Supreme Court acquits Webb, et al

[cobraKing]

---

^^ in short naka kuha lng ug tao or suspect kay mao ang chimis2x..heheheh..wala man jud ni claro ang SOCO or NBI or unsa pa ning mga investigation agency sa pinas..puros lng butikaw2x sa mga suspects..daghan na ug na priso sa maling akala or namatay..

[RMK711]

Wala sila tagda sa una.. tanan evidences na mag prove na innocent si Webb gi snob.

hope di ka ma confused ana!..


DNA sample.. nawala o giwala sa NBI?

Gary V.. na diyosnun mamakak?
..

pero kana tanan wala tagda sa korte... bias kaayo ang korte sa NBI sa una...

Ikaw ang sayup. Wa man gud kai kalibutan about doctrine of precedence, nga maoy kina importanteng prinsipyo sa atoang balaud.

These are the defenses of Webb and why they should be unacceptable, under law:

1. Alibi that he was in the U.S. based on entry and exit certifications from the U.S.

“would not have been impossible during the interregnum for Webb to travel back to the country and again fly to the US several times, considering that the travel time on board an airline from the Philippines to San Francisco, and from San Francisco to the Philippines takes only about twelve to fourteen hours.”

Kasabot ka ani? The certifications are only for entry on a certain date and exit also on a certain date. It does not certify that there were further entries and exits on dates in between those two dates. That's why this documentary evidence is weak.

"In resolving that the conviction of Hubert Webb and his co-respondents should have been upheld given the “weakness” of Webb’s alibi, Justice Villarama cited the High Court’s ruling in the Cebu City case of People vs. Larrañaga."

This is the case where the Supreme Court ruled correctly in accordance with established precedent that alibi is the weakest defense and can't overrule the testimony of third party, uninterested witnesses.

2. On the reliability of Alfaro

"It’s a fundamental rule, said Justice Martin Villarama, to “accord respect to the lower court” when “no glaring errors, gross misapprehensions of fact and arbitrary and unsupported conclusions are gathered by its findings.”

This is a basic principle used worldwide that limits the power of the Supreme Court's review of lower court rulings to matters of LAW, not FACT. The Supreme Court not only broke their own rules, but broke a rule that is respected by courts around the world and is based on age-old principles that exist because it is believed only the court that directly observes witness testimony is in the best position to judge the reliability of witness testimonies.

So I hope those people who still think the Supreme Court did the right thing at least understand that they ignored their own doctrines in order to come up with a cooked-up decision to please their paymasters.

[Gac]

kung ingon ana ka powerful sir ngano na priso man ug almost 2 decades?
atleast ang supreme court ila gi basehan ang facts nga gi pang present sa both sides
ang decision kai based on facts dili personal feelings

ang pabor ako pasabot dako kayo katabang sa mga webb ang influencia kontra sa pikas..

abi nimo ang mga ebedenysa inside sa 20years ma deteriorated na ang preservation ani
halos na man gani ni ma disregard tungod sa kadugay and i suspect lang ha nga murag
tactics sad ni sa pikas para inieg present sa evidence in due time magkalisod2x ang
ang mga vesconde..

[masakiton]

Allegation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An allegation (also called adduction) is a claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims to be able to prove. Allegations remain assertions without proof, until they can be proved.[1]

[r3roble]

So I hope those people who still think the Supreme Court did the right thing at least understand that they ignored their own doctrines in order to come up with a cooked-up decision to please their paymasters.

kinsa diay ila paymasters?

[masakiton]

ang pabor ako pasabot dako kayo katabang sa mga webb ang influencia kontra sa pikas..

abi nimo ang mga ebedenysa inside sa 20years ma deteriorated na ang preservation ani
halos na man gani ni ma disregard tungod sa kadugay and i suspect lang ha nga murag
tactics sad ni sa pikas para inieg present sa evidence in due time magkalisod2x ang
ang mga vesconde..

ang proscution ra diay ang mo present ug facts/evidence.. ang defence naa pud baya i present
atleast ang decision sa SC kai based on facts dili lang presonal feelings

[Scott Bernard]

Kayama ani mga tawhana noh.. tsk! tsk! ang mga tao magduha2x na jud ug salig sa atong Justice System kay unfair.. then ma bayaran ra. Pabor sa mga naay sapi^ ug influence...

[masakiton]

Kayama ani mga tawhana noh.. tsk! tsk! ang mga tao magduha2x na jud ug salig sa atong Justice System kay unfair.. then ma bayaran ra. Pabor sa mga naay sapi^ ug influence...

An allegation (also called adduction) is a claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims to be able to prove. Allegations remain assertions without proof, until they can be proved.[1]

[Scott Bernard]

Mas maayo pa naay new department sa Office of the President... Vigilantes!

[RMK711]

@ masakiton^ Wa ka mubasa sa kaso no? Kai balik balik man nang imong binuang.

"based sa facts dili lang personal feelings"

Muhahaha basaha ang decision, kung kasabot ka. It's based on feelings and opinions. For example, they felt that Alfaro's testimony is incredible. Or for example, their opinion that certain circumstances were unlikely. All of these are findings based on the feeling of the court regarding various matters.

The only finding of fact pertains to the judgment of the lower court which they are in any case forbidden from doing. Kasabot ka sa principle "Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, but of law."

So how can you be proud of your broken record, uneducated statement "atleast ang decision sa SC kai based on facts dili lang presonal feelings"? They aren't even supposed to be a trier of facts, only of law.

Repeat to yourself 100x arun ma memorize nimo. "Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, only law."

"Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, only law."
"Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, only law."
"Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, only law."
"Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, only law."
"Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, only law."
x100