Supreme Court acquits Webb, et al

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

---

i think its the prosecution's job to present evidence to convict webb et.al that they did the crime. if they make a mistake, like what they did with jessica alfaro, then the accused are acquitted.

yup i agree... they dont have much to build their case and point it directly to webb et al. except for pipila ka witnesses....

which are not strong enough evidence according to the SC decision...

[noel_llapa]

were Hubert and et al. able to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt.

Murag baligta na imo ah. I think the line that you're looking for is "GUILTY beyond all reasonable doubt." If the judges find bisan gamay lang na doubt in the prosecution's case, then it MUST, by law, enter a not guilty verdict. It's the weight of evidence required in a criminal trial, unlike sa civil case na pwede ra preponderance of evidence. I've read the decision, and the justices did their job pretty well.

[dbrain23]

were Hubert and et al. able to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt. di ba we put great weight to that when acquitting for alleged criminals.

have you read the transcripts? i am not convinced! what went wrong with the convictions previously decided by the two lower courts? i smell something fishy.

Burden of proof is on the prosecution.

[RMK711]

Murag baligta na imo ah. I think the line that you're looking for is "GUILTY beyond all reasonable doubt." If the judges find bisan gamay lang na doubt in the prosecution's case, then it MUST, by law, enter a not guilty verdict. It's the weight of evidence required in a criminal trial, unlike sa civil case na pwede ra preponderance of evidence. I've read the decision, and the justices did their job pretty well.

The wording is "beyond reasonable doubt" not "beyond all doubt". It's inaccurate to say that even a little doubt is enough to acquit, the doubt must also be reasonable. In any case it is mostly subjective, so I can understand why some people are confused by this. It is because of this subjective test that the discretion of justices is corruptible.

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

Murag baligta na imo ah. I think the line that you're looking for is "GUILTY beyond all reasonable doubt." If the judges find bisan gamay lang na doubt in the prosecution's case, then it MUST, by law, enter a not guilty verdict. It's the weight of evidence required in a criminal trial, unlike sa civil case na pwede ra preponderance of evidence. I've read the decision, and the justices did their job pretty well.

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision dated December 15, 2005 and Resolution dated January 26, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 00336 and ACQUITS accused-appellants Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and Gerardo Biong of the crimes of which they were charged for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless they are confined for another lawful cause.

[k.A.i]

Kinsa mga licensed lawyers jud diri na ni post? Or much better judge jd? Your opinions matter the most.

Murag problema sd ni sa Pilipinas, daghan na gani kaau licensed na lawyer, n.pun.an pa jd og pseudo-lawyers og (worse) judges kunuhay.. It would be nice to know kung kinsa jud lawyers diri.a..

If lawyer ka, pls do reply to this post. If not, there's no need.

SURE KA LAWYER JUD KA? IF DILI THEN AYAW NA REPLY ANI

toink.
nganung lawyer ra man pede moreply diri bro?.
or naa kay gipersonal diri? ayaw ana bro bad na.
storya lang ta tanan gud ayaw mo pag away.


@topic
for me, sakto man ang ruling sa mga judges about ani nga case.
and bisag unsaon ninyo ug lalis kay humana ang case, ingon sila dili na pede ablihan (double jeopardy)

[RMK711]

^ mao bitaw kutob ra ni sa lalis. Ganahan lang ko molabay og tae sa atong Korte Suprema kai basura kaayo silag dating.

[peewee_toot]

@topic
for me, sakto man ang ruling sa mga judges about ani nga case.
and bisag unsaon ninyo ug lalis kay humana ang case, ingon sila dili na pede ablihan (double jeopardy)

unsa mn d i to ang gi ingon ni de lima?

[k.A.i]

unsa mn d i to ang gi ingon ni de lima?

wa ko kabantay sir (daghan man to) asa ato?.
sorry kung sayop akong natype ( nga dili na pede ablihan ) ang akong pasabot kay
sure ko kadungog ko sa giingon sa speaker sa SC (katong laki, wa sad ko kaila hehe) nga dili na pede makasohan ug balik silang H.Webb kay (ma)double jeopardy na.

[itzurisen]

e-open daw ug balik ang investigation...U