Supreme Court acquits Webb, et al

[RMK711]

---

Wait, wait, wait. I looked up to you from your posts last night, you do have a point last night. But now that you are demeaning (tnx for the word) other forumers here, you are already being unfair. Just because we don't affirm to your ideas and hate, just because we contradict your idealogy, you are already demeaning us? Saying we are gullible? Or are you indirectly saying we are idiots? You're hitting us below the belt there.

Close this thread, this is going nowhere.

I demean the courts not forumers. However, I pity the people who believe their lies. If that offends you, too bad.

[slipstik]

I really despised the decision when it came out, and was really disappointed..but then i tried to read, not yet the decision, but the raw data in the news and interviews..and what I came up, as a lawyer, is that the justices were acting as a real magistrate.. the witness' testimonies are not credible to sum it up..better to let a criminal free than an innocent man imprisoned. anwyay, i respect your opinion, since like when it came out i really wanted to kill the justices and hubert webb.. here are points for your consideration.

Hubert said said that if claims that his father, former Sen. Freddie Webb, wielded his influence “why would I allow myself to be jailed for 15 years.

one convincing opinion is from this ex-nbi director
DZIQ: Ex-NBI director Velasco believes Hubert Webb is innocent - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

and finally, my opinion, If i was the criminal, why would i bring blood stained clothes in my house? as also observed by the SC, i could have been burned it immediately..but then again hubert was a self confessed drug addict.

[RMK711]

The more important question would be why would the maid lie about it, what does she get out of it? Why would the guard lie about seeing Hubert that night, what would he get out of it?

I already asked these questions before, but it bears repeating. To impeach Alfaro, they had to diminish the value of the other witnesses too. Because impeaching her testimony made it important for them to solidify Webb's alibi. If they didn't call the maid and the guards liars, then they couldn't accept the evidence that Webb was in the states, because their testimony directly contradicted that assertion. The fact of the matter is, the court attached greater weight to a piece of paper than to the testimony of three independent, uninterested third parties who had nothing to gain for lying.

It's useless to speculate what you would have done if you're the criminal, because different criminals commit different mistakes. That is why criminals got caught. It's not too hard to imagine that Hubert Webb, in a drugged up state, would have been reckless enough to bring bloodied clothes at home to hand to his maid. That is not beyond the realm of possibility. If they want to call the maid a liar, it is not enough to say they couldn't believe it because nobody is that stupid.. because the reality is there are people that dumb and Hubert Webb is no genius. That's the shallowness of the court's reasoning in dismissing the testimony of the maid something akin to "She is lying because we can't believe a criminal could be that dumb" I hope you can see what a weak argument that is. Instead of showing why she is lying, they are concluding that she is lying just because they can't believe Webb is that dumb. That to my is flimsy reasoning.

[I-lab-Iero]

What now,
do they have to issue counter charges.

[PaYaSo]

ang supreme court naa sila facts/documents nga gi basehan sa ila decission dili ang personal feelings
sa mga wala ma uyon sa decission.. please present facts/evidence dili lang ang personal feelings

again youre setting an example of "if you cant amaze them with your brilliance confuse them with your stupidity"

stop exposing yourself please

[masakiton]

again youre setting an example of "if you cant amaze them with your brilliance confuse them with your stupidity"
stop exposing yourself please

STUPID = Smart Talented Unique Person In Demand
ok ra .. mas dali man gud mag copy - paste
atleast ang supreme court naa sila facts/documents nga gi basehan sa ila decission dili ang personal feelings

[estuans]

evidence lagi brad...

well dili man ta expert ani pero kung buot huna-hunaon nimo ang kado jug sala katong police nga na preso pud kay nang hilabot sa evidence iya gipang sunog ang uban mao to naka lisod sa kaso nga ma solve. And to think vizconde lost everything that katong semila nga gikan ni heubert nga gi turn over sa nbi pero wala na daw sa NBI asa naman pud to?

[RMK711]

By the way witness testimony is considered evidence. To those people who keep barking up about evidence this or that. Physical evidence on the other hand, though desired, is not absolutely required. In this particular case there was physical evidence but it was conveniently destroyed by the police officer who was hired by some mystery person (take a guess who has the resources and interest in cleaning up the scene of the crime).

Also of great interest to people who like to analyze the strange pro-Webb witnesses.. the statement of ex-NBI director Velasco. He said they interviewed 100's of residents in BF homes, including security guards etc and couldn't find one who saw Hubert. That's false, because 2 security guards testified that they saw him that night. Next, when asked if not Hubert then who committed the crime? To this, he said, there were various construction projects at that time - implying and suggesting that the real killers were conveniently, those low-skilled construction workers. What a convenient target. So I guess the construction workers are rich enough to hire a police officer to clean up their physical evidence at the scene of the crime. No wonder our NBI can't solve cases with any measure of reliability, they are full of retarded idiots...

[Wham!]

