ShareThisMANILA – Voting 7-4-4, the Supreme Court (SC) dismissed on Tuesday the petition filed by Lauro Vizconde seeking a reconsideration of its ruling acquitting Hubert Jeffrey Webb and six other accused in the Vizconde massacre case.
In the same decision, the High Court also junked the motion for intervention filed by former Vice President Teofisto Guingona Jr. last Friday.
Both petitions were dismissed for lack of merit.
The massacre claimed the lives of Vizconde’s wife Estrelita and their children, Carmela and Jennifer, in their residence in BF Homes Subdivision, Paranaque City on June 29, 1991.
The SC said the trial of the Vizconde massacre case cannot be compared with that of the Aquino-Galman double- murder case since the latter was a “sham trial” from the very beginning.
In an 84-page motion for reconsideration (MR), Vizconde, through his legal counsel, Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) Chief Persida Rueda-Acosta, asked the SC to recall and resubmit for redeliberation the case and reverse its Dec. 14, 2010 ruling acquitting Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and former Paranaque City policeman PO2 Gerardo Biong.
The SC said the acquittal of Webb and the six other accused was due to the failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
It ruled that the testimony of star witness Jessica Alfaro was full of inherent inconsistencies.
SC Spokesman and Court Administrator Atty. Jose Midas Marquez said that an MR is prohibited if the ruling of the Court is for the acquittal of the accused.
Otherwise, Marquez said, if the MR is granted, it would violate the principle of “double jeopardy.”
Double jeopardy means that no person shall be charged with the same offense twice.
Marquez added that the SC en banc has the same voting of 7-4-4 in dismissing both the MR and the motion for intervention in the Vizconde massacre case.
The SC also ordered Dante Jimenez of the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) to explain why he should not be cited in contempt of court for uttering unprintable words against the highest court of the land.
Jimenez was given a “non-extendible” period of 10 days from notice within which to file his comment.