. 25-27. On August 7, 1995, another counsel for respondent Webb submitted his
memorandum suggesting that the instant complaint ‘should not be decided
670 within the month to give time to the NBI to coordinate with the FBI on the
latter’s inquiry into the whereabouts of Hubert Webb x x x and to check on
670 our U.S.-based witnesses.’

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED In said memorandum, counsel for respondent Webb calls for the application
of the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus arising from the
Webb vs. De Leon inconsistencies of Alfaro’s statements, among others. This is untenable. As
held in Angelo:
“x x x.
‘There is no rule of law which prohibits a court from crediting part of the
“As regards the admissibility of Alfaro’s statements, granting for purposes testimony of a witness as worthy of belief and from simultaneously
of argument merely that she is a co-conspirator, it is well to note that rejecting other parts which the court may find incredible or dubious. The
confessions of a co-conspirator may be taken as evidence to show the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a rule of law, let alone a
probability of the co-conspirator’s participation in the commission of the general rule of law which is universally applicable. It is not a legal
crime (see People vs. Lumahang, 94 Phil. 1084). presumption either. It is merely a latinism describing the conclusion reached
by a court in a particular case after ascribing to the evidence such weight or
Furthermore, it is a well-established doctrine that conspiracy need not be lack of weight that the court deemed proper.’
proved by direct evidence of prior agreement to commit the crime. Indeed,
‘only rarely would such a prior agreement be demonstrable since, in the 671
nature of things, criminal undertakings are only rarely documented by
agreements in writing. Thus, conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995
of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime,
showing that the several accused had acted in concert or in unison with each 671
other, evincing a common purpose or design.’ (Angelo vs. Court of
Appeals, 210 SCRA 402 [1992], citations omitted; People vs. Molleda, 86 Webb vs. De Leon
SCRA 699).
In the case before us, complainant reasoned out that Alfaro was then having While Mila S. Gaviola, another former housemaid of the Webb family and
reservations when she first executed the first statement and held back vital who served as a laundry woman, claims, aside from corroborating the
information due to her natural reaction of mistrust. This being so, the panel statement of Nerissa Rosales, that on June 30, 1991, she
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. As it 28 Atty. Florante Dizon, a counsel of choice.
has been often noted, ex parte statements are generally incomplete because
they are usually executed when the affiant’s state of mind does not give her 29 Annex “A,” Petition, pp. 11-17.
sufficient and fair opportunity to comprehend the import of her statement
and to narrate in full the incidents which transpired (People vs. Sarellana, 672
233 SCRA 31 [1994]; Angelo vs. Court of Appeals, supra). In the case at
bar, there is no dispute that a crime has been committed and what is clear 672
before us is that the totality of the evidence submitted by the complainant
indicate a prima facie case that respondents conspired in the perpetration of SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the imputed offense.”
Webb vs. De Leon
We note that the May 22, 1995 sworn statement of Alfaro was given with
the assistance of counsel28 and consists of six (6) pages, in single space woke up at around 4:00 in the morning and as what she used to do, she
reciting in rich details how the crime was planned and then executed by the entered the rooms of the Webbs to get their clothes to be washed. As a
petitioners. In addition, the DOJ Panel evaluated the supporting sworn matter of fact, in that early morning, she entered Hubert’s room and saw
statements of Nerissa Rosales and Mila Gaviola, former housemaids of the Hubert, who was only wearing his pants, already awake and smoking while
Webbs, Carlos J. Cristobal, a passenger in United Airlines Flight No. 808 he was sitting on his bed. She picked up Hubert’s scattered clothes and
and Lolita Birrer, a paramour of Gerardo Biong. The Panel assayed their brought them together with the clothes of the other members of the family
statements as follows:29 to the laundry area. After taking her breakfast, she began washing the
clothes of the Webbs. As she was washing the clothes of Hubert Webb, she
“x x x. noticed fresh bloodstains in his shirt. After she finished the laundry, she
went to the servant’s quarters. But feeling uneasy, she decided to go up to
“According to Nerissa E. Rosales, a former housemaid of the Webb family, the stockroom near Hubert’s room to see what he was doing. In the said
on June 29, 1991, between 7:00 o’clock and 8:00 o’clock in the evening, stockroom, there is a small door going to Hubert’s room and in that door
Hubert was at home inside his room with two male visitors. She knew it there is a small opening where she used to see Hubert and his friends
because she and her co-housemaid, Loany, were instructed by Hubert to sniffing on something. She observed Hubert was quite irritated, uneasy, and
bring them three glasses of juice. It was the last time she saw Hubert and walked to and from inside his room.
was later told by then Congressman Webb that Hubert was in the United
States. On that day, she noticed Hubert left the house at around 1:00 in the
afternoon and came back at around 4:00 in the same afternoon and went
inside his room using the secret door of the house. It was the last time that child with him who is now four (4) years old. Their relationship started in
she saw Hubert until she left the Webb family. February, 1991 until she broke up with him in September 1993. She recalls
that on June 29, 1991, at around 6:00 p.m., Biong invited her to play
On the other hand, Carlos J. Cristobal, alleged that on March 9, 1991, at mahjong at the canteen of a certain Aling Glo located at the back of the
about 10:00 in the morning, he was at the Ninoy Aquino International Parañaque Municipal Hall.
Airport as he was then scheduled to take the United Airlines Flight No. 808
at 2:00 in the afternoon for New York. At the airport’s lobby, he saw then At about 2:30 in the early morning of June 30, 1991, the radio operator of
Congressman Freddie Webb with a male companion. He greeted him and the Parañaque police told Biong that he has a phone call. Before Biong went
Webb answered: ‘Mabuti naman, at ito, ihahatid ko ang anak ko papuntang to the radio room, she was instructed to take him over and after somebody
Florida.’ He knew Freddie Webb because he often watched him then in a won the game, she followed Biong at the radio room where she overheard
television show ‘Chicks to Chicks.’ He observed that the man whom him uttering, ‘Ano?, Saan?, Mahirap yan, Paano, o sige, aantayin kita, O
Freddie Webb referred to as his son, was of the same height as Freddie. The ano?,dilaw na taxi, o sige.’ When he put the phone down, Biong told her,
son referred to has fair complexion with no distinguishing marks on his Mayroon lang akong rerespondehan, ikaw muna ang maupo’ and then, he
face. He (son of Webb) was then wearing a striped white jacket. When he went outside the canteen apparently waiting for somebody. Twenty minutes
and his children were already inside the plane, he did not see Freddie later, a taxi, colored yellow, arrived with a male passenger sitting at the
anymore, but he noticed his son was seated at the front portion of the backseat and parked near the canteen. After it made some signals by
economy class. He never noticed Freddie Webb’s son upon their arrival in blinking its headlight, Biong rode thereat at the front seat beside the driver
San Francisco. He claims that while watching the television program and then, they left. She was not able to recognize the male passenger
‘DONG PUNO LIVE’ lately, he saw the wife of Freddie Webb with her because the window of the taxi was tinted. Biong came back at around 7:00
lawyer being interviewed, and when she described Hubert as ‘moreno’ and of the same morning and when he arrived, he immediately washed his hands
small built, with a height of five feet and seven inches tall, and who was the and face, and took his handkerchief from his pocket which he threw at the
one who left for United States on March 9, 1991, he nurtured doubts trash can. She asked him why he threw his handkerchief and he answered,
because such description does not fit the physical traits of the son of ‘Hmp . . . amoy tae.’ She inquired what happened in BF Homes and he
Freddie, who left with him for United States on the same flight and date. replied, ‘Putang inang mga batang iyon,pinahirapan nila ako.’

