Find stories by date    or keywords  

Way out of line


She was a burst of fresh air in the otherwise dank environment of the Gloria government.  From practically out of nowhere, Leila De Lima became Chair of the Commission on Human Rights as the Gloria Arroyo administration wound up its affairs.  And De Lima proved many doubters, myself included, wrong when she led by example and inspiration, worked long hours, talked a great game (which she then showed by taking on all comers, including Rudy Duterte in Davao City on the Davao death squads), displayed her independence from the appointing authority and, in the process, raised the profile of the CHR to much greater heights.

Her appointment as Justice Secretary of the then new-Aquino administration was almost unanimously and loudly applauded as the one thing that the President had gotten right. And she did not disappoint. She took on the burden of leading the investigation of why things went south during the bus-hostage crisis and showed her mettle by submitting a report which she knew would rankle the President as it recommended sanctions for a close friend and a close political ally of the President.

When publicly rebuffed by her boss, she thought about quitting but chose to stay, again a move that was welcomed and applauded.

I count myself as among those who hold her in high regard, which is why this is not easy to write.

The Secretary of Justice recently held a press conference and, flanked by the NBI Director and the Head of the CIDG, announced the results of a six-month reinvestigation ordered by the President after the Supreme Court acquitted Hubert Webb et al. of the horrific crimes committed against Lauro Vizconde’s family members.

In that press conference, the Secretary of Justice announced that the NBI and the police had unearthed new witnesses, whose identities were withheld, who could “shatter” the alibi of Hubert Webb (that he was in the United States at the time of the crime).  Included in the “new evidence” was the magnetic reel tape that showed that there was no Hubert Webb who left the country, even as the NBI admits that a Hubert Webb (presumably the same one) had re-entered the country in 1992.

As the press conference unfolded, the question in my mind was “why?”

Why was the Secretary of Justice going all out in a press conference to “shatter” the alibi of a man who had been acquitted by the Supreme Court ?

Why had the six-month reinvestigation apparently centered only on the same person again, despite his acquittal?

Why had the Secretary of Justice not advised, or even instructed, the NBI to no longer look into Webb et al. because they were no longer legitimate targets of any criminal investigation for the same offense as they were now protected by the guarantee against double jeopardy?

Why was the Secretary of Justice announcing publicly what appeared to be inconclusive details and circumstances from witnesses who were, just now, being presented?

When the Secretary of Justice allows a reinvestigation of a group of persons who are, for all intents and purposes, innocent for having been acquitted, with the full knowledge that such a reinvestigation would not lead to the filing of cases anyway, the benefit of the doubt may perhaps be allowed due to misguided zeal or even misplaced sympathy.

But when the Secretary publicly announces inconclusive results with full knowledge of the injury and prejudice it will cause to the acquitted Webb (and the false hopes it will raise on the part of the bereaved Vizconde), such an act can only be described as irresponsible and perhaps even malicious.

The Secretary was expected to know fully well that the matter of Webb’s alibi was no longer an open issue as the Supreme Court had already decided on it; that she persisted on publicly “shattering” the alibi is incomprehensible.

She was expected to know that double jeopardy meant also that Webb et al. could no longer be legitimate targets of any criminal investigation.

Ironically and regrettably, the Secretary, as former Chair of the CHR, was expected to be fully aware that publicly announcing the  inconclusive results in a press con without Webb being able to confront the witnesses was a gross violation of his fundamental right to due process as well as his right to be informed that he was still a suspect.

That the Secretary focused on “shattering” the alibi of Webb clearly betrayed the nature of the reinvestigation.  It was, for all intents and purposes, a unilateral preliminary investigation where Webb was, once again, a suspect.  That is the only way to understand the pronouncement of the Secretary of Justice; any other interpretation, no matter how charitable, makes no sense.

A unilateral preliminary investigation of Webb is unprecedented as it is not allowed under the Constitution and the Rules of Court.  Webb, having been acquitted, is no longer susceptible to criminal charges for the same offense under the guarantee against double jeopardy, and that immunizes him even from a “re-investigation” where he would again be considered the primary suspect.

Further, the unilateral preliminary investigation used witnesses, never presented during the trial of this case, testifying on a 20-year old event without benefit of cross examination or even confrontation.  What is worse is that the Secretary obviously believed the witnesses, as may be seen from her declaration that the alibi has been “shattered” even as she herself admits that the testimonies are “inconclusive” because they do not place Webb at the scene of the crime.

