Supreme Court acquits Webb, et al

[Romeojin]

---

anyone knows the side of the SC justices who didnt favor the acquittal? that would be interesting...

[masakiton]

^ They also have to show proof that the judge and the Vizcondes framed Webb for the murders. When you make that kind of accusation, it has to have proof, especially if you're accusing someone of framing another person for murder.

diba ang proof = facts/evidence/testimonies/documents

Yep. And then? Nalibog man tingali ka.

Dili ako ang nag ingon ana, ang Supreme Court mismo that's why I cited all those cases. And not just our Supreme Court, but courts all over the world. You shouldn't be asking that question here, because it can never be answered in enough detail that gives justice to the subject. If it's really bothering you so much how a Supreme Court can render a decision without judging on the facts, you should go to law school. They can't, because they aren't allowed to. It's that simple. If you want to challenge that principle, go ahead. But don't ignore the fact that Supreme Courts around the world use this principle "they are not triers of facts, but of law" and that this Supreme Court ignored their own rules which they are supposed to obey in this case.

This is from the Constitution:

"In Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, we find the definition of judicial power as a power vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. "Judicial power" includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government."

"Section 4 (1) outlines the powers given by the Constitution to the Supreme Court. In numerous cases, the Highest Tribunal of the land only reviews cases from the local courts. The Court determines whether or not there has been an erroneous interpretation of the law or that there has been a grave abuse of discretion by the courts which harmed the rights of the parties involved. In GR no. 165968, Pepsi-Cola Products vs. Santos, the Highest Court said categorically that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. "

kung sc dili allowed mo judge sa facts... then proof = facts/evidence/testimonies/documents ....ngano kailangan paman ug proof sa accusations?
dili man ka consistent sir

[bearish]

Naa na mai dissenting opinion nga gi-post. Ang dissenting opinion mag taas pa kaysa actual decision - 88 pages vs 44 pages. Gi-detail didto ang tanan nga sayup sa majority decision.

yes sir, but that will remain to be an opinion. Although that is moral lifting to the visconde's but it can't turn the SC's decision. Sa ato na lang konsensya ni daugon, kay pilde man sa Korte. But, nevertheless, naka serve sad sila ug prison time, in fairness.

[RMK711]

kung sc dili allowed mo judge sa facts... then proof = facts/evidence/testimonies/documents ....ngano kailangan paman ug proof sa accusations?
dili man ka consistent sir

Gitubag naman ni nako uy.. Wa koi mahimo kung nalibog ka sa RTC og SC. Ang rule moapply ra sa SC, dili sa RTC level. Ayaw lagi pag-balik balik og pamutana sa butang nga gitubag ra, kai bastos na...

[masakiton]

Gitubag naman ni nako uy.. Wa koi mahimo kung nalibog ka sa RTC og SC. Ang rule moapply ra sa SC, dili sa RTC level. Ayaw lagi pag-balik balik og pamutana sa butang nga gitubag ra, kai bastos na...

so kung dili pwede mo base ang SC sa facts/document/proof/testimony sa case.. ila lang tag anon sir?

[RMK711]

yes sir, but that will remain to be an opinion. Although that is moral lifting to the visconde's but it can't turn the SC's decision. Sa ato na lang konsensya ni daugon, kay pilde man sa Korte. But, nevertheless, naka serve sad sila ug prison time, in fairness.

All findings of the SC are just opinions anyway, opinions of the majority. It's true that this doesn't have force of law, but at least it's on the record and maybe in the future the SC can consider a reversal of the new principles laid down in this latest ruling.

I don't think it's fair either way you look at it. If Webb is really not guilty, then it's not fair he served 15 years when he is innocent. If he is really guilty, it's not fair to the other murder convicts that he served only 15 years. Either way you look at it, this is a black mark on our already notorious justice system.

[RMK711]

so kung dili pwede mo base ang SC sa facts/document/proof/testimony sa case.. ila lang tag anon sir?

Attend nalang law school aron mahimutang imong gibati

[bearish]

G.R. No. 176389

ang SC sir igo raman ni himo sa ila decision based sa mga documents/facts/evidence/testimonies/proof gi provide sa both side sa ilaha

The judge must be just. Both sides presented testimonies, some evidence, some facts and some documents. And at this stage, they are convicted. The supreme court is not to try the facts,evidences, testimonies as these are being handled at the lower courts. SC is to try the question of LAW.

[masakiton]

Attend nalang law school aron mahimutang imong gibati

dili ko maka afford sir
daghan bitaw ka nahibaw an sa SC court.. atleast ma share pud nimo
gi contra baya nimo ang thought nga ang SC gi basehan ila decission based sa facts/evidence/documents/proof nga gikan sa both parties

[RMK711]

dili ko maka afford sir
daghan bitaw ka nahibaw an sa SC court.. atleast ma share pud nimo
gi contra baya nimo ang thought nga ang SC gi basehan ila decission based sa facts/evidence/documents/proof nga gikan sa both parties

Ah... OK.