Supreme Court acquits Webb, et al

[RMK711]

---

"It is a settled rule that in the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts" - GR No. 167546

"We are not a trier of facts so we defer to the factual findings of the lower courts" - GR No. 161455

"only questions of law may be raised as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts" - Teves v Eran

"The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts." - Netherlands Supreme Court Guidelines

"May only apply the law to the facts, a process involving matters of law, not fact." - California Supreme Court in Shwartz v Slenderella

[masakiton]

"It is a settled rule that in the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts" - GR No. 167546

"We are not a trier of facts so we defer to the factual findings of the lower courts" - GR No. 161455

"only questions of law may be raised as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts" - Teves v Eran

"The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts." - Netherlands Supreme Court Guidelines

"May only apply the law to the facts, a process involving matters of law, not fact." - California Supreme Court in Shwartz v Slenderella

pero atleast ang decission sa supreme court kai based on facts/evidence/ducments nga gi present sa both parties dili ang personal feelings sa masa

dili ang supreme court sir.. ang decision

[Dice_Ice]

Justice is Blind.....

[RMK711]

pero atleast ang decission sa supreme court kai based on facts nga gi present sa both parties dili ang personal feelings sa masa

dili ang supreme court sir.. ang decision

Decission? Wurag ahas.. decissssssion? Hahaha..

The decision of the Supreme Court cannot be based on matters of fact, because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Grabe lagi ka mobo imong reading comprehension. Wa ko manginsulto ha.. concern lang ko sa imoha.

The decision of the Supreme Court is supposed to be based on the opinion of the Court regarding matters pertaining to how the law was applied correctly or incorrectly to evidence of probative value. So it is an OPINION, not a fact regarding matters of law. Correct your statement because it makes you look like a ignoramus

"The decision of the Supreme Court is based on its opinion."

[masakiton]

Decission? Wurag ahas.. decissssssion? Hahaha..

The decision of the Supreme Court cannot be based on matters of fact, because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Grabe lagi ka mobo imong reading comprehension. Wa ko manginsulto ha.. concern lang ko sa imoha.

unsaon man nila pag kahibaw sir kung kinsa ni "break sa law" kung walai facts/evidence/docments/testimony?

pero atleast ang decission sa supreme court kai based on facts nga gi present sa both parties dili ang personal feelings sa masa

[RMK711]

unsaon man nila pag kahibaw sir kung kinsa ni "break sa law" kung walai facts/evidence/docments/testimony?

pero atleast ang decission sa supreme court kai based on facts nga gi present sa both parties dili ang personal feelings sa masa

That question is irrelevant kai...

"The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, only of law"

Masakiton, you're being a troll, repeating things over and over again ignoring the facts presented to you. That's against the forum rules.

[PaYaSo]

undanga na ninyo. ky its getting annoying na. its like a broken record

[RMK711]

undanga na ninyo. ky its getting annoying na. its like a broken record

Mao ni ang problema ni masakiton, basaha iyang post history dili ra sa kani nga thread grabe kaayo na siya ka troll. Expert sa TROLLING... she does it on purpose to irritate people, and I guess she did it again hahahaha

[masakiton]

That question is irrelevant kai...

"The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, only of law"

Masakiton, you're being a troll, repeating things over and over again ignoring the facts presented to you. That's against the forum rules.

unsaon man nila pag kahibaw sir kung kinsa ni "break sa law" kung walai facts/evidence/docments/testimony?
Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.

[RMK711]

please answer ang question

unsaon man nila pag kahibaw sir kung kinsa ni "break sa law" kung walai facts/evidence/docments/testimony?
Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.

TROLLING. This matter was already addressed. See previous posts. Stop trolling. This is the last time I will respond on this, annoying na imong repetitious BS. Study and improve your reading skills nalang...