Supreme Court acquits Webb, et al

[bungot25]

---

kutob ra gyud ta sa bagutbot ani...

[RMK711]

let me just share here what I shared in the other thread:

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.

This is a subjective judgment of the Supreme Court. They weighed Webb's alibi more heavily than independent witness testimonies (not just by Alfaro, but also of the guard and maid) which is something they've never done before (see Jurisprudence, stare decisis).

Q: Why it took 15 years to acquit Webb, et.al.?
A: In 2000, 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!

And this is totally unacceptable in this modern day and age. If courts in the U.S. took that long to resolve cases, there would be rioting and they would hang their judges for being incompetents. This problem of cases taking decades to complete has existed for about as long as our justice system has existed. Either our people are too stupid to come up with a workable justice system, or we have a structural failure in our due process clauses. There is absolutely no excuse at all that can justify this kind of bad performance. And just imagine that civil cases take much, much longer. Every experienced lawyer has a number of cases that have been pending for 20+ years. I even know of a case that has been pending for 36 years! Talk about a fuked up, idiot justice system run by retarded idiots who should be executed for their stupidity.

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.

They were denied bail even during the RTC proceedings.. research before posting.

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.

A reasonable doubt is not just a lingering doubt, because it is a doubt that a reasonable person would have given the circumstances of a case. Not just any doubt, no matter how small, is sufficient to form a reasonable doubt. If you have a lingering doubt as to someone's guilt, that does not mean you should acquit. The doubt must be reasonable to a reasonable person. Of course, the Supreme Court, being populated by unreasonable fools, would be expected to have its own weird definition of this simple concept. I mean this is the exact same kangaroo court that came up with its own meaning for plagiarism

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 by a witness.

They did not look for evidence because such evidence was destroyed by a policeman hired by the killer(s). The same lawyer who defended the accused, defended this policeman. Insert common sense here.

[quote]

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)

I really hate when people quote that movie, because that movie was so stupid. What happened in that movie would not be tantamount to Double Jeopardy because the first conviction was not based on an actual murder (hence it was a false conviction on a non-existent crime). As such, double jeopardy which requires the same conviction for the same crime, does not apply. In the first case, there was no crime. The crime occurred in the second instance.

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'm against this because I know they will just round up the construction workers, subject them to torture and make them confess to the crime they didn't commit while the real guilty persons have been allowed to go free.

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.

I'm not sure if this is sarcastic or just highly presumptuous of you. Most of us who hate the judicial system don't hate it because we don't understand our criminal procedures. On the contrary, it doesn't take much to understand our terrible criminal justice system - it's terrible, that's all there is to know.

Because otherwise I'm also sure the reason we hate the justice system is because we are unreasonable fools who fail to see the beauty in our perfect, infallible justice system which is the model for Asia and the world right? Ok, I'm being sarcastic.. The reason we hate our justice system, is because its a kangaroo court that promulgates kangaroo decisions.. flip flopping jurisprudence, bad understanding of English, revisionism (plagiarism is not plagiarism), lack of credibility, incredibly delayed cases, corruption (everyone who has SC cases knows this happens, and people who deny it are just naive ignoramuses).

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.

If you consider that decision well-written and its logic impeccable, then you need to read more Supreme Court decisions, preferably for countries that have more intelligent judges.

[masakiton]

kutob ra gyud ta sa bagutbot ani...

daghan pud nag pretend nga abugado

[RMK711]

P.S. I'm not expecting our country to have the perfect justice system, but we need at least a halfway decent one. The one that we currently have is broken and has become a real drag to our country both economically and politically. We'll probably never have a great justice system but we should at least have a semi-respectable one that resolves cases within a reasonable time-frame and which respects its own judgments by adhering to stare decisis. Cases dragging on for decades and flip-flopping its own past decisions mean the Supreme Court doesn't even respect itself as an institution, so why should we?

[icysunitz]

This is a subjective judgment of the Supreme Court. They weighed Webb's alibi more heavily than independent witness testimonies (not just by Alfaro, but also of the guard and maid) which is something they've never done before (see Jurisprudence, stare decisis).

----> If you would also read other jurisprudence, alibi may be a weak defense but if the accused can establish (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime, then the defense of alibi may be given credit by the Court.

And this is totally unacceptable in this modern day and age. If courts in the U.S. took that long to resolve cases, there would be rioting and they would hang their judges for being incompetents. This problem of cases taking decades to complete has existed for about as long as our justice system has existed. Either our people are too stupid to come up with a workable justice system, or we have a structural failure in our due process clauses. There is absolutely no excuse at all that can justify this kind of bad performance. And just imagine that civil cases take much, much longer. Every experienced lawyer has a number of cases that have been pending for 20+ years. I even know of a case that has been pending for 36 years! Talk about a fuked up, idiot justice system run by retarded idiots who should be executed for their stupidity.

----> I really don't know whom to blame on this one. maybe we have lesser courts than the crimes or cases being filed everyday. I know of a simple petition for reissuance of lost title where the presentation of witness is 2 months after the presentation of jurisdictional facts. The thing is, our courts are clogged with so many cases. IN mandaue city RTC, one court does not have a judge, so one of the cebu city rtc judge sits in that sala 1 week every month. in Lapu-lapu city, one court whose judge is retiring soon hears cases alternately with a cebucity judge every week. So i think, we lack judges and court rooms to divide cases. Also, we do not have an effective mediation and conciliation proceedings, a lot of the litigants want to go to court to scare off or harass the other party. the rules in modes of discovery are not strictly carried out in our jurisdiction, not like in the US. Yeah, maybe it's the system.

