Supreme Court acquits Webb, et al

[masterjm1201]

---

looya sad sa victim family oi,.. hope ma-ilhan na unta ang tinood nga suspek,.

[AmorsoloX]

sah man gud nis media.... magsamok2x poisoning the minds of the public aka trial by publicity

mao jud.. highly sensationalized ra kaau. just because rich and powerful ang tao, himuon daun daotan sa media..

im not surprised why some media people deserved to be killed.. ila ra man ghapon na diay hinimuan..

[azinec]

why dont we ask lawyers here, what is the probability of criminal case being overturn by the SC to favor the accused...


im curious...

im not a lawyer, still in my law studies pa. in order to convict someone of a criminal act, the prosecution must be able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. this i believe is where the prosecution failed... that is why the SC acquitted Webb et al.. the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, if the evidence is wanting, then the prosecution must fail...

excerpt from the SC decision below:

In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court entertains doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all possibilities, but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it would be a serious mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs on to one’s inner being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth.

Will the Court send the accused to spend the rest of their lives in prison on the testimony of an NBI asset who proposed to her handlers that she take the role of the witness to the Vizconde massacre that she could not produce?

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.

[punisher23]

wala jud tay mahimo gihapon kay ang mga DOJ dili mag istorya.net dili sila kabasa ani..pero if masaag sila og basa, aw ginoo ra pud mo judge nila...

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

im not a lawyer, still in my law studies pa. in order to convict someone of a criminal act, the prosecution must be able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. this i believe is where the prosecution failed... that is why the SC acquitted Webb et al.. the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, if the evidence is wanting, then the prosecution must fail...

excerpt from the SC decision below:

In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court entertains doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all possibilities, but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it would be a serious mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs on to one’s inner being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth.

Will the Court send the accused to spend the rest of their lives in prison on the testimony of an NBI asset who proposed to her handlers that she take the role of the witness to the Vizconde massacre that she could not produce?

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.

yeah i agree with you... but there are many cases also that the SC always point that its not a trial court, therefore "facts" are no longer the issue but only questions of law... so im wondering why point every loophole in every testimonies presented by the prosecution.... but knowing the philosophy of our justice system maybe justified the ruling of the SC...

[jiro]

read the ruling...
G.R. No. 176389

Best explanation - bravo
e. Alibi versus positive identification
...

But not all denials and alibis should be regarded as fabricated. Indeed, if the accused is truly innocent, he can have no other defense but denial and alibi. So how can such accused penetrate a mind that has been made cynical by the rule drilled into his head that a defense of alibi is a hangman’s noose in the face of a witness positively swearing, “I saw him do it.”? Most judges believe that such assertion automatically dooms an alibi which is so easy to fabricate. This quick stereotype thinking, however, is distressing. For how else can the truth that the accused is really innocent have any chance of prevailing over such a stone-cast tenet?

...

i truly believe jesica is lying. like nicole (subic rape case).

[ju-Luis]

im not a lawyer, still in my law studies pa. in order to convict someone of a criminal act, the prosecution must be able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. this i believe is where the prosecution failed... that is why the SC acquitted Webb et al.. the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, if the evidence is wanting, then the prosecution must fail...

excerpt from the SC decision below:

In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court entertains doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all possibilities, but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it would be a serious mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs on to one’s inner being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth.

Will the Court send the accused to spend the rest of their lives in prison on the testimony of an NBI asset who proposed to her handlers that she take the role of the witness to the Vizconde massacre that she could not produce?

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.

which school ka sir/maam?

[azinec]

yeah i agree with you... but there are many cases also that the SC always point that its not a trial court, therefore "facts" are no longer the issue but only questions of law... so im wondering why point every loophole in every testimonies presented by the prosecution.... but knowing the philosophy of our justice system maybe justified the ruling of the SC...

first, the powers of the SC.

1987 Constitution, Art.VIII
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

1. xxxx
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
   
   1. xxx
   2. xxx
   3. xxx
   4. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
   5. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
   
   

almost always, the SC will say that it is not a trier of facts, stating that this is best left to the discretion of the lower court since the judges there are in a better position to discerned the witnesses demeanor during trial. however, when a case is elevated on appeal, the appellant usually raises the issue of " the lower court acted in grave abuse of discretion" or " the lower court erred in the application...". this is the contention brought on appeal to CA then to SC. The SC is then required to scrutinize every piece of evidence/testimony that is presented and give its interpretation with legal basis, either in concurrence with or against what the lower court found. when it decided the Webb case, as in most cases, it does not disturb the facts established. the SC merely states how the facts should be viewed, legally.

for example, when Webb presented documentary evidence of his US trip, that fact was not disturbed. what the SC did however, was to rule if it is admissible or not based on law and jurisprudence, to quote from the decision:

Webb’s passport is a document issued by the Philippine government, which under international practice, is the official record of travels of the citizen to whom it is issued. The entries in that passport are presumed true.(Section 44, Rule 130, Rules of Court)
The officers who issued these certifications need not be presented in court to testify on them. Their trustworthiness arises from the sense of official duty and the penalty attached to a breached duty, in the routine and disinterested origin of such statement and in the publicity of the record.(Antilon v. Barcelona, 37 Phil. 148 (1917))

the lower courts did not see it that way, that is why the SC reversed their interpretation on that matter. and this is where the prosecution also failed, the validity of such document is presumed, which means that it can be attacked and proven otherwise thru evidence. the prosecution did not bother to question this document...surely they must have known that if the fact is established that webb was not in the Phils at the time of the crime, then he could not have committed the crime he is implicated in.

and as i said in my first post abt this topic, citing SC spokesman Marquez' statement, the acquittal of Webb et does not necessarily mean that they are innocent. the prosection just failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

[mimigs]

first was the junking of appeal for the comfort women now this, oh well what do you expect from an kangaroo arroyo court

[masakiton]

first was the junking of appeal for the comfort women now this, oh well what do you expect from an kangaroo arroyo court

atleast sir ang SC naa man maayong basehan sa ila decision ...
lisod man pud i balik nato sa panahon ni pontio pelato ang pag judge sa taw nga nag agad ra sa popular opinion