Expectedly, the Webb family is up in arms even as Mr. Vizconde is understandably hopeful.  This, to me, is the real reason why the Secretary’s pronouncements were just so wrong.

The young Webb is entitled to pick up his life and try to regain some sense of normalcy after his acquittal.  No matter what one may think of the Supreme Court decision acquitting him, he does not deserve to be “tarred and feathered” by  innuendoes coming from no less than the Secretary of Justice on nationwide television and radio.  The acquittal restores him to full civil rights, including the right to dignity and to be left alone.

The Secretary’s pronouncement breached those rights most grievously.

The elderly Mang Lauro is entitled to hope that one day justice will be done.  That those who hurt, abused and killed his wife and two daughters will one day face trial with the spectre of conviction founded on  competent, admissible, credible and strong evidence. He does not deserve false hopes and unfounded promises of closure which is what the “inconclusive” results  of the six-month investigation unduly disclosed during the press conference created.

The least that the young Webb and the elderly Mang Lauro deserve is a clear answer from the Secretary to the question that I was asking myself on Tuesday and perhaps they themselves were asking also- why?

CATEGORY: Justice & Human Rights, Theodore Te, Voices
TAGS: , , , , ,
  1. Mr Te, as you very well know, Webb was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the murder. That doesn’t mean he is innocent. Only Hubert Webb and God knows if he really is innocent. And as long as a shadow of a doubt hangs over him, then it will be very difficult to stop people from speculating.

  2. I met her once and I was quite impressed. With what she did here, I believe she is not as smart as I thought she was. She joined the bandwagon for Hubert Webbs blood.

    I am disappointed that the former Human Rights Chairman of the CHR has forgotten something very basic.

    Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

    “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him”.

    She should really reflect and admit her mistake as what Winnie Monsod suggested in her article “Leila Goofed”.

  3. Johnny Lin says:

    This case has been sensationalized since the beginning thereby becoming a public sensation similar to OJ Simpson. Supreme court decision did not not mean it was always right; even media people wrote about their many questionable final decisions. There was an executive order to DOJ, TO REINVESTIGATE NOT TO FILE NEW CHARGES OR TO CONVICT. People were also clamoring for transparency. The investigation was completed so the result was publicly announced. What is wrong with that at all? Unfortunately, whenever there are 2 conflicting parties, there could be 1 winner or 1 loser. When officials follow a presidential order and heed the demands of the populace as their sworn duty, partisans complain when the findings contradict their postulations. Would they be as vociferous if the DOJ findings support Webb alibi? Guaranteed, they would be shouting with joy and praise De Lima. Sala sa lamig, sala sa init! Dapat ang ginawa ng Webbs nagpakumbaba at sinabi na lamang na salamat sa Maykapal at Supreme Court. Alam naman nila sagip na siya ng “double jeopardy provision” ng batas. Marami pa ang magsimpatya at maawa sa kanya. Umangal na at very cocky pa sa interview. Lumitaw ang mukha at ugali ng pagkatao. Buti nga ang ginawa ni De Lima!

  4. Johnny, I suggest you do some research about this case. DOJ never refuted a single documentary evidence proving Huberts innocence from the FBI, INS, US State Department. Konting research at basa lang pare. Peace.

  5. Johnny, “Umangal na at very cocky pa sa interview”. I am sure that if you were in Hubert’s position you will do the same thing. The guy has been wrongfully incarcerated for 15 years. He lost half of his life and this is what he is lamenting about. Nagdusa siya sa kasalaan na hindi naman niya ginawa. So kung ikaw ang nandon sa position niya, don’t you think hindi mo magagawa un? It’s so easy for you to say kasi you don’t know a thing. Gary is right. I suggest that you do your research before you comment.

  6. Bobbie, Hubert Webb was acquitted because the SC saw that the NBI produced a lying witness. Not to mention the authenticated documents from the FBI, INS, US State Department stating that HW was in the US at that time. De lima already said that Jessica Alfaro was not a witness. People continue to drag an innocent man to the ground because of emotions and laziness to read the facts which are now all readily available in the net. Even De lima is guilty of this by not knowing the case completely. She did not even read the concurring opinion of Justice Sereno and Morales Carpio. Maybe she created to much task forces on various issues? I do not know.