Lolita Birrer, alleged that she know Gerardo Biong because she had an Biong later invited her for breakfast, but they first went to his office where
affair with him for almost three (3) years and in fact, she had a she observed him doing something in his steel cabinet while he appeared to
be uneasy. Moments later, Galvan, another policeman of Parañaque, arrived
673 and said, ‘Oy Biong, may tatlong patay sa BF, imbestigahan mo’ to which
Biong answered, ‘Oo susunod na ako.’ Biong went to the office of Capt.
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 Don Bartolome who offered to accompany him and with whom she asked
permission to go with them. Before they proceeded to the place where the
673 killings happened, she asked Biong if he knew the exact address and the
latter immediately responded, ‘Alam ko na yon.’ She was surprised because
Webb vs. De Leon Galvan never told him the place of the incident.
As soon as they arrived at the Vizconde’s residence, Biong instructed the Station an imported brown leather jacket, which the latter claimed to have
housemaids to contact the victim’s relatives, while the security guard been given to him by the person who called him up in the early morning of
fetched the barangay chairman and the president of the Homeowners June 30, 1991.
Association. When all these persons were already in the house, Biong
started recording the wounds of the victim. Inside the master’s bedroom, Since then, Biong has been wearing said jacket until they broke up
she saw Biong took a watch from the jewelry box. Because she could not sometime in 1993. She observed that Biong seemed not interested in
tolerate the foul odor, she and Capt. Bartolome went out of the room and pursuing the investigation of the Vizconde case. In fact, when Biong and
proceeded to the dining area. On top of the this group picked up Mike Gatchalian and brought him to the Parañaque
Police Station, she was surprised that Biong halted the investigation when
674 Gatchalian was profusely sweating while being interrogated. After the
father of Gatchalian talked to Colonel Pureza, the latter called up and
674 instructed Biong to bring Gatchalian to him (Colonel Pureza) and that was
the last thing she remembered regarding this case.”
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
The DOJ Panel then weighed these inculpatory evidence against the
Webb vs. De Leon exculpatory evidence of petitioners. It ruled:30

dining table, she saw the scattered contents of a shoulder bag. Moments “x x x.
later, Biong came out from the room and proceeded to the front door to
remove the chain lock; asked the keys from the housemaid and it was only “The voluminous number of exhibits submitted by respondent Webb to
then that the main door was opened. Biong noticed a stone in front of the support his defense of denial and alibi notwithstanding, the panel, after a
broken glass of the door and requested Capt. Bartolome to go inside the careful and thorough evaluation of the records, believes
servant’s quarters as he doubted the housemaids’ claim that they heard
nothing unusual. Using the handle of his gun, Biong broke the remaining ______________
glass of the door panel. Bartolome then came out of the room and told
Biong that he can hear the sound of the glass being broken. At the garage, 30 Annex “A,” Petition, pp. 23-24.
Biong also noticed same marks on the hood of the car.
675
On the following day, at around 12:00 noon, Biong arrived in her house
together with the Vizconde housemaids. When Biong was preparing to take VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995
a bath, she saw him remove from his pocket the things she also saw from
Vizconde’s residence, to wit: calling cards, driver’s license, ATM card, a 675
crossed check worth P80,000.00, earrings, a ring, bracelet, necklace, and the
watch he took from the jewelry box inside the room of the Vizcondes. Webb vs. De Leon
These jewelry items were later pawned by Biong for P20,000.00 at a
pawnshop in-front of Chow-Chow restaurant in Santos Avenue, Parañaque. that they cannot outweigh the evidence submitted by the complainant. Alibi
The next day, she saw Biong took from his locker at the Parañaque Police cannot prevail over the positive identification made by a prosecution
witness. Verily, alibi deserves scant consideration in the face of positive proof that the name appearing thereon was the actual buyer of the
identification especially so where the claim of alibi is supported mainly by merchandise.”
friends and relatives (People vs. Apolonia, 235 SCRA 124 [1994]; People
vs. Lucas, 181 SCRA 316 and a long line of cases). Given these conflicting pieces of evidence of the NBI and the petitioners,
we hold that the DOJ Panel did not gravely abuse its discretion when it
Similarly, denial is a self-serving negative which cannot be given greater found probable cause against the petitioners. A finding of probable cause
evidentiary weight than the declaration of a credible witness who testified needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has
on affirmative matters (People vs. Carizo, 233 SCRA 687 [1994]) Indeed, been committed and was committed by the suspects. Probable cause need
denial, like alibi, is weak and becomes even more weaker when arrayed not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on
against the positive identification by the witness for the prosecution (People
vs. Onpaid, 233 SCRA 62 [1994]). 676

