SC Decision on the Vizconde-Webb Case

I agree with the Supreme Court's decision. The lower court made several errors in this case and actually I've been carefully watching over this case even in the newspaper and tv. Hubert has been denied proper justice and he was not afforded his right of day in court. I think the lower court judge was impartial and too emotional that she didn't even try to consider other testimonies in favor of WEbb. I hope Webb will be set free since the lower court violated the fundamental law of the land.

It's just sad that people who are high and mighty would get this kind of treatment from our society wherein the lower people gets prejudged right away. How would you feel if you were born from the slums of manila and then you were wrongfully accused of lets say theft. Would you get these kinds of treatment? I dont think so..

Justice delayed is justice denied. The excuse of the high court that they need more time to study this case is just lame - they've had a lot of time to contemplate on the issues of this case. Unfortunately for Lauro Vizconde, Justice Carpio was one of the witnesses who testified in behalf of Hubert when it was still on trial. Even though he has recused himself from the case, his reputation is also on the line here. If the SC affirms the decision, it would be like saying that Carpio, the FBI, DFA and even Gary Valenciano lied on the stand. If they acquit Hubert, I am sure there would be a public outcry, and heads will certainly roll. The Supreme Court, as the last bastion of democracy, cannot be seen to hesitate in deciding cases. It is suppose to be blind to public opinion, and yet, in this case, it is treading lightly as if trying to see where the SC reputation would be least damaged.

I agree with SC. Not that I'm defending Webb here, but seriously, we're just letting our gut feeling decide for us. We still are not sure who did it. Though we all feel strongly that Webb did it. We have to let the process push through. By deferring the appeal, Webb wasn't condemned, and the Vizonde's weren't either. It's just that the SC believes that there could be more evidences that could close this case. We all want the case to be closed, but this isn't a CSI show where the stars can pinpoint the criminal in an hour or two. This isn't a show wherein the justices can rush to decisions dictated by the script writer. This is a real case, with a real cold blooded murderer involved. Rushing things wouldn't help at all

I'm confused about this DNA issue with the Vizconde case. One of the alibi before of hubert that he is in the US during is strong enough evidence to not put him in the scene of the crime if its true. The court didn't find it credible and maybe found information that he really is in the country. Now this DNA specimen for some reason magically disappeared after they asked for it to be tested. Is DNA testing not available during the trial and they have to wait this long asking for it? I doubt if the court will give them a hard time with the test since DNA is a very viable evidence that doesnt lie. Are the Webb's trying to put reasonable doubt on the case thats why they ask for the testing even though they know the evidence is no longer there? They should have asked for it 10 years ago. There are witnesses and if the court believed them I would DNA or no DNA.

Yes I agree with you but my concern is might be even the decision will defer will end up of nothing because those acused are very powerful.. And besides due to lost of evidence I think they must known first whose mistakes of being lost such evidence people or concern will think may be intentional to lost or that is old tactics... see you around

Let there be no special treatment and fair justice to be served.