Alfaro’s detailed testimony ‘clear, convincing, sincere’
source: inquirer.net

MANILA, Philippines—Star witness Jessica Alfaro’s positive identification of Hubert Webb outweighed his alibi that he was not in the country when the Vizconde massacre occurred, a Supreme Court justice said, dissenting from the majority ruling acquitting Webb and six others of murder.

In voting against the acquittal of Webb and the others, Associate Justice Martin Villarama Jr. argued that the tribunal’s previous decisions clearly held that “alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of a credible witness.”

“Against positive evidence, alibi becomes most unsatisfactory,” Villarama said in his dissenting opinion.

Villarama disagreed with his colleagues’ opinion that Alfaro’s testimony was “inherently incredible” and that she was not a credible prosecution witness.

“Contrary to appellants’ contention, Alfaro’s detailed testimony appears clear and convincing, thus giving the court the impression that she was sincere and credible,” Villarama said.

“Indeed, Alfaro could not have divulged the ... details of the crime if she did not really join the group of Webb in going to the Vizconde residence, and witness what happened during the time.”

Inconsistencies
Villarama’s 88-page opinion was far more detailed than the 38-page majority ruling penned by Associate Justice Roberto Abad.

Villarama’s decision contained the vital details of the case, including the findings of the Parañaque Regional Trial Court, which handed down the original guilty verdict. It also included the basis of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in upholding the conviction of Webb and the others.

Villarama was joined in his opposition by Chief Justice Renato Corona and Associate Justices Arturo Brion and Teresita Leonardo-de Castro.

While Villarama took note of inconsistencies in Alfaro’s affidavit, he said these were offset by her court testimony.

The high court, he said, had maintained that “whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight.”
“Reexamining the testimony of Alfaro, who underwent exhaustive and intense cross-examination by eight defense lawyers, it is to be noted that she revealed such details and observations which only a person who was actually with the perpetrators could have known,” Villarama said.

In best position
Villarama reiterated that trial courts, which have the “unique position of observing the witness’ deportment on the stand,” were in the best position to determine the competence and credibility of witnesses.

“It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts, which are factual in nature and which involve credibility, are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehensions of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings,” he said.

According to Villarama, the rulings of the trial courts are “generally conclusive and binding” on the high court once these are upheld by the appeals court.

“After a thorough and conscientious review of the records, I firmly believe that the CA correctly upheld the conviction of appellants,” he said.

Numbers not enough
Contrary to the defense assertion that Alfaro’s testimony was not corroborated, Villarama said her statements were in fact backed by the testimony of five other prosecution witnesses.

Villarama assailed the defense contention that the 95 defense witnesses and voluminous documentary evidence proved his innocence.

“The rule is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that in determining the value and credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered,” he said.

Passport, airline tickets
As to the certifications issued by the US government tending to show that Webb was abroad at the time of the killings, Villarama pointed out that the defense argument of presumption of regularity on the part of the US state agencies was “misplaced.”

He stressed that Webb did not use his original passport as a defense evidence and that the airline tickets to the United States bearing his name was not proof that he actually left the country.
Villarama noted that at the time, tampering of passports and other travel documents was rampant.
“It is worthy (to note) that the original (copy) of Webb’s passport was not offered (as) evidence ... which only gives credence to the prosecution’s allegation that it bore signs of tampering and irregularities,” he said.

Villarama also noted that not one of the US state agencies which issued certifications of Webb’s stay in the United States was able to appear in court to testify on their veracity.

Not impossible
Villarama then pointed out that the US Immigration and Naturalization Service in San Francisco issued a certification that its records did not contain Webb’s stay in the United States.

Noting that the flight from San Francisco to the Philippines was only 14 hours, he said it was not impossible for Webb to be in the country at the time of the crime and then leave after it was committed.

He also dismissed the alibis of co-accused Antonio Lejano, Michael Gatchalian, Pyke Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez and Peter Estrada, who said they were not in the Vizconde house when the murders occurred.

source: inquirer.net

[RMK711]

^ that summarized everything I already mentioned before. The most damning statements relate to the principle that holds the Supreme Court as a trier of law, not facts to wit:

"It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts, which are factual in nature and which involve credibility, are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehensions of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings"

This is true not only in the Philippines, but in all other jurisdictions. With the latest decision, the Supreme Court has made itself the only High Court in the world that can be a trier of facts at will. This will open the floodgates to litigation based on facts, rather than on law as should be the proper case.

He also mentions the blatant disregard for doctrine of precedence which I also mentioned before:

"tribunal’s previous decisions clearly held that “alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of a credible witness.”

That has been established doctrine at the Supreme Court for decades. It has become practically the law of the land. Established doctrines of precedent can be changed, but only with the best of reasons. What the court did here was overturn its own established doctrines, creating a new one that will apply to all future cases.

On the testimony of Alfaro, it was also as I mentioned before, her testimony is not false per se because there were a few inconsistencies in her statement to the police. And even these inconsistencies were covered during her testimony at trial, which is what really should have mattered.

As I mentioned the decision smells bad, it looks like they tried to paint a picture to meet a desired outcome (acquittal).