Surprisingly, Gatchalian’s defense of alibi was not corroborated by Lejano, 676

whom he claimed was with him watching video tapes at the Syyap
residence. Other than claiming that he “was not and could not have been at SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
or near the area of the Vizconde residence at the time of the alleged
commission of the crime,” respondent Lejano proffered no evidence to Webb vs. De Leon
substantiate his claim of alibi.
evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely, not on
x x x. evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. As well put in Brinegar v.
United States,31 while probable cause demands more than “bare suspicion,”
On the other hand, respondent Webb seeks to enhance the acceptability of it requires “less than evidence which would justify x x x conviction.” A
his alibi in the form of documents tending to show that he was thousands of finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is
miles away when the incident occurred. We have carefully deliberated and not a pronouncement of guilt.
argued on the evidence submitted by respondent Webb in support of his
absence from the country since March 9, 1991 to October 26, 1992 and Considering the low quantum and quality of evidence needed to support a
found the same wanting to exonerate him of the offense charged. The finding of probable cause, we also hold that the DOJ Panel did not gravely
material dates in this case are June 29 and 30, 1991. While respondent abuse its discretion in refusing to call the NBI witnesses for clarificatory
Webb may have submitted proof tending to show that he was issued a questions. The decision to call witnesses for clarificatory questions is
California driver’s license on June 14, 1991, there is no showing that he addressed to the sound discretion of the investigator and the investigator
could not have been in the country on the dates above mentioned. Neither alone. If the evidence on hand already yields a probable cause, the
do we find merit in the allegation that respondent Webb personally bought a investigator need not hold a clarificatory hearing. To repeat, probable cause
bicycle on June 30, 1991 in California in view of his positive identification merely implies probability of guilt and should be determined in a summary
by Alfaro and the two (2) househelps of the Webb family who testified that manner. Preliminary investigation is not a part of trial and it is only in a trial
he was here in the country on said dates. Additionally, the issuance of where an accused can demand the full exercise of his rights, such as the
receipt evidencing the purchase of a bicycle in California is no conclusive right to confront and cross-examine his accusers to establish his innocence.
In the case at bar, the DOJ Panel correctly adjudged that enough evidence
had been adduced to establish probable cause and clarificatory hearing was “Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
unnecessary. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
II arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
We now come to the charge of petitioners that respondent Judge Raul de and the witnesses he may produce and particularly describing the place to
Leon and, later, respondent Judge Amelita Tolentino issued warrants of be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
arrest against them without conducting the required preliminary
examination. Petitioners support their stance by highlighting the following The aforequoted provision deals with the requirements of probable cause
facts: (1) the issuance of warrants of arrest in a matter of few hours; (2) the both with respect to issuance of warrants of arrest and search warrants. The
failure of said judges to issue orders of arrest; (3) the records submitted to similarities and differences of their requirements ought to be educational.
the trial court were incomplete and insufficient from which to base a finding Some of them are pointed out by Professors LaFave and Israel, thus:32 “It is
of probable cause; and (4) that even Gerardo Biong who was included in the generally assumed that the same quantum of evidence is required whether
Information as a mere accessory had a “NO BAIL” recommendation by the one is concerned with probable cause to arrest or probable cause to search.
DOJ Panel. But each requires a showing of probabilities as to somewhat different facts
and circumstances, and thus one can exist without the other. In search cases,
_______________ two conclusions must be supported by substantial evidence: that the items
sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being connected with criminal
31 338 US 160 [1949]. activity, and that the items will be found in the place to be searched. It is not
also necessary that a particular person be implicated. By comparison, in
677 arrest cases there must be probable cause that a crime has been committed
and that the person to be arrested committed it, which of course can exist
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 without any showing that evidence of the crime will be found at premises
under that person’s control.” Worthy to note, our Rules of Court do not
677 provide for a similar procedure to be followed in the issuance of warrants of
arrest and search warrants. With respect to war-
Webb vs. De Leon
_____________
Petitioners postulate that it was impossible to conduct a “searching
examination of witnesses and evaluation of the documents” on the part of 32 LaFave and Israel, Criminal Procedure, Hornbook Series, 1985 ed., pp.
said judges. 109-110.

The issuance of a warrant of arrest interferes with individual liberty and is 678
regulated by no less than the fundamental law of the land. Section 2 of
Article III of the Constitution provides: 678

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 ‘Art. III, Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
Webb vs. De Leon houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
rants of arrest, section 6 of Rule 112 simply provides that “upon filing of an warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
information, the Regional Trial Court may issue a warrant for the arrest of determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
the accused.” In contrast, the procedure to be followed in issuing search affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
warrants is more defined. Thus, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Rule 126 provide: particularly

“x x x ____________

“Sec. 3. Requisites for issuing search warrant.—A search warrant shall not 33 167 SCRA 397-398.
issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or 679
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized. VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995

Sec. 4. Examination of complainant; record.—The judge must, before 679

issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions
and answers, in writing and under oath the complainant and any witnesses Webb vs. De Leon
he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record
their sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted. describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.’

Sec. 5. Issuance and form of search warrant.—If the judge is thereupon The addition of the word ‘personally’ after the word ‘determined’ and the
satisfied of the facts upon which the application is based, or that there is deletion of the grant of authority by the 1973 Constitution to issue warrants
probable cause to believe that they exist, he must issue the warrant, which to ‘other responsible officers as may be authorized by law,’ has apparently
must be substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules.” convinced petitioner Beltran that the Constitution now requires the judge to
personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in his determination
We discussed the difference in the procedure of issuing warrants of arrest of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. This is not an
and search warrants in Soliven vs. Makasiar,33 thus: accurate interpretation.

