Supreme Court acquits Webb, et al

[RMK711]

---

sir. mao siguro ni rason maong galalis mo ni RMK,
kay as far as i know, ang rason maong na acquit sila hubert web kay inconsistent ang pahayag ni alfaro, mao ng naa pay doubt sa kaso, dili about sa katong evidence/documents/facts nga naa si hubert web sa US.

sa akong nahibaw-an/sabot lang ha.

@rmk
sakto ba ko sa reason sir nganung na acquit? wla nako ni basa sa link about sa desisyon kay kapoy na hehehe. kung sayop ko, mo ahat jud kog basa ani.

OK raman na ang lalis kai mao man ni ang purpose sa forum. But why is she spamming the same statements all over the thread, isn't that rude and inconsiderate to everyone who is reading/posting here? Maybe they don't want to read the same thing 100x. If she has a point to make, she already had her chance the first time she posted it, but now she has gone overboard to the point that the thread has become crazy and full of her FACTS/EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTS spam. After being requested to stop doing it, instead of toning it down, she is doing it double-time. If we all did this, just copy paste our arguments over and over again to badger and harass other people then what kind of discussion can be made?

This decision is multifaceted, in my view it's not only about Alfaro. In order to impeach her testimony they also had to find a way to destroy the maid's and security guard's testimony. They also had to make a factual finding regarding the documentation/proof. It is not true that you need to make a finding of fact to make a finding of law, otherwise how could the Supreme Court keep to its Constitutional mandate. Findings of law means the court reviews whether the law was followed correctly in a case, it does not mean overturning findings of fact made by the lower court since that is the primary function of the RTC, not the Supreme Court. Hope that made it clear.

[XxtinderoXx]

daghan man gud inconsistent si alfaro sa iyang testimonies its all about Alfaro kay cya man ang main witness naa cya sa crime scene paghetabu with other suspects and maids ug security guard deli kaau importante.

[RMK711]

daghan man gud inconsistent si alfaro sa iyang testimonies its all about Alfaro kay cya man ang main witness naa cya sa crime scene paghetabu with other suspects and maids ug security guard deli kaau importante.

But just remember that the inconsistencies they are citing is the inconsistency between her statements to the police and her testimony at court. Her testimony at court itself, was found to be believable by the RTC, a finding of fact that only the RTC can make as the RTC judge is the only one who directly observed the cross examination. This is why the SC is not supposed to make findings of fact, because by common sense "they were not there" when the cross-examination happened and therefore can't observe the demeanor and body language of the witness to be able to conclude that she is lying or telling the truth.

There is also jurisprudence as cited in the dissenting opinion that states that if there is an inconsistency between witness statements to the police and their court testimony, it is the court testimony that should prevail.

[pepponeskie]

if SC will be filing a case against Jessica Alfaro, then better do it quickly. Otherwise, Alfaro will be flying off to a country na walay extradition treaty ang Pilipinas...


Sorry for the OT:
@RMK: basin magka inlove mo ni masakiton brod...chx baya na, hehehhe

[masakiton]

daghan man gud inconsistent si alfaro sa iyang testimonies its all about Alfaro kay cya man ang main witness naa cya sa crime scene paghetabu with other suspects and maids ug security guard deli kaau importante.

mao.. wala gud ta time machime or psychic powers aron ma kita kung unsa jud ang nahitabo...
ang mga courts.. mo base sa proof/facts/evidence/testimony/documents nga i present sa both parties aron ila basehan kung naka break ba sa law ang taw

[Wham!]

.. This is why the SC is not supposed to make findings of fact, because by common sense "they were not there" when the cross-examination happened and therefore can't observe the demeanor and body language of the witness to be able to conclude that she is lying or telling the truth.

