G.R. No. 194469, September 18, 2019
HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB, PETITIONER, VS. NBI DIRECTOR MAGTANGGOL B. GATDULA, FORMER NBI DIRECTOR CARLOS S. CAABAY, FORMER NBI DIRECTOR NESTOR M. MANTARING, DR. RENATO C. BAUTISTA, DR. PROSPERO CABANAYAN, ATTY. FLORESTO P. ARIZALA, JR., ATTY. REYNALDO O. ESMERALDA, ATTY. ARTURO FIGUERAS, ATTY. PEDRO RIVERA AND JOHN HERRA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This Petition for Indirect Contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court was filed by Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb against officers of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The petition is an offshoot of the rape-homicide case in Lejano v. People (the Vizconde Massacre case). While the criminal case was pending, Webb filed a Motion to Direct the NBI to Submit Semen Specimen to DNA Analysis, which was initially denied. On April 20, 2010, the Supreme Court granted Webb’s request and ordered the NBI to assist in submitting the semen specimen found in Carmela Vizconde’s cadaver to the UP-NSRI for DNA testing and to report compliance within 15 days.
In its Compliance and Manifestation dated April 27, 2010, the NBI claimed the semen specimen was no longer in its custody, alleging it had been submitted as evidence to the trial court during the testimony of its Medico-Legal Chief, Dr. Prospero Cabanayan, in 1996. The trial court denied this claim, with the Branch Clerk of Court clarifying that only photographs of the slides containing the vaginal smear were marked in evidence, not the slides themselves. However, a Certification dated April 23, 1997, from Dr. Renato C. Bautista of the NBI Medico-Legal Division confirmed the slides containing the specimen were still in the Bureau’s custody. When required to explain the discrepancies, the NBI, in its Compliance dated July 16, 2010, had Dr. Cabanayan explain he submitted the specimen to the trial court, and Dr. Bautista clarified he issued the certification based on information from a medical technologist.
Due to the missing semen specimen, Webb filed this Petition for Indirect Contempt, praying that the impleaded NBI officers be cited for contempt for impeding, degrading, and obstructing the administration of justice and for disobeying the Supreme Court’s April 20, 2010 Resolution. Webb argued the NBI’s claims were belied by records, including the prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence showing only photographs were submitted, and testimony transcripts indicating Dr. Cabanayan failed to produce the actual slides when requested. He further alleged the NBI was negligent in preserving the evidence and devised a deliberate scheme to falsely inculpate him, citing issues with their star witness Jessica Alfaro, coaching by NBI agents, suppression of exculpatory evidence (including immigration records placing Webb in the U.S. during the crime), and disregard of fingerprint evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents, officers of the National Bureau of Investigation, should be cited for indirect contempt for their alleged disobedience of the Supreme Court’s April 20, 2010 Resolution and for conduct impeding, obstructing, or degrading the administration of justice.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Indirect Contempt. The Court emphasized that its power to cite persons in contempt should be used sparingly and only when defiance or disobedience is patent and contumacious, showing an evident refusal to obey. In criminal contempt proceedings, the presumption of innocence exists, and proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; absent such proof, the accused cannot be cited in contempt.
The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents willfully disobeyed the Court’s Resolution or committed acts constituting indirect contempt. The discrepancies in the NBI’s reports regarding the custody of the semen specimen were attributed to negligence or oversight, not a willful intent to defy the Court’s order. The Court noted that the NBI officers provided explanations for the conflicting statements, and the petitioner’s allegations of a deliberate scheme to inculpate him, while serious, pertained to the conduct of the criminal investigation and trial, not directly to the disobedience of the specific Court order for DNA testing. The Court held that for indirect contempt to lie, the act must clearly constitute contumacious conduct as defined under Rule 71, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, and the evidence must establish such conduct beyond reasonable doubt, which was not met in this case.