Supreme Court acquits Webb, et al

[FranZeno]

---

Yes they do, and they have. No lives are put at risk by this fabrication, since we aren't dealing with known terrorists. Obviously, if Hubert Webb were a terrorist, rather than an accused murderer, they would think twice about doing this.

But, still I would blame the prosecution for not showing evidence of that ever happening

Oh yes they are. Show me any other Supreme Court decision that uses this kind of garbage language. If what they meant to say was that she was a frequent visitor at the NBI, then they should have said she is a frequent visitor. The use of the word "pigeon stool" was calculated to make the witness appear foolish and unreliable. It's that simple. Mature people in respectable courts simply do not resort to this kind of thing. But you're entitled to your opinion.

Read my previous post, stool pigeon is the term used for decoys. Not pigeon stool. You may be thinking stool (sh*t) but it's stool as in a chair. Stool pigeon is a decoy pigeon put in a stool by hunters. Google it.

Gee, maybe because she is convinced that Hubert is guilty and wanted to testify out of conscience despite the very real risk to her life?

Well, there's the Webb's influence there working in action but failed. Still, there's the maid's testimony in action without Webb's influence but still failed.

Are you even fully apprised to the facts of the case? Do you even know why there are no fingerprints? Because a certain policeman made sure to clean them all up! Why would he do such a thing Because someone hired him to do so. And who I wonder would be interested in bribing a policeman to clear out all the evidence.. obviously the killer or someone very close to him, someone with power and influence. Someone who is a Senator perhaps? Wow, no leap in logic required here whatsoever...

Just because the principal eye-witness is a drug addict does not mean she is lying. It simply means she has a drug problem. That doesn't invalidate her testimony. And you might be interested to know that Hubert Webb is a drug addict as well. Does that then automatically mean he is a rapist as well? After all drug addiction is highly correlated with violent crime, right?

Well, if Hubert was careful enough to hire someone to clean his mess up, then why have your blood-stained shirt put in your laundry basket to be washed by your maid and make her suspicious that you might have killed someone?

But, I would surely doubt Alfaro from what the head of NBI said. She sat in place of her supposedly known witness that never came and she never refuted that.

[FranZeno]

Nah. It is not a formal term, though you are correct that this refers to an informant. It is considered slang and even somewhat derogatory. The court should have used the proper FORMAL, educated terminology "police informant". After all, it does not suit the dignity of the court to resort to use terms that are slang. Should you have any doubt refer to your dictionary.

What remains the same is the choice of the court in using "pigeon stool" which excites a mental picture of a pathetic person, over "police informant" which gives more dignity to the person involved. Surely you can see this?

Pigeon stool will excite your mental picture, but not with Stool Pigeon.

[RMK711]

But, still I would blame the prosecution for not showing evidence of that ever happening

They wouldn't need to because the mere possibility of this is the very reason the Supreme Court itself laid down the doctrine that alibi is the weakest form of defense that cannot triumph over the strength of uninterested third party witnesses. This doctrine was laid down specially for our jurisdiction because the judges (rightly or wrongly) at that time gave special consideration to our situation in this country, where alibi witnesses can easily be bought and evidence easily fabricated.

Read my previous post, stool pigeon is the term used for decoys. Not pigeon stool. You may be thinking stool (sh*t) but it's stool as in a chair. Stool pigeon is a decoy pigeon put in a stool by hunters. Google it.

Your previous post claimed it is a formal term for police informant, when in fact it is slang used to slander "tattletails". The formal term for police informant, is police informant! And this is what a dignified court anywhere else would say if they were referring to an informant as such, as opposed to referring to pigeons and stools.

Well, there's the Webb's influence there working in action but failed. Still, there's the maid's testimony in action without Webb's influence but still failed.

Convoluted statement is convoluted.

Well, if Hubert was careful enough to hire someone to clean his mess up, then why have your blood-stained shirt put in your laundry basket to be washed by your maid and make her suspicious that you might have killed someone?

Who knows what goes on in the mind of a killer. Maybe the thought that his maid would ever stand witness against him never crossed his mind! Maybe he's such a spoiled brat, he couldn't wash his own clothes and still needed his maid to clean up after him. Really, why make justifications for why someone might do things. Criminals make stupid mistakes all the time. You don't need to be that intelligent to call up your police connection to clean your mess up for you "like daddy said" so it's not beyond the realm of possibility that he might just have been stupid enough to make a mistake here. After all that is why most criminals are caught right, because they make mistakes? What reality is our Supreme Court living in anyway.

But, I would surely doubt Alfaro from what the head of NBI said. She sat in place of her supposedly known witness that never came and she never refuted that.

Is his testimony corroborated by anyone else? Why didn't he report this immediately then? That it only came out at trial makes me deeply suspicious about his intentions. Being the head of the NBI, if your informant made such a suggestion to you, the sensible thing to do would have been to file a report about it immediately, which of course he did not do.

[FranZeno]

They wouldn't need to because the mere possibility of this is the very reason the Supreme Court itself laid down the doctrine that alibi is the weakest form of defense that cannot triumph over the strength of uninterested third party witnesses. This doctrine was laid down specially for our jurisdiction because the judges (rightly or wrongly) at that time gave special consideration to our situation in this country, where alibi witnesses can easily be bought and evidence easily fabricated.



Your previous post claimed it is a formal term for police informant, when in fact it is slang used to slander "tattletails". The formal term for police informant, is police informant! And this is what a dignified court anywhere else would say if they were referring to an informant as such, as opposed to referring to pigeons and stools.

But still, stool pigeon is not "childish calling names" that you were saying.