  7. There was a directive from De Lima to hunt for the four that were still at large who are not covered by double-jeopardy. She was trying to strengthen the case against the 4 by shattering down the “alibi” of Webb.

    The pronouncement lays the groundwork for a possibility of a massive civil suit against Webb and Company..

    The case was resolved on “reasonable doubt”, and there was no finding that on the basis of evidence, Webb and Company were totally blameless – only that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the possible civil liability of those acquitted were not totally undermined.

    De Lima’s press con, is no different from the 4 other jurists who dissented in the acquittal of Webb and Company and believed that he and his group were guilty. If those four jurists can speak up their minds on the level of guilt of Webb and Company, why would we impose a different standard on De Lima when a clear duty was imposed on her to reinvestigate the case. That she can no longer prosecute Webb and Company for reason of double jeopardy is beside the issue.

    I admire for her scruples and her guts to call a spade a spade, some quality which the members of SCORP sorely needed.

  8. I would add, Prof. Tee that De Lima was waging her cause in the media because she could not win a war in the Court if the culprits are moneyed, powerful and well entrenched; Lacson, Webb and Co., Gen. Garcia, Lucio Tan, Danding, etc.. just to name a few.

  9. I would also add the Marcoses. If you look some years back you will find that the SCORP acquitted Marcos for the murder of J. Nalundansan, saying virtually that he died choking from his tootbrush and not from bullet wounds. :)

  10. fritz webb says:

    Dear DOJ and NBI

    Please, please, please, for the love of God, do what your predecessors should have done from the start. Check with the United States officials.

    No one in his right mind would actually believe that the United States would lie for any party in the Philippines, be it the Webb’s nor the NBI.

    Their confirmation whether Hubert truly arrived in the US or not should have unequivocally proven his guilt or innocence.

    It shouldn’t take take that long to get an answer if you’re really looking for the truth.

  11. The problem with you Prof. Tee is that you believe so much in the Court. Look around you and feel that pulsating sense of rejection of the people against judicial tyranny.

  12. Douglas Chanco says:

    I tend to believe the FBI, INS, and the Attorney General of the US than our NBI/ You need not be a rocket scientist to know that our NBI has proven itself bias and unreliable not to mention C_ _ _ _ _ T.

  13. fritz webb says:

    Might I add that De Lima has put the safety of my brother at further risk with her innuendos and speculations. It’s not as if he needs more crazy people thinking he’s a murderer.

    The last time, they presented a “liar” to the public as admitted to by De Lima in her presscon. This time, they didn’t even bother to present real people. They just said they have people who are not willing to present themselves for fear of their lives. How then can we defend ourselves when we can’t even be given the simple courtesy to face our attackers?

    How are we supposed to defend ourselves from attacks received from people who are supposed to protect us?

    People keep saying that our family is super rich. That our family is super influential. Well then, if this is true, if a family like ours has had an innocent member with the best alibi in the world put in jail for fifteen years, for a crime he did not do, what chance does Juan de la Cruz have when his number is called?

  14. paolo a says:

    just a simple comment: presumed innocent unless proven guilty. and the SC has already decided, which it also upheld as final. so, unless there are hard solid evidence that HW was at the scene of the crime, e.g. hair, blood, semen sample etc., then the case can be reopened. I believe that there should be no statute of limitations for murder cases, but also believe that tangible evidence should and always would be superior in court, and that eyewitness accounts should and always would be taken with a grain of salt and handled with a very loooooong stick.

  15. Claudine says:

    those who do not know the facts are the only ones left in the dark here. If you bother to read all the evidence documents and interviews from the FBI no less, you will not even doubt for a second the innocence of Hubert Webb. Please people, I know it’s quite the thing now to keep talking about this case, but those who keep pointing the finger at Hubert are making fools of themselves. Someone mentioned that Huberts interview showed him to be arrogant? My gosh, what are you talking about? He spoke with such gentlemanly calmness. please for one second try to do an interview after 15 years of being imprisoned and see if you can even contain yourself. The Webb family has shown so much decency throughout all of this. if anything, the President himself should apologize for what damage they have done ONCE AGAIN to the Webb name.

