MANILA, Philippines -- And so the 11-year nightmare of Hubert Webb continues. The Court of Appeals Special Division of Five, by a 3-2 vote, reaffirmed its December 2005 decision upholding the decision of Regional Trial Court Judge Amelia Tolentino (now a justice of the Court of Appeals) finding Webb and five co-accused as principals and one co-accused as accessory of the crime of rape with homicide.

My nightmare continues as well, because it gives me nightmares that an innocent person has already spent 11 years behind bars and will continue to do so as his case goes up on appeal to the Supreme Court. I?ve said it before, and I will say it again: Hubert Webb is innocent of that crime.

Nevertheless I find no small amount of consolation in the fact that while the decision of the 10th Division of the Court of Appeals in December 2005 unanimously upheld Tolentino, a closer review of the facts of the case, upon motion for reconsideration by Webb et al., caused one of the three justices -- Associate Justice Lucenito Tagle -- to change his mind. This lack of unanimity necessitated, per Rules of the Court of Appeals, the creation of a (special) division of five by adding two justices, who were chosen by raffle. And one of those two justices -- Renato Dacudao -- came to the same conclusion that Tagle did: Webb et al. were not guilty of the crime of rape with homicide. Their dissenting opinions are music to my ears, and because their logic is unassailable, it gives me hope that the Supreme Court will see things their way.

The disagreement between the majority and the minority centered around two issues: whether or not the witnesses were credible, and whether or not the defense of alibi was strong. Obviously, the majority took the position that the prosecution witnesses were credible, the defense witnesses were not, and the defense of alibi was weak -- the same view as Tolentino?s. The minority took the opposite view.

Here are some highlights of Dacudao?s dissent:

?The prosecution?s case is inherently weak, built as it is upon the flagrantly improbable and incredible story woven by a shifty and shuffling government star witness; and second, because the defense was able to prove convincingly that it was physically impossible for ... Hubert Webb to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.

?... I am far from being impressed with the veracity or trustworthiness of the testimony of the prosecution?s ?star witness,? Jessica Alfaro, considering her history of drug addiction, vis-à-vis the plain and palpable inconsistencies, contradictions and improbabilities in her testimonies, plus the fact that it took her four years to come forward to testify. The long delay goes against the very grain of human experience. Her drug addiction ... ought to have warned the court not to rely on her memory, which could or might have been impaired or addled by substance abuse.

?... I am thus constrained to wonder what strange casuistry or esoteric logic inspired and impelled the trial court to give its unconditional vote of confidence to Ms Alfaro (indeed to take her testimony as gospel truth).

?... It also bothers me that Ms Alfaro?s narration of the events ... was in many points uncannily similar to that set forth in the extrajudicial confessions or ?sinumpaang salaysay? [sworn statements] executed [in 1991] by certain members of the so-called ?Akyat-Bahay Gang.? (The similarities: three vehicles used; same behavior toward security guard, climbing fence and opening gate; putting out garage light; breaking the glass in the door; woman shouting ?Magnanakaw? [Thief] and killed; young girl crying and shouting and killed, etc. One of the participants surrendered and executed his affidavit because, by his account, he was bothered by his conscience. -- SCM)

?... Ms Alfaro?s testimony puts too severe a strain on the credulity of this Court. I think it takes the faith of 20 men to believe her extraordinary tale.

?... As between the incredible and implausible testimony of the government?s ?star witness? Jessica Alfaro and the public or official documents presented by ... Hubert Webb, I am more inclined to give greater weight and credence to the latter. The passport and certifications, aside from the fact that they enjoy the presumption of regularity, they being public or official documents passed through the hands of several government authorities who acted thereon in accordance with their solemn duty. In view of this, I find it hard to imagine how these could have been fabricated -- unless one has such tremendous power and influence strong enough to sway all those people in the offices concerned, including those in the United States. The point is that the prosecution in the case under review has not adduced a shred of evidence that any of these ... official documents was a fabrication. Nor yet that the Webb family -- especially former senator Freddie Webb -- has such tremendous power or influence to sway all the people in the offices concerned, including those in the US Department of State and in the US Department of Justice.

?... While the defense of alibi as a rule deserves scant consideration ... it is not always ... without merit; in fact, when it is fortified by well-nigh incontrovertible documentary evidence and juxtaposed with the vagaries, improbabilities and uncertainties of the prosecution?s evidence, as in the case under review, the defense of alibi must be accepted as meritorious, and should carry the day for (Webb).?

Hang on, Hubert. There is hope.

More Inquirer columns

Previous columns:
A new paradigm for global partnership ? 01/27/07
Irony of gov?t stance on Smith custody issue ? 01/20/07
The worst of all possible worlds ? 01/06/07
Positives and negatives ? 12/30/06
A question of innocence or guilt ? 12/23/06
See you at the prayer rally ? 12/16/06