There is also jurisprudence as cited in the dissenting opinion that states that if there is an inconsistency between witness statements to the police and their court testimony, it is the court testimony that should prevail.

actually the recent ruling of the supreme court here is quite heartbreaking to law students and even embarrassing to the lower court judges. imagine naa silay mga "idols" sa supreme court who doesn't even understand what they are supposed to be doing as supreme court judges. Ila naman hinoun gi "overturn ang findings of fact made by the lower courts" nga supposedly ang ilang function ra man unta is to "review whether the law was followed /interpreted correctly in a case"

kung kani mga seven justices still want to "review facts" of future cases then they should step down as supreme court judges and just remain in the lower courts as it is the RTCs main function to do such that and definitely not the supreme court.

or maybe the payback is so huge that they are even willing to succumb the embarrassment to be labeled as the idiot seven by the entire legal profession.

first the plagiarism scandal and now this.. as I said before, what a bleak picture of the entire justice system

[RMK711]

if SC will be filing a case against Jessica Alfaro, then better do it quickly. Otherwise, Alfaro will be flying off to a country na walay extradition treaty ang Pilipinas...


Sorry for the OT:
@RMK: basin magka inlove mo ni masakiton brod...chx baya na, hehehhe

I believe Alfaro is already in the States, if I'm not mistaken...

OT: haha bai ayaw pagdahum nga kung female ang gibutang sa avatar or profile, female jud ang poster. internet man gud ni daghan kaayog she-male

[RMK711]

actually the recent ruling of the supreme court here is quite heartbreaking to law students and even embarrassing to the lower court judges. imagine naa silay mga "idols" sa supreme court who doesn't even understand what they are supposed to be doing as supreme court judges. Ila naman hinoun gi "overturn ang findings of fact made by the lower courts" nga supposedly ang ilang function ra man unta is to "review whether the law was followed /interpreted correctly in a case"

kung kani mga seven justices still wants to "review facts" of future cases then they should step down as supreme court judges and just remain in the lower courts as it is the RTCs main function to do such that and definitely not the supreme court.

or maybe the payback is so huge that they are even willing to succumb the embarrassment to be labeled as the idiot seven by the entire legal profession.

first the plagiarism scandal and now this.. as I said before, what a bleak picture of the entire justice system

Yea I'm glad someone understands the principle I brought up. It's just that most people here are ignorant of the law, so they just follow whatever the Supreme Court says. There are those who say the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Actually, that's not entirely accurate. They are given the power to interpret, but their interpretation powers are limited by their legitimacy. If they keep breaking their own rules and keep crossing boundaries, calling black white or confusing heaven and hell, then they lose legitimacy in the eyes of the people, and worse, they lose their dignity in the eyes of their peers internationally.

Normally, in other jurisdictions, high court judges are very mindful about how their decisions are perceived, because they don't want to bring disrepute, shame and embarrassment to their country's system of justice. Of course, this does not apply here, hence the many recent scandals. As you pointed out, the plagiarism case has raised eyebrows everywhere, even the American author involved is incredulous at the court's definition of plagiarism. It would make college deans everywhere laugh hysterically...

I strongly urge you to have a look at Hong Kong's judiciary, I'm sure you will be amazed at how well it is run and how extensive their recruitment program is. They even recruit retired Supreme Court justices from foreign jurisdictions, like Australia, South Africa and England. In the past they have had a Filipino justice sit as a member of their equivalent to our Supreme Court. This is why they are consistently ranked by businessmen and lawyers as being the #1 justice system in Asia, because of their transparency and unquestionable integrity. Guess where our justice system ranks?

[masakiton]

Mas maau if you focus on Jessica Alfaro's testimonies dira gweight ang decision sa SC. I hate to admit it but she is quite inconsistent sa iya mga testimonies, given na she is an NBI asset by default, and came out four years after the incident took place.

inconsistent testimonies vs. US government document

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

ila tingali gi check ang FACTS presented kung ni tuman/sunod ba or wala sa laws

i think there is something wrong with this statement.

i think you mean kung nituman ba sa balaod ang trial court ug CA dili ang FACTS nituman sa balaod...

unsaon pagtuman sa FACTS sa balaod? hehehehe... ask lang ko....