  16. De Lima and the NBI thought they are in the entertainment business where they can use Blind items and unverified testimonies.The funny thing about it, NBI claimed that they did a lot sleuthing but i think SPECULATING is a better term!

  17. Deng Bautista says:

    Please read carefully the FULL TEXT of the Supreme Court Decision in People v. Marcos, et al.

  18. Dennis Eala says:


    On the day Hubert was convicted, Lauro Vizconde produced three large fluffy purple feathers which he claimed to have come from the heavens onto his late daughter’s bed. It was a sign from God, he said, that justice was done.

    Incredulous as it was, media reported the feather apparition as fact, and many people who were fashionably pro-Lauro Vizconde believed that divine justice had been served. After all, a miracle had confirmed it.

    The “fair” Secretary just might have been one of them.

  19. Johnny Lin says:

    I dont care at all whether Hubert is guilty or not. He won his criminal court case like OJ. Its water under the bridge. The final arbiter has spoken. People who followed the case already formed their opinions which did not really matter in law. The contention now is about De Lima press conference and NBI investigative findings. They were tasked, they delivered. One cant win them all. The frustration and anger displayed by Hubert on national tv rekindled the passion on the case by judgmental people or curiosity by the uninformed like me. Sometimes silence is a powerful ally and humility is still a virtue. Everything will pass and soon be forgotten unless another incident surfaces like what happened to OJ. Although it never fails, history repeats itself! I said it though I know I dont have a karmic tongue.

  20. Very well put Atty. Te. Very well written. I too was the one who applauded PNoy when he appointed her as doj secretary but this grandstanding that has not achieved anything broke my heart. She was one of the brightest stars of the otherwise rookie administration. Now I doubt her other findings such as the one where she recommended dismissal to LTO chief Torres. I have lost all faith and whatever trust I had with de Lima.

  21. Johnny, YOU DON’T COMPARE OJ’s case to HUBERT’s. you research some more about the two cases. Anong pagpapakumbaba ang sinasabi mo!. ako nga wala akong kinalaman sa kaso nanginiginig ako galit sa ginawa ni de lima. eh yun pang taong walang kasalanan. Ang ipinakitang emosyon ni Hubert and isang palatandaan na siya ay inosente. tama ang ginawa at reaksyon niya sa harap ng camera. kailangan niyang lumaban sa mga malalaking tao at hindi ito madadala sa mahinahon na paraan dahil tatapakan ka lang. bakit kung nagagalit ka sa harap ng tao, nakikita mo agad and tunay na pagkatao na ‘masama’?. hindi siya nagtatago sa mga ‘double jeopardy’ technicality, lumalaban pa rin sila dahil sa mga maling perception ng taong katulad mong ‘uninformed’.

  22. OJ was a guilty person found to be innoncent by the court. Hubert was an innocent person found to guilty by the court. big difference.

  23. nikki luna says:

    Thank you Atty. Ted, great piece. Hubert Webb deserves to have a peaceful life. He always did. In the first place he never should have been convicted because he is innocent. It took 15 years to fight for his freedom. The best the state can do is to leave this man alone already. The Webb family accepted all the failures of the legal system; Hubert Webb and his family should actually be provided the true justice they deserve.

  24. Very well said, Johnny Lin!

  25. Johnny,
    You are right when you said that the case had been decided with finality by the supreme court, so there was certainly no need for a reinvestigation on Hubert. It was wrong of De Lima to still include Hubert in her investigation, because like she said, it will be against the rule of double jeopardy. So what’s the point? Unless she wanted to cast more doubts against the ability of the supreme court. In every fight there’s certainly a winner and a loser, but in this case, the winner had never been Lauro or the aggravated party- it’s always been those leeching government officials. I totally disagree with you when you said Hubert should have kept mum. Hubert and his family had accepted everything that was thrown at them. You never heard them complain about anything before. But for them to be quiet now will be a very big mistake. History only repeat itself if you let it. You can not just accept that same thing will happen anyway, you have to try your best to change what is unpleasant.

  26. Manuel C. Diaz says:

    De Lima is an idiot.

  27. Manuel C. Diaz says:

    To jcc if you do not believe in the court of law go out and start shooting.The Supreme Court has rendered its decision and that is the law of the case. de Lima is a moron.