Convoluted statement is convoluted.


Who knows what goes on in the mind of a killer. Maybe the thought that his maid would ever stand witness against him never crossed his mind! Maybe he's such a spoiled brat, he couldn't wash his own clothes and still needed his maid to clean up after him. Really, why make justifications for why someone might do things. Criminals make stupid mistakes all the time. You don't need to be that intelligent to call up your police connection to clean your mess up for you "like daddy said" so it's not beyond the realm of possibility that he might just have been stupid enough to make a mistake here. After all that is why most criminals are caught right, because they make mistakes? What reality is our Supreme Court living in anyway.

Is his testimony corroborated by anyone else? Why didn't he report this immediately then? That it only came out at trial makes me deeply suspicious about his intentions. Being the head of the NBI, if your informant made such a suggestion to you, the sensible thing to do would have been to file a report about it immediately, which of course he did not do.

Well, blame the NBI and prosecution for that, not SC. That's how justice systems work, evidences to directly connect you to the crime, if none then acquit.

I know you sympathize for Mr. Vizconde, but justice is not about sympathy.

For all your other sections, the En Banc is there for reference.

Anyway, you should have been the prosecutor for Vizconde and showed him your evidences, I bet the SC will be taken aback.

That's all for the defense.

[kenites]

At any rate, did Alfaro at least have a fine memory for faces that had a strong effect on her, given the circumstances? Not likely. She named Miguel “Ging” Rodriguez as one of the culprits in the Vizconde killings. But when the NBI found a certain Michael Rodriguez, a drug dependent from the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center, initially suspected to be Alfaro’s Miguel Rodriguez and showed him to Alfaro at the NBI office, she ran berserk, slapping and kicking Michael, exclaiming: “How can I forget your face. We just saw each other in a disco one month ago and you told me then that you will kill me.” As it turned out, he was not Miguel Rodriguez, the accused in this case.[13]

Two possibilities exist: Michael was really the one Alfaro wanted to implicate to settle some score with him but it was too late to change the name she already gave or she had myopic vision, tagging the wrong people for what they did not do.

So much for a credible witness

Anyway, you should have been the prosecutor for Vizconde and showed him your evidences, I bet the SC will be taken aback.

Bitaw! ...

[Xilcher]

istorya ta facts dire not emotions ha:

repost:

"At any rate, did Alfaro at least have a fine memory for faces that had a strong effect on her, given the circumstances? Not likely. She named Miguel “Ging” Rodriguez as one of the culprits in the Vizconde killings. But when the NBI found a certain Michael Rodriguez, a drug dependent from the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center, initially suspected to be Alfaro’s Miguel Rodriguez and showed him to Alfaro at the NBI office, she ran berserk, slapping and kicking Michael, exclaiming: “How can I forget your face. We just saw each other in a disco one month ago and you told me then that you will kill me.” As it turned out, he was not Miguel Rodriguez, the accused in this case."

jesicca is really a bayaran witness

[AnInO]

trial by sympathy not by publicity...

mao bitaw g taptapan ang mata sa atong Justice symbol para dli ma bias ug prejudice...

ug naa timbangan para e weight ang evidence and facts...

basin abi ninyo timbangan na sa merkado nga g tamper wahaha...

[FranZeno]

trial by sympathy not by publicity...

mao bitaw g taptapan ang mata sa atong Justice symbol para dli ma bias ug prejudice...

ug naa timbangan para e weight ang evidence and facts...

basin abi ninyo timbangan na sa merkado nga g tamper wahaha...

Does this mean kay tungod naluoy ka?

[AnInO]

Does this mean kay tungod naluoy ka?

yup the last time i check sympathy mao na gipasabot...

[RMK711]

But still, stool pigeon is not "childish calling names" that you were saying.

It is childish to resort to slang when you can use formal terms. Again refer to my original argument as to why I believe the court intentionally used this term which has derogatory connotations and is not in formal usage, over the term "police informant" which is used in everyday language and easily understood by all.

Well, blame the NBI and prosecution for that, not SC. That's how justice systems work, evidences to directly connect you to the crime, if none then acquit.

No, I would blame the Supreme Court for using double standards intentionally to put the prosecution witnesses under such tight scrutiny whilst putting witnesses to the accused under no scrutiny whatsoever. Why did they not wonder why this head of the NBI did not bring this to the attention of his superiors sooner? If someone were to tell a policeman he/she is planning to frame someone for murder or falsely accuse someone of rape, what would be the sensible thing you would expect?

I know you sympathize for Mr. Vizconde, but justice is not about sympathy.

This is not about sympathy, it is about holding our Supreme Court to higher expectations. I expect decisions to be written logically and to be convincing, not full of holes. The Supreme Court likes to claim in its decision that Alfaro twisted her testimony to fit the facts, but what I got from reading their decision is that they twisted the case to fit the desired acquittal.

For all your other sections, the En Banc is there for reference.

I have always referred to the En Banc decision in my criticisms and have done so line by line in some instances. If you swallow the decision hook line and sinker, then I applaud you for having so much faith and optimism in one of the worst justice systems in the world.

Anyway, you should have been the prosecutor for Vizconde and showed him your evidences, I bet the SC will be taken aback.

That's all for the defense.

This is not about me, this is about the Supreme Court and its decision. It's about its reputation and how it will be viewed not only locally but overseas. Our overly sensitive and onion-skinned Supreme Court justices are more obsessed with silencing its critics than it is about its battered reputation not only locally but internationally. They ought to be ashamed at how Philippine justice is perceived, but as this decision and recent ones have shown, they aren't. In other words, they are shameless people incapable of embarrassment.