“x x x What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal

responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of
“The second issue, raised by Beltran, calls for an interpretation of the probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for
constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest. The pertinent the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally
provision reads: examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine
and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the
supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of
probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if
on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the taking recital and analysis of the parties’ evidence made in the DOJ Panel
fiscal’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of Report satisfied both judges that there is probable cause to issue warrants of
witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of arrest against petitioners. Again, we stress that before issuing warrants of
probable cause. arrest, judges merely determine personally the probability, not the certainty
of guilt of an accused. In doing so, judges do not conduct a de novo hearing
Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges would be unduly to determine the existence of probable cause. They just personally review
laden with the preliminary examination and investigation of criminal the initial determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if
complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed it is supported by substantial evidence. The sufficiency of the review
before their courts.” process cannot be measured by merely counting minutes and hours. The fact
that it took the respondent judges a few hours to review and affirm the
Clearly then, the Constitution, the Rules of Court, and our case law34 probable cause determination of the DOJ Panel does not mean they made no
repudiate the submission of petitioners that respondent judges should have personal evaluation of the evidence attached to the records of the case.36
conducted “searching examination of witnesses” before issuing warrants of
arrest against them. They also reject petitioners’ contention that a judge Petitioners’ reliance on the case of Allado vs. Diokno 37 is misplaced. Our
must first issue an order of arrest before issuing a warrant of arrest. There is Allado ruling is predicated on the utter failure of the evidence to show the
no law or rule requiring the issuance of an Order of Arrest prior to a warrant existence of probable cause. Not even thecorpus delicti of the crime was
of arrest. established by the evidence of the prosecution in that case. Given the clear
insufficiency of the evidence on record, we stressed the necessity for the
In the case at bar, the DOJ Panel submitted to the trial court its 26-page trial judge to make a further personal examination of the complainant and
report, the two (2) sworn statements of Alfaro and the sworn statements of his witnesses to reach a correct assessment of the existence or non-existence
Carlos Cristobal and Lolita Birrer35 as well as the counter-affidavits of the of probable cause before issuing warrants of arrest against the accused. The
petitioners. Apparently, the pains- case at bar, however, rests on a different factual setting. As priorly
discussed, the various types of evidence extant in the records of the case
_____________ provide substantial basis for a finding of probable cause against the
petitioner. The corpus delicti of the crime is a given fact. There is an
34 See also Cruz, Jr. v. People, 233 SCRA 439 [1994]. eyewitness account of the imputed crime given by Alfaro. The alibi defense
of petitioner Webb is also disputed by sworn statements of their former
35 See Annex “A,” Consolidated Comment of the Solicitor General. maids. It was therefore unnecessary for the respondent judges to take the
further step of examining ex parte the complainant and their witnesses with
680 searching questions.

680 ____________

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 36 See Enrile vs. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 [1990].

Webb vs. De Leon 37 232 SCRA 192 [1994].

 14, 1995). In fact, not satisfied with the decision of the DOJ Panel not to
681 issue subpoena duces tecum to Atty. Arturo L. Mercader, Jr., petitioner
Webb filed a “Petition for Injunction, Certiorari, Prohibition and
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 Mandamus” with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63 of Makati in order to
compel said Atty. Mercader, Jr. to produce the first sworn statement of
681 Alfaro for submission to the DOJ Panel. (p. 4, Petition) The said court
dismissed the petition after Mercader produced and submitted to the DOJ
Webb vs. De Leon Panel the first sworn statement of Alfaro, without ruling on the
admissibility and credence of the two (2) conflicting and inconsistent sworn
III statements of the principal witness, Alfaro (Attached hereto is a copy of the
order of Judge Ruben A. Mendiola, RTC-Makati, Branch 63 dated July 28,
Petitioners also complain about the denial of their constitutional right to due 1995) marked as Annex “F.” 681
process and violation of their right to an impartial investigation. They decry
their alleged hasty and malicious prosecution by the NBI and the DOJ 682
Panel. They also assail the prejudicial publicity that attended their
preliminary investigation. 682

We reject these contentions. The records will show that the DOJ Panel did SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
not conduct the preliminary investigation with indecent haste. Petitioners
were given fair opportunity to prove lack of probable cause against them. Webb vs. De Leon
The fairness of this opportunity is well stressed in the Consolidated
Comment of the Solicitor General, viz: It must also be pointed out that despite the declaration by the DOJ Panel
that the preliminary investigation was to be terminated after the hearing
“Again, there is no merit in this contention. Petitioners were afforded all the held on July 14, 1995, the panel continued to conduct further proceedings,
opportunities to be heard. Petitioner Webb actively participated in the e.g., comparison of the photo-copies of the submitted documents with the
preliminary investigation by appearing in the initial hearing held on June originals on July 17, 1995. (p. 7, Petition) The panel even entertained the
30, 1995 and in the second hearing on July 14, 1995; and by filing a “Response” submitted by accused Miguel Rodriguez on July 18, 1995. (p.
“Motion for Production and Examination of Evidence and Documents” on 17, Resolution) In addition to these, the panel even announced that any
June 27, 1995 (p. 4, Petition), a “Reply to the Compliance and party may submit additional evidence before the resolution of the case. (p.
Comment/Manifestation to the Motion for Production and Examination of 8, Petition) From the time the panel declared the termination of the
Evidence” on July 5, 1995 (p. 6, Petition), a “Comment and Manifestation” preliminary investigation on July 14, 1995,twenty-seven (27) days elapsed
on July 7, 1995 (p. 6, Petition), his “Counter-Affidavit” on July 14, 1995 before the resolution was promulgated, and the information eventually filed
(pp. 6-7, Petition) and a “Motion to Resolve” on August 1, 1995. Numerous in the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque on August 10, 1995. This
letter-requests were also sent by the petitioner Webb’s counsel to the DOJ notwithstanding the directive of Section 3(f) Rule 112 of the Revised Rules
Panel requesting the latter to furnish him a copy of the reports prepared by of Court that the investigating officer shall resolve the case within ten (10)
the FBI concerning the petitioner’s whereabouts during the material period days from the termination of the preliminary investigation. The DOJ Panel
(Annexes “L”, “L-1” and “L-2” of the Supplemental Petition dated August precisely allowed the parties to adduce more evidence in their behalf and for
the panel to study the evidence submitted more fully. This directly disputes An appeal/motion for reinvestigation from a resolution finding probable
the allegation of the petitioners that the resolution of the preliminary cause, however, shall not hold the filing of the information in court.
investigation was done with indecent haste in violation of the rights of the
petitioners. During the period of twenty-seven (27) days, the petitioners SECTION 2. When to Appeal.—The appeal must be filed within a period of
were free to adduce and present additional evidence before the DOJ Panel. fifteen (15) days from receipt of the questioned resolution by the party or
his counsel. The period shall be interrupted only by the filing of a motion
Verily, petitioners cannot now assert that they were denied due process for reconsideration within ten (10) days from receipt of the resolution and
during the conduct of the preliminary investigation simply because the DOJ shall continue to run from the time the resolution denying the motion shall
Panel promulgated the adverse resolution and filed the Information in court have been received by the movant or his counsel.” (Italics supplied)
against them.”
Without doubt then, the said DOJ Order No. 223 allows the filing of an
Petitioners cannot also assail as premature the filing of the Information in Information in court after the consummation of the preliminary
court against them for rape with homicide on the ground that they still have investigation even if the accused can still exercise the right to seek a review
the right to appeal the adverse resolution of the DOJ Panel to the Secretary of the prosecutor’s recommendation with the Secretary of Justice.
of Justice. The filing of said Information is in accord with Department of
Justice Order No. 223, series of 1993, dated June 25, 1993. We quote its Next, petitioners fault the DOJ Panel for not including Alfaro in the
pertinent sections, viz: Information considering her alleged conspiratorial participation in the crime
of rape with homicide. The non-inclusion of Alfaro is anchored on Republic
“SECTION 4. Non-Appealable Cases; Exceptions.—No appeal may be Act No. 6981, entitled “An Act Providing For A Witness Protection,
taken from a resolution of the Chief State Prosecutor/Regional State Security And Benefit Program And For Other Purposes” enacted on April
Prosecutor/Provincial or City Prosecutor finding probable cause except 24, 1991. Alfaro qualified under its Section 10, which provides:
upon showing of manifest error or grave abuse of discretion.
Notwithstanding the showing of manifest error or grave abuse of discretion, “x x x
no appeal shall be entertained where the appellant had already been
arraigned. If the appellant is arraigned during the pendency of the “Sec. 10. State Witness.—Any person who has participated in the
commission of a crime and desires to be a witness for the State, can apply
683 and, if qualified as determined in this Act and by the Department, shall be
admitted into the Program whenever the following circumstances are
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 present:

683 (a)the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as
defined under the R.P.C. or its equivalent under special laws;
Webb vs. De Leon (b)there is absolute necessity for his testimony;
(c)there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of
appeal, said appeal shall be dismissed motu proprio by the Secretary of the offense committed;
Justice. (d)his testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points;
(e)he does not appear to be most guilty; and
(f)he has not at anytime been convicted of any crime The validity of these provisions is challenged by petitioner Webb. It is
684 urged that they constitute “x x x an intrusion into judicial prerogative for it
is only the court which has the power under the Rules on Criminal
684 Procedure to discharge an accused as a state witness.” The argument is
based on Section 9, Rule 11938 which
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
______________
Webb vs. De Leon
38 SEC. 9. Discharge of accused to be state witness.—When two or more
involving moral turpitude. persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon
An accused discharged from an information or criminal complaint by the motion of the prosecution before resting its case, the court may direct one or
court in order that he may be a State Witness pursuant to Sections 9 and 10 more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be
of Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court may upon his petition be witnesses for the state when after requiring the prosecution to present
admitted to the Program if he complies with the other requirements of this evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a
Act. Nothing in this Act shall prevent the discharge of an accused so that he hearing in support of the discharge, the
can be used as a Witness under Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court.”
685
Upon qualification of Alfaro to the program, Section 12 of the said law
mandates her non-inclusion in the criminal Complaint or Information, thus: VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995

“x x x 685

Sec. 12. Effect of Admission of a State Witness into the Program.—The Webb vs. De Leon
certification of admission into the Program by the Department shall be
given full faith and credit by the provincial or city prosecutor who is gives the court the prerogative to approve the discharge of an accused to be
required NOT TO INCLUDE THE WITNESS IN THE CRIMINAL a state witness. Petitioner’s argument lacks appeal for it lies on the faulty
COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION and if included therein, to petition the assumption that the decision whom to prosecute is a judicial function, the
court for his discharge in order that he can be utilized as a State Witness. sole prerogative of courts and beyond executive and legislative interference.
The court shall order the discharge and exclusion of the said accused from In truth, the prosecution of crimes appertains to the executive department of
the information. government whose principal power and responsibility is to see that our laws
are faithfully executed. A necessary component of this power to execute our
Admission into the Program shall entitle such State Witness to immunity laws is the right to prosecute their violators. The right to prosecute vests the
from criminal prosecution for the offense or offenses in which his testimony prosecutor with a wide range of discretion—the discretion of whether, what
will be given or used and all the rights and benefits provided under Section and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of
8 hereof. factors which are best appreciated by prosecutors. We thus hold that it is not
constitutionally impermissible for Congress to enact R.A. No. 6981 vesting
in the Department of Justice the power to determine who can qualify as a
witness in the program and who shall be granted immunity from of our justice system. R.A. No. 6981 is one of the much sought penal
prosecution.39 Section 9 of Rule 119 does not support the proposition that reform laws to help government in its uphill fight against crime, one certain
the power to choose who shall be a state witness is an inherent judicial cause of which is the reticence of witnesses to testify. The rationale for the
prerogative. Under this provision, the court is given the power to discharge law is well put by the Department of Justice, viz: “Witnesses, for fear of
a state witness only because it has already acquired jurisdiction over the reprisal and economic dislocation, usually refuse to appear and testify in the
crime and the accused. The discharge of an accused is investigation/prosecution of criminal complaints/cases. Because of such
refusal, criminal complaints/ cases have been dismissed for insufficiency
______________ and/or lack of evidence. For a more effective administration of criminal
justice, there was a necessity to pass a law protecting witnesses and granting
court is satisfied that: them certain rights and benefits to ensure their appearance in investigative
bodies/courts.”40 Petitioner Webb’s challenge to the validity of R.A. No.
(a)There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose 6981 cannot therefore succeed.
discharge is requested;
(b)There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of Further, petitioners charge the NBI with violating their right to discovery
the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused; proceedings during their preliminary investigation by suppressing the April
(c)The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its 28, 1995 original copy of the sworn statement of Alfaro and the FBI Report.
material points; The argument is novel in this jurisdiction and as it urges an expansive
(d)Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; reading of the rights of persons under preliminary investigation it deserves
(e)Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving serious consideration. To start with, our Rules on Criminal Procedure do not
moral turpitude. expressly provide for discovery proceedings during the preliminary
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part investigation stage of a criminal proceeding.41 Sections 10 and 11 of Rule
of the trial. If the court denies the motion for discharge of the accused as 117 do provide an accused the right to move for a bill of particulars and for
state witness, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence. production or inspection of material evidence in possession of the
39 See Primer on the Witness Protection Security and Benefit Act, (R.A. prosecution.42
No. 6981) Department of Justice, p. 1.
____________
686
40 Op cit.
686
41 In contrast, our Rules provide pre-trial discovery proceedings in civil
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED actions. See Rule 24 on Depositions and Discovery; Rule 25 on
Interrogatories to Parties; Rule 26 on Admission by Adverse Party; Rule 27
Webb vs. De Leon on Production or Inspection of Documents or Things; Rule 28 on Physical
and Mental Examination of Persons and Rule 29 on Refusal to Make
part of the exercise of jurisdiction but is not a recognition of an inherent Discovery.
judicial function. Moreover, the Rules of Court have never been interpreted
to be beyond change by legislation designed to improve the administration
42 SEC. 10. Bill of particulars.—Accused may, at or before arraignment,
move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead SEC. 11. Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of
prosecution.—On motion of the accused showing good cause and with
687 notice to all parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise, suppression, or
alteration, may order the prosecution to produce and permit the inspection
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 and copying or photographing, of any written statements given by the
complainant and other witnesses in any investigation of the offense
687 conducted by the prosecution or any other investigating officers, as well as
of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs,
Webb vs. De Leon objects or tangible things, not otherwise privileged, which constitute or
contain evidence material to any matter involved in the case, and which are
But these provisions apply after the filing of the Complaint or Information in the possession or under the control of the prosecution, the police, or any
in court and the rights are accorded to the accused to assist them to make an other law investigating agencies. (8a, R-118)
intelligent plea at arraignment and to prepare for trial.43
43 Note that Rule 116 is entitled Arraignment and Plea.
This failure to provide discovery procedure during preliminary investigation
does not, however, negate its use by a person under investigation when 44 Cruz, Jr. v. People, 233 SCRA 439.
indispensable to protect his constitutional right to life, liberty and property.
Preliminary investigation is not too early a stage to guard against any 688
significant erosion of the constitutional right to due process of a potential
accused. As aforediscussed, the object of a preliminary investigation is to 688
determine the probability that the suspect committed a crime. We hold that
the finding of a probable cause by itself subjects the suspect’s life, liberty SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
and property to real risk of loss or diminution. In the case at bar, the risk to
the liberty of petitioners cannot be understated for they are charged with the Webb vs. De Leon
crime of rape with homicide, a non-bailable offense when the evidence of
guilt is strong. As this Court emphasized in Rolito Go vs. Court of Appeals,45 “the right to
have a preliminary investigation conducted before being bound over for trial
Attuned to the times, our Rules have discarded the pure inquisitorial system for a criminal offense, and hence formally at risk of incarceration or some
of preliminary investigation. Instead, Rule 112 installed a quasi-judicial other penalty, is not a mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive
type of preliminary investigation conducted by one whose high duty is to be right.” A preliminary investigation should therefore be scrupulously
fair and impartial.44 conducted so that the constitutional right to liberty of a potential accused
can be protected from any material damage. We uphold the legal basis of
______________ the right of petitioners to demand from their prosecutor, the NBI, the
original copy of the April 28, 1995 sworn statement of Alfaro and the FBI
and to prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects and the Report during their preliminary investigation considering their exculpatory
details desired. (6a, R-116) character, and hence, unquestionable materiality to the issue of their
probable guilt. The right is rooted on the constitutional protection of due Webb vs. De Leon
process which we rule to be operational even during the preliminary
investigation of a potential accused. It is also implicit in section (3) (a) of Brady 49—“society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when
Rule 112 which requires during the preliminary investigation the filing of a criminal trials are fair.” Indeed, prosecutors should not treat litigation like a
sworn complaint which shall “x x x state the known address of the game of poker where surprises can be sprung and where gain by guile is not
respondent and be accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and his punished.
witnesses as well as other supporting documents. x x x.”
But given the right of petitioners to compel the NBI to disclose exculpatory
In laying down this rule, the Court is not without enlightened precedents evidence in their favor, we are not prepared to rule that the initial non-
from other jurisdictions. In the 1963 watershed case of Brady v. Maryland production of the original sworn statement of Alfaro dated April 28, 1995
46 the United States Supreme Court held that “suppression of evidence could have resulted in the reasonable likelihood that the DOJ Panel would
favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the not have found probable cause. To be sure, the NBI, on July 4, 1995, upon
evidence is material to guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or request of petitioners, submitted a photocopy of Alfaro’s April 28, 1995
bad faith of the prosecution.” Its progeny is the 1935 case of Mooney v. sworn statement. It explained it cannot produce the original as it had been
Holohan 47 which laid down the proposition that a prosecutor’s intentional lost. Fortunately, petitioners, on July 28, 1995, were able to obtain a copy of
use of perjured testimony to procure conviction violates due process. Thus, the original from Atty. Arturo Mercader in the course of the proceedings in
evolved jurisprudence firming up the prosecutor’s duty to disclose to the Civil Case No. 951099.50 As petitioners admit, the DOJ Panel accepted the
defense exculpatory evidence in its possession.48 The rationale is well put original of Alfaro’s April 28, 1995 sworn statement as a part of their
by Justice Brennan in evidence.51 Petitioners thus had the fair chance to explain to the DOJ Panel
then still conducting their preliminary investigation the exculpatory aspects
______________ of this sworn statement. Unfortunately for petitioners, the DOJ Panel still
found probable cause to charge them despite the alleged material
45 206 SCRA 138 [1992]. discrepancies between the first and second sworn statements of Alfaro. For
reasons we have expounded, this finding of probable cause cannot be struck
46 373 US 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d, 216 [1983]. down as done with grave abuse of discretion.52 On the other hand, the FBI
Report while corroborative of the alibi of petitioner Webb cannot by itself
47 294 US 103, 55 S. Ct. 340, 79 L. Ed. 791 [1935]. reverse the probable cause finding of the DOJ Panel in light of the totality
of evidence presented by the NBI.
48 See US v. Augurs, 427 US 97, 96 S. Ct. 2392, 49 L. Ed 2d 342 [1976];
US v. Bagley, 473 US 667, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 87 L. Ed. 2d 481 Finally, we come to the argument of petitioner that the DOJ Panel lost its
impartiality due to the prejudicial publicity waged
689
_____________
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995
[1985];Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 US 39, 107 S. Ct. 989, 94 L. Ed. ed 40
689 [1987].
49 Op cit. match the high volume and high velocity of publicity that attended the
preliminary investigation of the case at bar. Our daily diet of facts and
50 Filed in Br. 63, RTC, Makati entitled Hubert Webb vs. Mercader, et al. fiction about the case continues unabated even today. Commentators still
bombard the public with views not too many of which are sober and
51 See Petition, page 7, par. 3.16. sublime. Indeed, even the principal actors in the case—the NBI, the
respondents, their lawyers and their sympathizers—have participated in this
52 We note that petitioner Webb does not complain that the xerox copy media blitz. The possibility of media abuses and their threat to a fair trial
submitted by the NBI is different from the original produced by Atty. notwithstanding, criminal trials cannot be completely closed to the press
Mercader. and the public. In the seminal case of Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v.
Virginia,53 it was wisely held:
690
“x x x
690
“(a) The historical evidence of the evolution of the criminal trial in Anglo-
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED American justice demonstrates conclusively that at the time this Nation’s
organic laws were adopted, criminal trials both here and in England had
Webb vs. De Leon long been presumptively open, thus giving assurance that the proceedings
were conducted fairly to all concerned and discouraging perjury, the
in the press and broadcast media by the NBI. misconduct of participants, or decisions based