  28. i hope that there would really be a civil suit so Hubert can finally face those “witnesses” that were used to “shatter” his alibi. For right now, I believe de Lima is very wrong to announce in the presscon about her half-cooked findings. It raised more questions than when it first started. She would have “laid her groundwork” better if she had proven that Hubert’s authenticated documents from the US were fake afterall. By using unknown witnesses to destroy Hubert’s alibi is a bit fishy.

  29. Manuel C. Diaz says:

    Who determines foul and offensive language the Supreme Court?

  30. I believe that implicating the acquitted Hubert Webb et al as guilty on the minds of people is a gross violation of human rights. Besides, shouldn’t De Lima be asking the NBI, WHO REALLY KILLED THE VIZCONDES?

    De Lima failed on this one. She can’t just whip out inconclusive findings in lieu of her department’s INABILITY to produce the real culprits of the murders.

  31. Oh, I read the case of People v. Marcos including the annotation of Raymond Bonner, (Waltzing with the Dictator, ISBN 0-394-75835). He was also acquitted on reasonable doubt. Bonner wrote:

    “Marcos had a motive, one that reflected the often violent nature of Philippine politics and the ferocity of family loyalty. Nalundasan had just defeated Ferdinand’s father, Mariano, in the first national elections under the archipelago’s commonwealth status with the United States. On top of the political humiliation, on the day before the murder, Nalundasan’s followers had heaped public ridicule upon Mariano: They placed a coffin labeled “Marcos” in a rumble seat, then drove through the villages, finally arriving at the home of Mariano Marcos. While a band played mocking dirge, the victors wiping away false tears, hooted and jeered, “Marcos is dead! Long live Nalundasan. (That national assembly election was in 1935, jcc)

    The wheels of justice ground slowly, and it was not until December 7, 1938 that Marcos was arrested, seized while he was sitting in an evening law class. He was charged with having fired the fatal shot; his father and uncle were charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

    X x x

    The trial dragged on for nearly two months. X x x Marcos’s mother appeared every day, and the fresh law graduate participated in his own defense. “He deeply impressed the court whenever he took an active part in the defense of his own case”, the judge wrote in his opinion.
    The judge was also impressed by young Marcos accomplishments and potential, hailing him as one of the brilliant among our young men. In the opinion of this court, he is a youth with great future… “But the evidence was overwhelming and the judge found him guilty of murder, sentencing up to 17 years in prison. (His father and uncle were acquitted).

    X x x

    In reversing the conviction, the Supreme Court cited a number of trial court errors, but it was widely believed that the justices, in order to reach the desired outcome, had stretched to find the narrow technical grounds. What likely swayed the justices were the arguments to his brethren by Justice Jose P. Laurel that the fledgling democracy needed young people with the intelligence and leadership potential of the young Marcos had already displayed , that saddling him with criminal conviction would do more harm to the country than to the individual. Whatever reasons, legal or emotional, Marcos was forever grateful to Laurel, who wrote the high court opinion, and his family. During the war Laurel collaborated with the Japanese, and records in the U.S. archives suggest that Marcos helped him. When Laurel died, in 1959, Marcos delivered a eulogy and he later became a trustee of the Jose P. Laurel Foundation, set up to perpetuate the memory of Laurel, “in grateful recognition of his patriotic endeavors… “ Later when Marcos declared martial law, he used his dictatorial powers to destroy many of the country’s economically and politically potent families. One of the few families left untouched was the Laurels, allowed to keep their extensive landhloldings, a bank and a beach resort.”

    (Waltzing with A Dictator, pp. 12-13).

  32. manuel,

    a court decision, just like the decision of the executive or congress are not immune from analysis (attack) from those who do not agree with it. that is the essence of democracy.

  33. you see the potentous evil when a court fred a convict who should have otherwise stayed in jail which enable him to become president later, declared martial law in 1972, clamped down the press, threw his political opponents in jail, salvaged others, stripped his rivals with their money and resources and put up his own cronies. if you see nothing wrong in that, then we deserve the kind of system we have.

