will rise again from the ashes
Joined May 2010
- Tweets40.4K
- Following4.1K
- Followers4.1K
- Likes59.9K
π¦βπ₯ retweeted
hanggang ngayon natatakot pa rin ako dito, tipong ayaw kong tignan yung screen kasi sobrang creepy nung mata nung lola π
#KMJSGabiNgLagimXIV
sino dito laging nag aabang sa gabi ng lagim tuwing Halloween season? Anong paborito niyong episode?
#KMJSGabiNgLagimXIV
π¦βπ₯ retweeted
Realizations After Hearing the Prosecution Witnesses:
1. There are competent and principled government employees who serve with integrity and are worthy of the taxes we pay. They remind us that public service can still be honorable.
2. The CPAs who testified demonstrated fidelity to their professional oaths. Independence, objectivity, and integrity are not merely professional ideals. They are responsibilities that must be upheld, especially when the truth matters most.
3. Atty. Alex Cabrera, in my assessment, sufficiently established the connection among the subpoenaed documents. Each document may tell only part of the story, but examining them together provides a clearer picture.
4. The prosecution has made its case. It has presented evidence that deserves serious consideration and scrutiny. Whether that evidence ultimately establishes the charges is for the impeachment court to determine.
5. The respondent has something to explain. This is not a declaration of guilt, nor does it shift the burden of proof. But the evidence presented raises questions that deserve substantive answers.
6. The Filipino people deserve the truth and closure. Not speculation. Not political theatrics. Not convenient narratives. Just the truth, established through evidence and due process.
The prosecution has the burden to prove. The respondent has the right to be heard. And the Filipino people have every reason to demand truth and accountability.
Ultimately, this is bigger than the prosecution, the respondent, or any political personality.
It is about preserving public trust in our institutions and reminding everyone that public office is a public trust.
π¦βπ₯ retweeted
For someone who has been following the Bar Exam for the past five years, I can honestly say that this is a tough one.
Hugs to everyoneβwith consent! π«β€οΈ
π¦βπ₯ retweeted
Cases specifically mentioned in the syllabus for tomorrow's exam:
CRIM LAW:
1. People v. Morales (2022) on the non-application of Art. 48 of the RPC to quasi-delict.
REMEDIAL LAW:
1. Guerrero Estate Development Corporation v. Leviste & Guerrero Realty Corporation. Tackles provisional deposit.
2. Republic v. Pasig Rizal (already asked during Poli exam)
3. Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. Villarin. Tackles preliminary attachment.
π¦βπ₯ retweeted
Lord, maraming salamat sa pagsubok, pagod, pagkakataon, at sa Iyong patuloy na paggabay.
Last day na po bukas; bigyan Mo ako ng malinaw na pag-iisip, kalmadong puso, at lakas. Sa mga tanong na di ko alam kung paano sagutin, katagpuin Mo po ako. Ikaw na po ang bahala. Amen. ππ₯Ή
π¦βπ₯ retweeted
Atty. Loanzon: "Pakiramdam ko, sureball 'to, itatanong sainyo"
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARON AKIL y GUAMALON, G.R. No. 265570, 07 April 2025, THIRD DIVISION, Gaerlan, J
Custodial Rights of a Suspect β Out-of-Court Identification
On August 22, 2017, the motorcycle of JR Belardo was stolen near the Tupi Municipal Gym.
On September 9, 2017, police arrested Aron Akil for stealing a different motorcycle in the same municipality. The following day, police invited Belardo to the station for a "show-up," where he viewed Akil alone in a detention cell. Belardo identified Akil as the thief based on his height and the fact that police had recovered a red cap, yellow shirt, and other items matching the CCTV footage from Akilβs possession.
The Supreme Court granted the appeal and ACQUITTED Aron Akil. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove Akil's guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the identification was unreliable and the confession was obtained in violation of constitutional rights.
In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz:
(1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime;
(2) the witness' degree of attention at that time;
(3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness;
(4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification;
(5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and,
(6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
Here, Akil was presented to the victim of the carnapping incident after a lapse of 18 days and he was the only suspect presented.