SC denies Vizconde's appeal vs acquittal of Webb, 6 others

(Updated 5:34 p.m.) The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Lauro Vizconde seeking the reversal of the high tribunal's recent acquittal of the seven men previously convicted for the killing of three members of his family in 1991. "In a vote of 7-4-4, the court denied the motion for reconsideration of Mr. Vizconde for lack of merit," said Supreme Court spokesman and administrator Jose Midas Marquez at a news conference. Last Dec. 14, the SC acquitted Hubert Webb, son of former Sen. Freddie Webb, and Antonio Lejano, Michael Gatchalian, Miguel Rodriguez, Hospicio Fernandez, Peter Estrada, and former policeman Gerardo Biong for the killing of Vizconde's wife Estrellita, and daughters Carmela and Jennifer. Vizconde later appealed the ruling, saying the court committed a "grave error" in handing down the acquittal. Same voting pattern The voting pattern on Tuesday is the same as that of Dec. 14, when the SC acquitted Webb and the six others. The seven justices who ruled against Vizconde were: Associate Justices Roberto Abad, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Jose Mendoza, Jose Perez, and Ma. Lourdes Sereno. Those who dissented were: Chief Justice Renato Corona, Associate Justices Martin Villarama, Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, and Arturo Brion. Those who took no part in the deliberations were: Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Mariano del Castillo, Eduardo Nachura, and Presbitero Velasco. Contempt threat In its voting on Tuesday, the SC also junked the separate motions for intervention filed by Vizconde's supporters, namely former Vice President Teofisto Guingona Jr., activist priest Fr. Robert Reyes, Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption's Dante Jimenez, and Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines head Sister Mary John Mananzan. The high court likewise gave Vizconde and lawyer Ferdinand Topacio 10 days to substantiate their claims that SC justices received bribes in exchange for ruling in favor of Webb and the six formerly accused. They were likewise ordered to explain their allegations that Associate Justice Antonio Carpio lobbied for Webb's acquittal. "Mr. Vizconde and Attorney Topacio are directed to submit proof of truth of the statements they uttered," said Marquez. Carpio, who was among the four justices who inhibited from the case, once testified during the Vizconde massacre trial handled by the Paranaque City Regional Trial Court Branch 274. Back then, Carpio was still a private lawyer and testified that Webb was in the United States when the Vizconde murders occured on June 30, 1991. Also on Tuesday, the SC ordered Jimenez to "show cause" why he should not be cited in contempt for hurling invectives against the Supreme Court last December 14, immediately after the acquittal was voted upon. "Mr. Jimenez is directed to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for the statements he uttered after the case was decided," said Marquez. Last Dec. 14, Jimenez, who is not party to the Vizconde massacre case, held a press conference and hurled tirades against SC justices using thinly-veiled obscene language. "Kayo mga justices, mga PI kayo! Pinatay ninyo ang criminal justice system," Jimenez had shouted angrily in front of media. (You justices, you SOBs! You killed the criminal justice system.) Rule 71 of the Rules of Civil Procedure gives courts the power to cite in direct or indirect contempt people or parties to a case. Section 3 (d) of the rule states that "any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice" constitutes indirect contempt. A person found guilty of indirect contempt against a Regional Trial Court or a similarly-ranked court "may be punished by a fine not exceeding P30,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both." Double jeopardy Last Dec. 29, 2010, Vizconde filed his motion for reconsideration and said that appealing the SC's ruling is exempt from the double jeopardy prohibition. The Philippine Constitution prohibits double jeopardy or trying the accused twice for the same offense. The Charter and the Rule 117, Section 7 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure also say that an acquittal can no longer be appealed because the acquittal "shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged...." Vizconde then cited the Aquino-Galman case, where the SC allowed the appeal of the acquittal of those involved in the 1983 killings of former Sen. Benigno Aquino Jr. and Rolando Galman. But according to Marquez on Tuesday, the Supreme Court did not agree with Vizconde because the Sandiganbayan's first trial for the Aquino-Galman case was a mistrial. "The [Aquino-Galman] case is different because it was held as a sham trial. In this [Vizconde] case, there is no allegation to that effect," said Marquez. He further said: "Jurisprudence tells us that acquittals are final except in that particular case concerning Aquino-Galman. It's very clear here that while they [Vizconde camp] tried to invoke that particular [Aquino-Galman] case, the court did not agree." — RSJ/KBK, GMANews.TV