  34. Johnny Lin says:

    Oh yeah!! How do you know OJ was guilty? Or was it your conclusion based on watching tv? How do you know Hubert was innocent? From watching tv and reading too or a witness in court with supporting documented evidences? Did you give a sworn testimony in court? What information did you present in court to declare the innocence of Hubert? If its only your opinion, God Bless you for your intelligent assessment. OJ and Hubert trials were public sensation. Both OJ and Hubert were accused in court of heinous crimes, kept in jail until they were both acquitted. Those are absolute facts and truth not based on personal conclusion from watching tv or reading the news or evidences presented by both parties. No more, no less!

  35. Johnny Lin says:

    Hubert knew his every move and action would be scrutinized by the opinionated public. Thats the disadvantage of being a celebrity family. When in public eye, the safest approach is being calm. Rage in public view does not bode well meaning habit. Winagayway pa ang daliri parang nanunumbat sa publico. OJ exhibited uncontrolled rage, he ended up in jail. As I said, the case is water under the bridge, no need to research, waste of time, besides I was never concerned. My personal opinion would not carry any meaning in court of law anyway. The same attitude I treated OJ case. If I were a PR member of Webb I would suggest a course on anger management control. Hubert will always be under constant scrutiny and trials publicly. If he wants to have peace try starting at home, self control.

  36. Johnny Lin says:

    Reinvestigation was an executive order to DOJ by PNoy. De Lima and NBI, being under DOJ, were following orders.

  37. michelle says:

    oh my goodness. your opinion on hubert’s actions doesn’t even count. yes, you yourself said, it’s not your concern and you don’t care as to his guilt or innocence. move along now then. huwag na makisawsaw. may suggestion ka pa sa PR. patawa!

  38. naturalbornkiller says:

    The DOJ also has the duty to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court. How can de Lima say that they shattered the alibi of Hubert Webb? Reinvestigation made by DOJ is merely to determine probable cause (or probability that a person committed a crime) while the degree of evidence required for the Court to convict an accused is proof beyond reasonable doubt. How can delai lima can, with straight face, concluded that she just shattered the alibi of webb when her witness to whom she derived her information was not even cross examined? Why do you have to conduct a press conference when the only thing you determined is a “probable cause” that hubert lied and the Supreme Court was duped? pathetic, only in the Philippines

  39. Rvl Gimenez says:

    The conspiracy theorist in me says De Lima was forced into the most stupid act she may have done in her lifetime. She had a chance to resign and preserve her integrity following the Luneta massacre. She passed up on it. She’s paying her dues now.

    She should write a “tell-all” book. IF she gets around to it… I’ll buy.

  40. dan ferrer says:

    I admire Sec. de Lima for her guts and courage to speak out and announce the findings of the task group that conducted the re-investigation. And im glad that she has been appointed the justice secretary and not atty. Ty. For if it were atty. Ty, would he rather withhold the findings and conceal the truth because it`s contrary to what the supreme court said? Where is fairness there? Is it not that the role of the DOJ is to do justice to everyone?

  41. Rvl Gimenez says:

    Im bothered by how Jessica Alfaro seems to have gone scott-free. If the highest court of the land does not believe her testimony and, for all intents and purposes, determined her as having lied, what should come next?

  42. i mean, court decision is not immmune.. (mea culpa).

  43. Johnny Lin says:

    Kulas,”nanginig ka sa galit sa ginawa ni DeLima at wala kang kinalalaman sa kaso.” Naalala ko tuloy nung bata ako nanood ako ng sine sa Escolta. Paglabas ng sine mayrun mama nagsisigaw, nanginginig at nangangatog sa galit dahil papatayin daw niya ang unang mukhang hapon na dadaan sa kalye. bakit daw mga hapon pinahirapan sa kulungan at di man lang pinainom ng tubig si Fernando Poe Jr. Dumating ang Pulis at inutos na hulihin siya. May nagmagandang loob at nagtanong bakit namam hulihin wala pa naman ginawang masama. Sabi ng Pulis, dalawang araw na namin hinahanap yan kilala namin siya. ibabalik lang namin sa Mandaluyong si Erap, kaibigan daw siya ni FPJ.

