all I can say is DURA LEX SED LEX - The Law is Hard, But It Is The Law.
Q: Why were they acquitted?
A: Prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. THey can be guilty, but the prosecution did not do its homework..they failed to rebut some of the evidences of Webb.. which left a lingering doubt in the mind of the court if they are really guilty.
Q: Why it took 15 years to acquit Webb, et.al.?
A: In 1997, Judge Tolentino (now CA Justice na) CONVICTED them (1995 na file ang case kay mao pa paglutaw ni alfaro, not amparo, as someone here mentioned! LOL). But since we have an animal called APPEAL, the case was appealed before the CA, where the CA AFFIRMED (niuyon) the decision of the RTC (2006). The case was then raised before the SC. If you'll complain na it took 15 years to finally close the case, it is because, our courts have a lot of cases pending before it. wala intawn na nag langay2x ang mga judge.. daghan lang jud. Also, if you must know, Webb presented 95 witnesses! so think of all the direct and cross examinations, redirect and recross na nahitabo. Also, Alfaro was crossexamined 8 times by 8 lawyers! isa ra na ka witness ha! you do the math!
Q: Why Webb, et.al. were not released on bail so that they could have atleast enjoyed their youth?
A: Upon conviction before the RTC, bail is not longer a matter of right. It is subject to the discretion of the court. THink about it daw.. if ang serial killer, na convict sa RTC, but bail was allowed, then he roams around your neighborhood, ganahan mo ana? would you have peace of mind? What if Webb, et.al. were released on bail, kamo ra nag ingon na daghan sila kwarta, pwede ra to sila ka sibat. Besides, when you are convicted in the lower court, guilty ka.. so you stay in jail.
Q: What is this thing called "Reasonable Doubt"?
A: It is that lingering doubt that remains in the mind of a person if the accused indeed committed the crime. In criminal law, if you are guilty, you can play with reasonable doubt. All you need to establish is reasonable doubt. In this case, it's one of two things, either they are really innocent, or bright lang jud kaayo ila lawyers na they played the reasonable doubt card. Webb's lawyers presented voluminous evidences to the point na triple letters na ang exhibits nila.
Q: Where did the State go wrong?
A: This is a personal opinion, I think the prosecutors believed in Alfaro hook, line and sinker na they did not look for any other evidence anymore. They were too complacent that Alibi is a weak defense against a positive identification of a witness.
Q: Why didn't the RTC allowed the DNA testing of the semen swab in 1997 when it was first prayed for by Webb?
A: Back then, we didn't have rules on DNA evidence. Number 1, because walay kamao sa ato nasod na mag conduct ug DNA testing. So the court cannot give probative value on such evidence. for short, even if fan kaayo ang judge nila mac taylor, grissom and horacio cane, he cannot use those information he learned from CSI to apply it in a real case because BACK THEN, we don't have rules unsaon ug appreciate ang DNA Evidence. It was only passed in 2004 ata, if im not mistaken. Mao this year lang na approve ila motion kay karon naman pod sila nangayo usab. (I think they did move for it in the CA, but bag-o pa to ang DNA rules so wala ni gamble ang CA).
Q: Why man dili pwede mag move for Reconsideration ang camp ni Lauro?
A: Double Jeopardy sets in. (watch the movie of the same title ni ashley judd, lingaw to.. hehehe)
Q: What if they will do a Reinvestigation?
A: Goodluck! As what was mentioned by another istoryan, All evidences were washed away! Also, for a crime with an imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua or higher, the prescriptive period to prosecute is only 20 years. So, the State has until next year to find the real perpetrators.
I know all these sucks! I can't imagine what Lauro is going through right now. I feel sorry for the old man. Let's just pray for him nalang coz wala na jud ta mahimo.
to all haters of the Judicial System: I know all these don't make sense, but we have Procedures in prosecuting criminal cases. Personally, i think it's the fault of the investigators kay they mishandled the evidence. I think pod the prosecutors/lawyers of lauro had a hand in it pod kay salig kaayo sila ni Alfaro. It's not the system, but the people running it. The judges and justices are there to interpret the evidences and pass judgment according to the Rules.
to all haters of the president: Don't blame him tawn oi.. maayong siya ang ni decide ana. Who appointed those justices in the SC? C GMA oi! Also, even if c Pnoy pa nag appoint ana nila, there is what we call SEPARATION OF POWERS of the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. Walay hilabtanay! Panahon guro ni GMA pwede pa niya ma influence ang SC, but Pnoy, unsaon kaya na dili man niya allies ang mga naa dha.. ge junk gani iya Truth Commission.
Im sorry if taas kaayo ha.
BTW, if you haven't read the full decision of the SC, click here:
G.R. No. 176389
so that you can understand why they decided for the acquittal. para dili mo magpataka ug put ug blame on persons na walay labot.
Originally Posted by icysunitz
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