They were denied bail even during the RTC proceedings.. research before posting.

----> sorry, but in the other thread there was one question as to why were they not allowed bail pending the appeal so that they can enjoy their youth.


They did not look for evidence because such evidence was destroyed by a policeman hired by the killer(s). The same lawyer who defended the accused, defended this policeman. Insert common sense here.


---> i know, but they could have looked at other PHYSICAL evidence that could corroborate their stories to build a stronger case. They could have anticipated the arguments of the adverse party. But they did not do their homework well, they just relied on the GENERAL RULE that Alibi is a weak defense against the positive identification by a witness. All Webb needed to do was to establish REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE MIND OF THE COURT to get an acquittal. The voluminous evidences they presented "confused" the justices and concluded that maybe there's a possibility that he's telling the truth and probability that he is innocent.


I really hate when people quote that movie, because that movie was so stupid. What happened in that movie would not be tantamount to Double Jeopardy because the first conviction was not based on an actual murder (hence it was a false conviction on a non-existent crime). As such, double jeopardy which requires the same conviction for the same crime, does not apply. In the first case, there was no crime. The crime occurred in the second instance.

----> my bad. but you'll get the point there, that once you are tried and acquitted or served your sentence in a criminal case, you cannot be charged for the same crime again.

I'm against this because I know they will just round up the construction workers, subject them to torture and make them confess to the crime they didn't commit while the real guilty persons have been allowed to go free.

----> exactly, I just don't understand how can they build a case against any new suspect when the evidences have all been washed out.


I'm not sure if this is sarcastic or just highly presumptuous of you. Most of us who hate the judicial system don't hate it because we don't understand our criminal procedures. On the contrary, it doesn't take much to understand our terrible criminal justice system - it's terrible, that's all there is to know.

----> in the other thread, there were a lot of haters of the judicial system, that's where i based this statement (as what i said in the intro, i just want to "SHARE WHAT I SHARED IN THE OTHER THREAD".

Because otherwise I'm also sure the reason we hate the justice system is because we are unreasonable fools who fail to see the beauty in our perfect, infallible justice system which is the model for Asia and the world right? Ok, I'm being sarcastic.. The reason we hate our justice system, is because its a kangaroo court that promulgates kangaroo decisions.. flip flopping jurisprudence, bad understanding of English, revisionism (plagiarism is not plagiarism), lack of credibility, incredibly delayed cases, corruption (everyone who has SC cases knows this happens, and people who deny it are just naive ignoramuses).

----> Im not saying that our judicial system is perfect and infallible. afterall, the justices composing it are all human beings too, that's the reason behind the flipflopping decisions. This is why we have Motions for Reconsideration, Motions for New Trial and Appeals. The judicial system is composed of different persons (judges in the lower courts and justices in the appellate courts), that is why the decisions vary from the trial court to the supreme court, because each judge/justice looks at the evidence presented in different perspectives (although the best judge is the trial court judge where the evidences were presented). Now in the SC, the fate of the case lies on the number of justices who looks at your case in the same perspective. As to your claim that the justices received payola from the Webb, et.al., this is something that I do not have any personal knowledge of to conclude. What I am presenting is the according to the rules of court. As for the plagiarism case, i admit it was SC's way of saving one of its own.

If you consider that decision well-written and its logic impeccable, then you need to read more Supreme Court decisions, preferably for countries that have more intelligent judges.

----> i am NOT saying that the decision was well-written and impeccable. There were other information and evidences which were not considered by the majority. my point in posting the link of the decision is for the istoryans to read first the decision before commenting, kay daghan kaayo ang pataka ra ug yaw2x. also, I don't agree with some of the evidences presented by the camp of Webb since they didn't reflect that he was not in the philippines on the night of the murders. But I just want the people to read it first before giving their comment.

[RMK711]

@icysunitz: Very well said and nicely composed response. Saludo ko

[black_mamba]

@icysunitz: Very well said and nicely composed response. Saludo ko

ako pud saludo ko... maski taas... nalingaw ko ug basa!

[azinec]

@icysunitz , very well said indeed.. nice one..

[FAQ]

P.S. I'm not expecting our country to have the perfect justice system, but we need at least a halfway decent one. The one that we currently have is broken and has become a real drag to our country both economically and politically. We'll probably never have a great justice system but we should at least have a semi-respectable one that resolves cases within a reasonable time-frame and which respects its own judgments by adhering to stare decisis. Cases dragging on for decades and flip-flopping its own past decisions mean the Supreme Court doesn't even respect itself as an institution, so why should we?

I know what you're trying to do here : you're once again trying to bring up your messed-up idea for Philippines being a COMMUNIST country . We all know you have an orgasmic rush on China and its political system , but communism doesn't work in the Philippines . Time to wake up from your delusion .

[masakiton]

I know what you're trying to do here : you're once again trying to bring up your messed-up idea for Philippines being a COMMUNIST country . We all know you have an orgasmic rush on China and its political system , but communism doesn't work in the Philippines . Time to wake up from your delusion .

dakong sakto... maski unsa pa na system sa ato a pero kung ang mga taw nga nag pa dagan sa system kai mao ra gihapon...

atleast sa SC decission kai naa sila sakto nga legal nga basehan sa ila decision
daghan lang mag padala sa gibati