Merged: Paco Larrañaga

[Minuano27]

---

ok...but if i were masterminding the whole thing, i'd be pretty dumb to make the sons of rich and powerful families as the fall guys. better to get your typical street-corner addicts and make them fall guys since they wouldn't have the resources or the money to fight the case....

Thats exactly my whole point of obtaining FALL GUYS or FRAMED VICTIMS , get someone that can be crippled easily , not the influential or powerful individuals . But if they end up( CHiong 7) as suspects , then there must be something else that makes them suspects for they are far more of the definition of FALL GUYS or FRAMED VICTIMS .

very possible...

FYI guys, this is not a personal crusade or campaing or whatever. I am just a guy who "almost" (as courtesy to some people) knew for a fact that Paco was indeed in Manila.

Guys, here's another mind twister... Let's just say that it was your bro or sis or your mom or dad that told you that Paco was in Manila?

The problem with this mind twister is that in court, an alibi is the weakest defense, and it can't prevail over the positive identification by the witnesses of the people charged with the crime. Now, assuming that the witnesses were lying, then the trial would have revealed this by an attack on the credibility of these witnesses. From what I understand, the lawyers of Paco and company weren't successful in this.

I too, don't know Larranaga and company or the Chiongs, and the way I see it, this case went through a judge and went through the Supreme Court. Say what you will about the Supreme Court, but if you think about it, the majority of the justices agreed on the conviction. If we assume that that the Supreme Court was "influenced" in this by money, then it would take a whole lot of money to "buy" the votes of the justices. And if someone actually went to this extent, then this guy must really hate Larranaga and company enough to really spend for it.

Also, I don't think the justices would be callous men who would convict when they weren't morally convinced that the evidence supported a conviction. Sending a man to his death is not a simple, everyday decision, for you're going to be taking someone's life.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

Guys, here's another mind twister... Let's just say that it was your bro or sis or your mom or dad that told you that Paco was in Manila? Again, the person who told me this was my friend since we were wearing diapers. Not to mention all other friends, needless to mention of their credentials and standing in the community but most of all their morals. Of course people here can always say that friends gud mo tanan and you belong to the same country club. Now that we would be a totally different story, wouldn't it?

- The case is not a petty crime like shoplifting or something , its murder and rape so for a suspect to get away with needs a plan , a good plan .

- I am not saying lytslpr that you are telling a lie but we cant also say you are telling the truth basing from your bestfriends statements .

- Back then when the case was still ongoing , you only hear PACO's pleas because he is the only one in the position of giving an alibi , to make the story short , if they have to free PACO , they have to free all the CHIONG 7 . Did anyone see or hear any statements , causes , websites from the AZNARS , UYS , ADLAWANS etc ? None but only from Paco .

- For Rustias position as the STAR WITNESS , he perfectly fits the criteria for being one so if I were him , i'd do the same in exchange for something to save my ass .

[Lyt.Slpr]

ok...but if i were masterminding the whole thing, i'd be pretty dumb to make the sons of rich and powerful families as the fall guys. better to get your typical street-corner addicts and make them fall guys since they wouldn't have the resources or the money to fight the case....

Thats exactly my whole point of obtaining FALL GUYS or FRAMED VICTIMS , get someone that can be crippled easily , not the influential or powerful individuals . But if they end up( CHiong 7) as suspects , then there must be something else that makes them suspects for they are far more of the definition of FALL GUYS or FRAMED VICTIMS .

very possible...

FYI guys, this is not a personal crusade or campaing or whatever. I am just a guy who "almost" (as courtesy to some people) knew for a fact that Paco was indeed in Manila.

Guys, here's another mind twister... Let's just say that it was your bro or sis or your mom or dad that told you that Paco was in Manila?

The problem with this mind twister is that in court, an alibi is the weakest defense, and it can't prevail over the positive identification by the witnesses of the people charged with the crime. Now, assuming that the witnesses were lying, then the trial would have revealed this by an attack on the credibility of these witnesses. From what I understand, the lawyers of Paco and company weren't successful in this.

I too, don't know Larranaga and company or the Chiongs, and the way I see it, this case went through a judge and went through the Supreme Court. Say what you will about the Supreme Court, but if you think about it, the majority of the justices agreed on the conviction. If we assume that that the Supreme Court was "influenced" in this by money, then it would take a whole lot of money to "buy" the votes of the justices. And if someone actually went to this extent, then this guy must really hate Larranaga and company enough to really spend for it.

Also, I don't think the justices would be callous men who would convict when they weren't morally convinced that the evidence supported a conviction. Sending a man to his death is not a simple, everyday decision, for you're going to be taking someone's life.

- yup, the lawyers were not successful in destroying rustia's credibility and did not accept the credible witnessess of Paco because his mind was already set.

- it is possible that they were not bribed but influenced.