  44. Johnny Lin says:

    Pinaguusapan conference call ni De Lima at epekto kay Hubert. Hindi kung guilty o innocent pa rin si Hubert. Tapos na yun. Pinipilit akong alamin ang kaso dahil misinformed daw. Tapos na yun din. sisihin ninyo si Hubert humarap sa media at nagpainterview. Tuloy bumalik sa kaisipan ng tao ang mga opinyun sa kanya. Basahin mo ang kwento kay FPJ. He he he!P

  45. @michelle,

    This is a free country, (or is it?). Every one is entitled to his own opinion. Johnny was right. What you see as fact could be seen by others as fiction. No one has a monopoly of the truth or either of fiction. We see situations from different prisms. Our opinions remain opinions – court opinions however, are implemented which lend them a semblance of truth – but those opinions are not necessarily truthful.

    Civilization is a catalogue of human missteps and evil. You see Rizal, Fathers Gomez, Burgos and Zamora, and even Andres Bonifacio adjudged as traitors, Ninoy Aquino a convicted murderer. Lucio Tan not guilty of massive tax evasion, Danding personally owns his coco funds; Marcos not guilty of the murder of Nalundasan; Corona’s appointment as CJ was constitutional; the Salem citizens as witches and should be burned at stakes plus other minor characters that were finally set free because they were not guilty as charged. (Or even this poor me, an extortionist. :) )

    Institutions manned by mortals are bound to fail. In the case of Webb and Co., there is a lingering issue of whether it is the lower institution manned by Judge Tolentino that failed or is it the SCORP. This will continue to be debated upon.

    I have no beef with Webb and Co. If you read my article on them, (We Never Ask The Right Questions on Vizconde Massacre), I have been exceptionally fair to them. I have looked at the situation under the wise counsel of that famous U.S. President and lawyer, John Adams who said in 1770 after defending some British soldiers for the murders of Americans that it is better to set loose 10 people who are guilty than convict an innocent soul.

    What ticks me off is this article by Atty. Tee which attacked Sec. De Lima with the subliminal intent of fawning at the SCORP, and who knows, in order to gain good graces from the Court and hopefully secure a place in it in the future.

    Court decisions, as I have said, like decisions of the Executive, or of Congress on policy matters should not only be defended in the four walls of their offices. They should be defended too in the halls of public opinion. Otherwise, these political barons laboring on their “divine right to rule” and their judicial courtiers shall continue to treat the people as their docile wards worthy of their chains.

  46. Bobbie, read the Supreme Court decision carefully and in its entirety. The Supreme Court not only declared the prosecution to have failed to discharge its bounden duty to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also found Hubert Webb innocent.

  47. sumalangit nawa ang kanyang kaluluwa…

  48. How about you? how do you come up with your intelligent opinions? If you don’t watch tv and don’t read news or documents? where do you get information to form your own conclusion? maybe from a psychic? You don’t need to be a witness to know about Hubert’s case or any other case. I concluded that Hubert was innocent because of those documents from the US gov’t which I think incorruptible, from the testimonies of reputable individuals, from concurring opinions of justices, the incredibility of alfaro, etc.

    You are questioning me how I concluded OJ was guilty? If I am not mistaken, based from your previous post about karma, you also concluded that OJ was guilty. How you ended-up with your conclusion is irrelevant. Why I am saying that the two cases are complete opposite and the individuals involved can’t be compared? On OJ’s first criminal case he was found ‘not guilty’, while Hubert’s first case on the lower court and court of appeals, he was tagged as ‘guilty’. The next case of OJ was a civil case, wherein he was handed a ‘guilty’ verdict, while Hubert was ‘not guilty’ in the supreme court. (OJ is now serving prison time from a different crime). OJ and HW wind-up in an opposite end of the law, OJ in prison and broke, HW in a free world and about to be awarded money for unlawful conviction. In the end justice is served. Karma at work… as you said.

  49. Johnny Lin says:

    Kulas, show me my posting where I said OJ was guilty of murder of his wife. Read my first posting on this article. De Lima shattered the alibi so Webb complained, what would he do if De Lima supported his alibi. thats my experience. I used to see many informations all over the world not in the news. We looked at both sides, no conclusion. I read news and watch tv and movies for amusement and information not to be involved emotionally. Kagaya nito amused ako sa mga passionate people kaya sinasagot ko dahil nakakalipas ng oras.. Hindi ako nangingiig sa galit, dahil may pagka luko luko lamang ang ganun klase na meron physical expresion. Feelings na maawa o matuwa ok lang.
    Nanginginig sa galit, merun nang mental yun kagaya nung nanood ng sine.

  50. Johnny Lin says:

    Amusing, isnt it? Great pastime! Mental exercise, deterrent to Alzheimer.

  51. Marilou says:

    I am no student of law but my reaction to all these? 1.) De Lima was just doing her job 2.) Mang Lauro, who lost all his reasons to live, needs closure.and 3.) who cares about the acquittal of the SC? Only the legal eagles do because in this country, what matters is what media cares to discuss in, say, a week or two, before moving on to the next issue that would ensure some audience share.

    One question was at least answered in the latest press con: that Hubert was actually here and not elsewhere when the crime took place. Sorry na lang sa mga Webb at yung acquittal didn’t prove to be a signal for a chance to move forward. Si Mang Lauro nga wala nang imomove forward. Blame lousy investigation and the corrupt justice system for cases unresolved.

    Dapat di na lang nagastig-astigan ang mga Webb sa TV. Tumahimik na lang kayo, makakalimutan din ito ng media at ng tao tutal wala na namang magagawa. Ke guilty or not, acquitted na nga e.

  52. Johnny Lin says:

    Marilu ako na ang magtapos: Amen, Amen, Amen!!!

  53. johnny, hehehehe.. down below is our friend, rvl… he was on the other side of the fence. :)

  54. Kawawa naman ang Pilipinas kapag ganito and pag-iisip. : (

  55. walang masama sa ginawa ni leila de lima..lalo pa nga niya pinatahimik ang bayan..dahil alam natin ang kaso na ito naging marumi sa mata ng bayan.dahil nasangkot pati mismo ang SC sa credibilidad.lalo na panahon ni gloria pa..kaya si leila de lima nakatulong pa sa taong bayan na makamanahimik at tuluyan maisara..hindi kelangan gawin para lang makasampa uli ng kaso..ngunit para sa buong mamamayan na malaman ang totoo.dahil nga nadungusan credebilidad ng lahat ng sangay humawak ng kaso…tungkulin ng DOJ buksan sa mamamayan ang mga iba pang ebidensiya na makikita nila at bayan na ang bahala humusga..

  56. Johnny Lin says:

    Jcc, rvl
    Great we express opposite opinions. Democracy and individual rights at work! God Bless guys.

  57. Johnny Lin says:

    Kawawa talaga ang Pilipinas kapag ganito kaisipan ng tao:
    Nag-announce ang PCSO na si Kulas ang tumama sa jackpot na 100 million pesos. Pagkatapos nag-announce din ang PCSO na pagkatapos ng tiket sales audit, napagalaman na napakaraming bumili ng tiket at sobra sobra ang kinita. Nagreklamo si Kulas dahil dapat may porsyento pa raw siya sa sobrang kinita dahil yung premyo base lamang sa average na kita. Tapos na; Tumama na nga, declared ng nanalo, umangal pa sa nadiskubre ng PCSO. Nagpasalamat na lamang dapat sa grasyang natanggap.

  58. ‘I dont care at all whether Hubert is guilty or not. He won his criminal court case like OJ.’

    ‘Everything will pass and so on be forgotten unless another incident surfaces like what happened to OJ. Although it never fails, history repeats itself! I said it though I know I dont have a karmic tongue’

  59. ‘Dapat ang ginawa ng Webbs nagpakumbaba at sinabi na lamang na salamat sa Maykapal at Supreme Court. Alam naman nila sagip na siya ng “double jeopardy provision” ng batas. Marami pa ang magsimpatya at maawa sa kanya. Umangal na at very cocky pa sa interview. Lumitaw ang mukha at ugali ng pagkatao. Buti nga ang ginawa ni De Lima!’

    ‘I read news and watch tv and movies for amusement and information not to be involved emotionally.’

    It’s so funny… you’re writng contradicting statements….

  60. Johnny Lin says:

    He he he nanginginig sa galit baka mapaihi sa galit

The Presidency
The Legislature
The Judiciary
Glenda M. Gloria
Marites Dañguilan-Vitug
Chay Florentino-Hofileña Gemma Bagayaua-Mendoza
Lala Rimando
Marianne Hontiveros
Miss Go
Roel Landingin
Aries Rufo
Copyright © 2010 Public Trust Media Group, Inc.
Disclaimer | Site Rules