Webb lawyer to discredit Vizconde star witness

The Supreme Court should not admit the allegedly tainted testimonies of Jessica Alfaro, the star witness in the Vizconde massacre case where six people, including the son of a former senator, were convicted. Demetrio Custodio, lawyer for convict Hubert Webb, on Monday said he would file a motion with the high court this week highlighting the supposed inconsistencies in Alfaro's testimonies. "We're trying to establish that the supposed eyewitness account of Jessica Alfaro is not a credible testimony. We're filing it because we understand the Supreme Court is nearing resolution and we want to make sure that all the pieces of evidence are correctly appreciated," said Custodio in an exclusive interview with GMA News and GMANews.TV. He declined to enumerate the supposed inconsistencies, only saying that such "incredible statements" are found in Alfaro's two affidavits and testimonies before the Parañaque Regional Trial Court Branch 274. The local court sentenced Webb, son of former Senator Freddie Webb, and five others to life imprisonment in January 2000, a ruling that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in December 2005. In 2007, Webb appealed the two rulings before the the Supreme Court. In June 30, 1991, Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela and Jennifer were brutally killed inside their house in Parañaque City. Four years later, Alfaro surfaced and claimed Webb raped Carmela before murdering her. On Monday, Custodio said a certain Artemio Sacaguing from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) had testified that Alfaro did not have direct knowledge of the crime. "Sacaguing testified that Alfaro said 'Papapelan ko na lang ito (I will just play the role)' despite her lack of eyewitness account of what happened. She volunteered to take the witness stand," said Custodio.

Action vs NBI Custodio also said he would file another motion to cite the NBI in contempt for its actions allegedly prejudicial to Webb. These include presenting Alfaro as a witness and losing the DNA evidence that could be instrumental in proving Webb's innocence. "We're talking about the acts that preceded the loss of the DNA sample. It goes all the way back to the time when, despite knowing that Jessica Alfaro was a perjured witness, the NBI went ahead and presented her. These are series of acts that we consider as being prejudicial to Hubert Webb," said Custodio. In April this year, the court granted Webb's request for a DNA analysis and directed the NBI to produce the samples. But the NBI said the specimen was no longer with it because it was submitted to the Parañaque RTC when the case was still on trial. However, records of the trial court showed that what the NBI submitted were only photos of the DNA samples. Last Oct. 19, 2010, the Supreme Court said it would no longer require the conduct of a DNA analysis because the NBI could no longer produce the specimen. It also said the case is already ready for resolution. Weeks later, Webb's lawyers submitted an urgent motion for acquittal, saying his constitutional right was violated when the government -- through the NBI -- lost the DNA samples. Webb's camp then criticized the NBI for its alleged negligence or willful suppression. "The State’s failure to produce the semen sample for DNA analysis — whether it be through negligence or willful suppression — denied appellant Webb his constitutional right to due process of law," said the motion. Action vs Lauro Vizconde Also on Monday, Custodio said the Webb family is also mulling legal action against Lauro Vizconde, husband and father of the victims, for claiming that a Supreme Court justice is lobbying for Webb's acquittal. Lauro said another Supreme Court justice gave him the information that a magistrate is lobbying in favor of Webb. Custodio turned the tables on Vizconde and said it is unethical for a litigant or a party to the case to discuss the case with the judge or justice handling the case. "We're thinking of filing that motion to compel [Vizconde] to disclose who is his informant. That he has information is highly irregular," said Custodio. "In a litigation, a party and his lawyer are not supposed to be dealing directly or have any interaction with the Supreme Court justices or even a trial court judge. That is unethical and unprofessional," he added. - KBK/HS, GMANews.TV