- with how the case was tried in the RTC and how it was presented to them, of course the "moral" thing to do is give them death. ironically, if they freed Paco then they would be branded as corrupt because the public has already spoken. (against paco) ...& for most of these judges taking a person's life is simple and an everday fare. just imagine renderring favorable decisions for lucio tan, danding cojuangco & the like? after winning and taking their land, food from the table & treating them as animals that all ends in bloodshed. it may not be as direct as giving the death penalty but it is destroying and taking people's lives all the same. corruption indirectly kills people.

[Lyt.Slpr]

Just a reminder, "your relative seeing Paco in manila theory" is not to be used in court but your personal belief. That's all!

What I was trying to say that if one of your relatives was really with Paco in Manila, would you believe him or the decision of the supreme court?

I am aware that Rusia is an eye witness but I was "sort of" an eye witness too and very close friend & childhood buddy was actually there with him and an eye witness too for Paco that is. That friend will not lie for Paco to me because we have been deep sh!t & worse things too. If Paco indeed did that gruesome crime, then he should pay for it bigtime. I cannot imagine that happening to a loved one coz if it did I will personally kill the perpetrators. Now do you guys understand where I'm coming from & the reason for my stand which is also the cause of my confusion & predicament?

BTW, the SC maybe corrupt which is more remote because we are talking of death but it is also possible that the case was misrepresented or the pleas and decisions were influenced or tampered when it was submitted to them.

I have said my peace above all the legal technicality.

Now, to ultimately answer the topic:

Do you "think" PACO is innocent? a BIG resounding YES!

[Minuano27]

- it is possible that they were not bribed but influenced.

that's kinda farfetched na pre...you mean to say that the justices were influenced to vote yes to a conviction and to increase the penalty to death
i can probably buy the "influence to affirm the conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment" but not to increasing the penalty to death. if i were a justice, why should i agree to increase it? when the safest thing to do - even for public consumption - would be to just affirm the conviction and the life sentence.

[Minuano27]

- with how the case was tried in the RTC and how it was presented to them, of course the "moral" thing to do is give them death. ironically, if they freed Paco then they would be branded as corrupt because the public has already spoken. (against paco) ...& for most of these judges taking a person's life is simple and an everday fare. just imagine renderring favorable decisions for lucio tan, danding cojuangco & the like? after winning and taking their land, food from the table & treating them as animals that all ends in bloodshed. it may not be as direct as giving the death penalty but it is destroying and taking people's lives all the same. corruption indirectly kills people.

you forgot that they could have just affirmed the life sentence and not increased it to death. besides, you can't compare this case to the case of lucio tan or danding cojuangco, et al. those cases are all about money, lots of money and i agree with you that there could be some hanky-panky. but increasing the penalty to death through "influence" when they could have just affirmed the life sentence is really farfetched.

don't get me wrong pre, i'm not out for blood, because i don't know the Chiongs or Larranaga and company. as far as i'm concerned, justice was done when they were convicted.

[skooter]

Lyt.Str say:

Now, to ultimately answer the topic:

Do you"think" PACO is innocent? a BIG resounding YES!

makatawa man lang ta nimo part :mrgreen:

[arnoldsa]

That's the main reason why Judge Ocampo denied the witnesses of Paco because majority of them were his best friends... Under the rules of court, friends testifying for another friend is inadmissible in as much as the credibility is being put to question...

It's so easy to symphatize with a friend, much more a best friend.
Who knows, Paco might really have been innocent but then again, his witnesses were not that credible enough...

Tita Margot, Paco's Mom could have afforded to bribe jail officials and let him escape but they did not do so because of the strong & firm belief in Paco's innocence that is why they decided to slug it out in court at whatever cause. Paco could not have been the "friendliest" person in Cebu City but he certainly DID NOT DO IT.

Escaping is not a good move , bribe or not . But do you think they did not shell out moolahs to make these issues last long ?? What if that accused ( PACO ) is a nobody or never heard of before personality ......that case will only last a week and case close .....BAM !!

On the contrary also , I am not saying he is guilty or not because I am not an EYE WITNESS myself of the crime but when you say your bestfriend was with him in manila during the time of the crime ..... nobody is gonna buy that . How reliable also is ur bestfriend and what is the gurantee that it was not fabricated ?? Unless ikaw ang naa sa MANILA personally with PACO side by side nagtagay mo didto then that would be a more gutsy move to say he is INNOCENT .

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

The only error I see or think of on the case was the late Judge ocampo being the presiding judge . Not that he is capable of handling it but they should have used a judge that was ex trial judge and not a corporate judge like icampo but that conclusion still doesnt change justice .


Now to ultimately answer the topic ..... PACO is GUILTY !! and so are the CHIONG 7 !!

[Lyt.Slpr]

Lyt.Str say:

Now, to ultimately answer the topic:

Do you"think" PACO is innocent? a BIG resounding YES!

makatawa man lang ta nimo part :mrgreen:

that's your opinion sir. the topic is do you "think".

i also respect the opinion of my co-forumers here. it would have been an interesting court trial if there was a jury.