Again, petitioners raise the effect of prejudicial publicity on their right to ______________
due process while undergoing preliminary investigation. We find no
procedural impediment to its early invocation considering the substantial 53 445 US 555, 100 S. Ct. 2814, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973 [1980].
risk to their liberty while undergoing a preliminary investigation.
691
In floating this issue, petitioners touch on some of the most problematic
areas in constitutional law where the conflicting demands of freedom of VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995
speech and of the press, the public’s right to information, and an accused’s
right to a fair and impartial trial collide and compete for prioritization. The 691
process of pinpointing where the balance should be struck has divided men
of learning as the balance keeps moving either on the side of liberty or on Webb vs. De Leon
the side of order as the tumult of the time and the welfare of the people
dictate. The dance of the balance is a difficult act to follow. on secret bias or partiality. In addition, the significant community
therapeutic value of public trials was recognized: when a shocking crime
In democratic settings, media coverage of trials of sensational cases cannot occurs, a community reaction of outrage and public protest often follows,
be avoided and oftentimes, its excessiveness has been aggravated by kinetic and thereafter the open processes of justice serve an important prophylactic
developments in the telecommunications industry. For sure, few cases can purpose, providing an outlet for community concern, hostility, and emotion.
To work effectively, it is important that society’s criminal process ‘satisfy Be that as it may, we recognize that pervasive and prejudicial publicity
the appearance of justice,’ Offutt v. United States, 348 US 11, 14, 99 L Ed under certain circumstances can deprive an accused of his due process right
11, 75 S Ct 11, which can best be provided by allowing people to observe to fair trial. Thus, in Martelino, et al. vs.
such process. From this unbroken, uncontradicted history, supported by
reasons as valid today as in centuries past, it must be concluded that a 692
presumption of openness inheres in the very nature of a criminal trial under
this Nation’s system of justice, Cf., e.g., Levine v. United States, 362 US 692
610, 4 L Ed 2d 989, 80 S Ct 1038.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
(b) The freedoms of speech, press, and assembly, expressly guaranteed by
the First Amendment, share a common core purpose of assuring freedom of Webb vs. De Leon
communication on matters relating to the functioning of government. In
guaranteeing freedoms such as those of speech and press, the First Alejandro, et al.,54 we held that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity
Amendment can be read as protecting the right of everyone to attend trials there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly
so as to give meaning to those explicit guarantees; the First Amendment influenced, not simply that they might be, by the barrage of publicity. In the
right to receive information and ideas means, in the context of trials, that the case at bar, we find nothing in the records that will prove that the tone and
guarantees of speech and press, standing alone, prohibit government from content of the publicity that attended the investigation of petitioners fatally
summarily closing courtroom doors which had long been open to the public infected the fairness and impartiality of the DOJ Panel. Petitioners cannot
at the time the First Amendment was adopted. Moreover, the right of just rely on the subliminal effects of publicity on the sense of fairness of the
assembly is also relevant, having been regarded not only as an independent DOJ Panel, for these are basically unbeknown and beyond knowing. To be
right but also as a catalyst to augment the free exercise of the other First sure, the DOJ Panel is composed of an Assistant Chief State Prosecutor and
Amendment rights with which it was deliberately linked by the draftsmen. Senior State Prosecutors. Their long experience in criminal investigation is
A trial courtroom is a public place where the people generally—and a factor to consider in determining whether they can easily be blinded by
representatives of the media—have a right to be present, and where their the klieg lights of publicity. Indeed, their 26-page Resolution carries no
presence historically has been thought to enhance the integrity and quality indubitable indicia of bias for it does not appear that they considered any
of what takes place. extra-record evidence except evidence properly adduced by the parties. The
length of time the investigation was conducted despite its summary nature
(c) Even though the Constitution contains no provision which by its terms and the generosity with which they accommodated the discovery motions of
guarantees to the public the right to attend criminal trials, various petitioners speak well of their fairness. At no instance, we note, did
fundamental rights, not expressly guaranteed, have been recognized as petitioners seek the disqualification of any member of the DOJ Panel on the
indispensable to the enjoyment of enumerated rights. The right to attend ground of bias resulting from their bombardment of prejudicial publicity.
criminal trials is implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment: without
the freedom to attend such trials, which people have exercised for centuries, It all remains to state that the Vizconde case will move to a more critical
important aspects of freedom of speech and of the press could be stage as petitioners will now have to undergo trial on the merits. We stress
eviscerated.” that probable cause is not synonymous with guilt and while the light of
publicity may be a good disinfectant of unfairness, too much of its heat can
bring to flame an accused’s right to fair trial. Without imposing on the trial
judge the difficult task of supervising every specie of speech relating to the      Mendoza, J., I concur in the majority opinion of Justice Puno and in the
case at bar, it behooves her to be reminded of the duty of a trial judge in separate opinion of Justice Francisco.
high profile criminal cases to control publicity prejudicial to the fair
administration of justice.55 The Court reminds judges that our ability to      Francisco, J., See concurring opinion.
dispense impartial justice is an issue in every trial and in every criminal
prosecution, the judi- CONCURRING OPINION
FRANCISCO, J.:
____________
The thrust of petitioners’ arguments involve the validity and exercise of the
54 L-30894, March 25, 1970, 32 SCRA 106. prosecutory powers of the State. Maintaining their innocence, petitioners
assert that the filing of an information and the issuance of warrants of arrest
55 Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 US 333, 86 S. Ct. 1507, 16 L. Ed. 600 [1966]. against them were without probable cause. Petitioners, in my considered
view, failed to make a case to warrant the Court’s interference.
693
Preliminary investigation, unlike trial, is summary in nature, the purpose of
VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995 which is merely to determine whether a crime has been committed and
whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof
693 (Paderanga v. Drilon, 196 SCRA 86, 92 [1991]). It is not intended to find
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Courts should give deference, in the absence
Webb vs. De Leon of a clear showing of arbitrariness, as in this case, to the finding and
determination of probable cause by prosecutors in preliminary
ciary always stands as a silent accused. More than convicting the guilty and investigations. If not, the functions of the courts will be unduly hampered
acquitting the innocent, the business of the judiciary is to assure fulfillment by innumerable petitions compelling the review of the exercise of discretion
of the promise that justice shall be done and is done—and that is the only on the part of fiscals or prosecuting attorneys if each time they decide to file
way for the judiciary to get an acquittal from the bar of public opinion. an information in court their

