Supreme Court acquits Webb, et al

[r3roble]

---

basa ko sa decision ba (wla pa nuon ko mahuman), FACTS man jud ang gireview sa SC dili man LAW...

1. Quality of the Witness... (fact ni or law?)
2. The suspicious details... (fact ni or law?)
3. The quality of the testimony... (fact ni or law?)

and so on and so forth..
wla pako kaagi nga naay gibungat nga balaod ang decision...

padayon pako basa ha?

[wewie_12]

for sure mag artista na c Hubert Webb...daghan man gud cya fans.....hehehehehe

[RMK711]

basa ko sa decision ba (wla pa nuon ko mahuman), FACTS man jud ang gireview sa SC dili man LAW...

1. Quality of the Witness... (fact ni or law?)
2. The suspicious details... (fact ni or law?)
3. The quality of the testimony... (fact ni or law?)

and so on and so forth..
wla pako kaagi nga naay gibungat nga balaod ang decision...

padayon pako basa ha?

Which is why the way the Supreme Court handled this case is strange. However I would argue that #1 and #3 are the same, and the court did indeed make a finding of fact in that one instance. However #2 and nearly all other details are not factual findings. When you call something suspicious you are making a subjective call because whether it really is suspicious or not can be the subject of an argument.

The Supreme Court itself admits it is taking liberties for itself in making an exception. It's in the decision itself. But they frequently make exceptions for themselves in breaking their own rules anyway, so this will not come as a surprise for those who are familiar with our court's antics...

[peewee_toot]

^^hahaha. hasta pd ang uban nga na acquit. for sure naa na to silay upcoming nga miovie.

[masakiton]

basa ko sa decision ba (wla pa nuon ko mahuman), FACTS man jud ang gireview sa SC dili man LAW...

1. Quality of the Witness... (fact ni or law?)
2. The suspicious details... (fact ni or law?)
3. The quality of the testimony... (fact ni or law?)

and so on and so forth..
wla pako kaagi nga naay gibungat nga balaod ang decision...

padayon pako basa ha?

sakto
naa jud mga basehan facts sir ... lisod man pud kung tag tag anon nalang supreme court

[k.A.i]

sakto
naa jud mga basehan facts sir ... lisod man pud kung tag tag anon nalang supreme court

sir. mao siguro ni rason maong galalis mo ni RMK,
kay as far as i know, ang rason maong na acquit sila hubert web kay inconsistent ang pahayag ni alfaro, mao ng naa pay doubt sa kaso, dili about sa katong evidence/documents/facts nga naa si hubert web sa US.

sa akong nahibaw-an/sabot lang ha.

@rmk
sakto ba ko sa reason sir nganung na acquit? wla nako ni basa sa link about sa desisyon kay kapoy na hehehe. kung sayop ko, mo ahat jud kog basa ani.

[r3roble]

Which is why the way the Supreme Court handled this case is strange. However I would argue that #1 and #3 are the same, and the court did indeed make a finding of fact in that one instance. However #2 and nearly all other details are not factual findings. When you call something suspicious you are making a subjective call because whether it really is suspicious or not can be the subject of an argument.

The Supreme Court itself admits it is taking liberties for itself in making an exception. It's in the decision itself. But they frequently make exceptions for themselves in breaking their own rules anyway, so this will not come as a surprise for those who are familiar with our court's antics...

so they made an exception for this case.. so SC as not being a tier of FACTS is not absolute...
haaayyyy, SC... ambot lang ninyo...

thanks RMK711

[sizzlingROBOT]

basa ko sa decision ba (wla pa nuon ko mahuman), FACTS man jud ang gireview sa SC dili man LAW...

1. Quality of the Witness... (fact ni or law?)
2. The suspicious details... (fact ni or law?)
3. The quality of the testimony... (fact ni or law?)

and so on and so forth..
wla pako kaagi nga naay gibungat nga balaod ang decision...

padayon pako basa ha?

Mas maau if you focus on Jessica Alfaro's testimonies dira gweight ang decision sa SC. I hate to admit it but she is quite inconsistent sa iya mga testimonies, given na she is an NBI asset by default, and came out four years after the incident took place.

[masakiton]

sir. mao siguro ni rason maong galalis mo ni RMK,
kay as far as i know, ang rason maong na acquit sila hubert web kay inconsistent ang pahayag ni alfaro, mao ng naa pay doubt sa kaso, dili about sa katong evidence/documents/facts nga naa si hubert web sa US.

sa akong nahibaw-an/sabot lang ha.

@rmk
sakto ba ko sa reason sir nganung na acquit? wla nako ni basa sa link about sa desisyon kay kapoy na hehehe. kung sayop ko, mo ahat jud kog basa ani.

ang iya gusto kai dili daw dapat mo base sa fact ang SC sa pag himo ug decission .. dili daw sila allowed

[r3roble]

ang iya gusto kai dili daw dapat mo base sa fact ang SC sa pag himo ug decission .. dili daw sila allowed

generally man gud, ang SC dili na unta mo review sa FACTS (kutob rana sa CA) only LAW.
pero kini nga case ila gi break ila own rules... ug mireview sila base sa FACTS...