bail out
By gelay07
@gelay07 (588)
Philippines
July 29, 2012 12:21am CST
As we all know GMA was released from VMMC because she paid 1million pesos as bail out for her one of her cases. although the case in non bailable but due to weak evidence, she was granted release. shoot. i just hope the lawyers will learn from this. if they really want to put gma in jail, they should gather hard evidence before they decide to file a case. GMA's freedom is only temporary for she still has other cases pending in court.
4 responses
@beamer88 (4259)
• Philippines
29 Jul 12
I'm not a lawyer, so forgive my confusion regarding this :) If the evidence was weak, GMA should have been released and the case file against her thrown out. But since initially it was found that there was indeed sufficient evidence to proceed with the case, and being that the crime purportedly committed is without bail, I think she should not have been granted this temporary release. I mean, isn't it somewhat of a simple thing. It's either the evidence is insufficient and the case is immediately dismissed. There was no need to post bail. Posting bail I think means that the courts still find that there is some merit to a case to proceed with a trial. Oh, well, lawyers really have a knack for complicating things 
@jeanneyvonne (5501)
• Philippines
29 Jul 12
I am also not a lawyer but here’s my reading of the case.
If I remember correctly, there should be sufficient evidence to forward a case but it is the fiscal officer who determines that. At the time of the filing of the case, the prosecution might have sufficient evidence to file it but as the case goes and being heard, witnesses (who are the main resources) can back out or retract their testimonies. They might be away when the court wants to hear what they got to say or they can retract their testimonies in the court itself. Or it might have been a rush job since this is a high profile case. Some people just don’t want to look incompetent but their body of work is. A good lawyer should know or have a back-up plan for this purpose. If they rushed the cases, loopholes are going to show.
These scenarios are just possibilities but they happen all the time in courts (as far as I know).
@gelay07 (588)
• Philippines
29 Jul 12
I'm not a lawyer either. There must be a legit reason for filing a case but what made it wrong is probably the presentation of evidence. The spokesperson of the court said the decision was based on what the witness from maguindanao said that he would testify if his case will be removed, something like that. :)
@beamer88 (4259)
• Philippines
29 Jul 12
I have to confess that I haven't actually been following GMA's case lately. Oh, well, I think I need to be updated about this. It might be because I'm not that optimistic that the case against her would result in a conviction as a lot of people are hoping :)
@venessapaula (168)
• Philippines
30 Jul 12
I think something is really very wrong with the prosecution. All cases against GMA has been rushed, just to get into the good graces of the current administration. What they should do and have done is prepare the case, gather solid proof, evidences, and nail GMA, so she won't have any way out, even with those brilliant legal luminaries working for her. She has other cases though. that may be what would put her into permanent exile at VMMC(?).
@gelay07 (588)
• Philippines
31 Jul 12
I just hope these lawyers will learn from this case and strengthen the other cases to finally pin down GMA. look how greedy she is, shes the congresswoman of pampanga just so she can have the support of that community but theyre just minority so what the heck.
@jeanneyvonne (5501)
• Philippines
29 Jul 12
The incident just speaks for the quality of prosecution that we have here in the country. It would have been nice if they do their homework and not resort to underhanded tactics. What’s the point of filing cases without good and solid proof or intention to make the accused pay? Absolutely nothing. Just a waste of time and money. What a disappointment.
@asiacevillar (643)
• Philippines
4 Aug 12
That's another case done in a haste. Impetuously done.
But seeing GMA being released because of insubstantial evidence is just one good example in reality because it signifies that our justice system is indeed working. That's according to Senator Chiz Escudero. But I really wonder if it really worked on our lower courts, where there belongs the poor who seeks justice for so long time ago. I just hope that there's an impartiality given to everyone with all equality. It seems that they're (the courts or the Judiciary, in general) giving the high-profile people the unfair priority bearing in mind that there are thousands of cases which should be given due priority instead of them.