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petitions are dismissed for lack of showing of 694
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondents. Costs against
petitioners. 694

SO ORDERED. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

     Regalado, J., concur. Webb vs. De Leon

     Narvasa (C.J.), On official leave. finding can be immediately brushed aside at the instance of those charged
(Ocampo IV v. Ombudsman, 225 SCRA 725, 730 [1993]). The Court,
therefore, must look askance at unmeritorious moves that could give a dent
in the efficient and effective administration of justice. VOL. 247, AUGUST 23, 1995

Petitioners characterize the evidence against them to be inherently weak and 695
uncorroborated vis-a-vis their defenses. The weight or sufficiency of
evidence, to my mind, is best assayed in the trial proper. In the search for Webb vs. De Leon
truth, a trial has distinct merits over a preliminary investigation. We have
had occasion to stress that trial is to be preferred to ferret out the truth petitioners thus can not be said to be whimsical or arbitrary.
(Abugotal v. Tiro, 66 SCRA 196, 201 [1975]). The validity and merits of a
party’s defense or accusation as well as the admissibility or inadmissibility Lastly, the law in this jurisdiction is lopsided in favor of the accused. The
of testimonies and evidence are better ventilated during the trial stage than 1987 Constitution and the Rules of Court enumerate an array of rights upon
in the preliminary investigation level. The ineluctable media attention which an accused can seek protection and solace. To mention a few: he has
notwithstanding, truth as to their innocence or guilt is still best determined the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, the right
at the trial. against self-incrimination, the right to remain silent, to confront and cross-
examine the witnesses against him, to have a speedy, impartial and public
With respect to petitioners’ contention that public respondent judge failed to trial, to be heard by himself and counsel, to have competent and
personally examine and determine the existence of probable cause for the independent counsel preferably of his own choice. These rights are afforded
issuance of a warrant, suffice it to say that the judge does not have to to the accused and not to the complainant. Therefore, petitioners need not be
personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in order to issue a distressed if they henceforth go to trial.
warrant of arrest as he can rely on the certification of the prosecutor/s
(Circular No. 12-Guidelines on Issuance of Warrants of Arrests [June 30, I vote to dismiss the petitions.
1987]; Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393, 398 [1988]). There is ample
evidence and sufficient basis on record that support the trial court’s issuance Petitions dismissed.
of the warrant as petitioners themselves do not contend that the prosecutors’
certification was unaccompanied by the records of the preliminary Notes.—In satisfying the existence of a probable cause for the issuance of a
investigation to take their case outside the ambit of the rule. Moreover, warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the
contrary to what the petitioners imply, the Court may not determine how complainant and witness. (Lim, Sr. vs. Felix, 194 SCRA 292 [1991]).
cursory or exhaustive the judge’s examination of the certification, report
and findings of the preliminary investigation and its annexes should be as The phrase “personal determination by the judge” means the determination
this depends not only upon the sound exercise of the judge’s discretion in of probable cause is a function of the judge; second, the preliminary inquiry
personally determining the existence of probable cause, but also from the made by a prosecutor does not bind the judge; and third, judges and
circumstances of each case (Lim, Sr. v. Felix, 194 SCRA 292, 306 [1991]). prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry which
Besides, respondent judge, being a public officer, enjoys the presumption of determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the
regularity in the performance of his duties (Rule 131, Sec. 3 [m], Rules of preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender
Court). The issuance of the warrants of arrest against should be held liable for trial of release. (Ibid.).

695
The court may require that the record of the preliminary investigation be
submitted to it to satisfy itself that there is a probable cause which will
warrant the issuance of a warrant of arrest. (Ibid.)

——o0o——

696

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved. Webb vs.
De Leon, 247 SCRA 652, G.R. No. 121234, G.R. No. 121245, G.R. No.
121297 August 23, 1995