Trial (and lies) of the century

Tuesday, 28 December 2010 00:07

Written by Marvin Bionat

I was in the country when the Vizconde Massacre case was finally tried in 1995, four years after the crime, and my gut feeling was that Hubert Webb was falsely accused. To me Jessica Alfaro’s testimony was contrived. When former cop Gerald Biong was recently released from prison, convicted due to Alfaro’s allegation that he burned some of the key material evidence, he vehemently insisted that the star witness lied through her teeth. Biong left prison clutching a bible, announcing that he had become closer to God while in prison. While that’s not necessarily a guarantee that he’s telling the unvarnished truth, it should make people pause and think.

In addition to debunking Alfaro’s testimony, Biong revealed that the NBI bribed and tortured him to pin Webb and his co-accused. Alfaro, it should be noted, was considered by the Supreme Court as a stool pigeon, who “earned her living by fraternizing with criminals so she could squeal on them to her NBI handlers.” The big question then is: Why did the NBI want to convict Webb and his co-accused, even if it involved false testimony and manufacturing evidence? After four years without resolution, did the NBI in 1995 simply decide it was time to “solve” the case no matter what? Was there political pressure? Or was the bureau trying to protect the real perpetrators?

It didn’t help Webb et al. that the presiding judge seemed antagonistic toward the defense. Watching news clips of the country’s “trial of the century,” I remember getting exasperated by how Judge Amelita Tolentino rejected plenty of material evidence that would have helped positively confirm that Webb was outside the country when the crime was committed. It’s possible that because the accused were from prominent families the judge was trying to prove that she could not be influenced by overwhelming wealth and power. If so, such mind-set created the impression that the judge favored the prosecution. While influence often unfairly serves the rich and the powerful, this time it might have backfired in an unfairly huge way.

The recent release of Webb and his co-accused is apparently welcome to those who, like me, think they are not guilty. The bottom line, however, is that this case still screams for a resolution, with Lauro Vizconde—frail, broken, and displaying the tortured anguish of a husband and father still denied justice 20 years after his wife and children’s were brutally murdered—generating immense national sympathy.

The big challenge is that the prescription period for this case lapses in a matter of months. Does the Department of Justice have the wherewithal to re-investigate and find probable cause to file a new case within such a short time frame? I hope that the prescription period, as in most countries, does not actually apply to those on the run. Two of the defendants, Joey Filart and Artemio Ventura, skipped town before the rest were arrested.

If cash lured Alfaro to squeal on criminals, perhaps cash might also help untangle the web of lies she concocted before she conveniently left the country and hid under the blanket of the witness protection program. The Webb family and the families of the other co-accused should consider creating a fund that will reward anyone who can positively provide information leading to the arrest and conviction of the real criminals. Or perhaps the government should help create such a fund as part of a compensation package, if deemed appropriate, for false imprisonment. This is particularly important because the release of Webb and company has not necessarily made them guiltless. It simply means they have not been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The ultimate closure to their saga, and to the senseless and grizzly crime against the Vizconde family, requires finding the real perpetrators.

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites