by Myrish T. Cadapan-Antonio
Sometime in March 2011, I received an invitation from the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France to attend a summer session in International and Comparative Human Rights Law in July. I first pondered on the thought of being away from work and family for 4 weeks. My husband, however, prodded me to submit my resume for consideration. If I get accepted, maybe it is for me.
(by Atty. Marcelino C. Maxino)
Recently, in my class on contemporary issues at the College of Law of Silliman University, we critiqued the Supreme Court decision in People v. Webb (Vizconde case). A student asked me if any motion for reconsideration following the judgment of acquittal might not constitute double jeopardy from which the accused is constitutionally protected.
(by Atty. Marcelino C. Maxino)
As an appellate court opinion, the Webb opinion disserved jurisprudence.
In reversing the judgment of conviction of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court, the Supreme Court did what appellate courts are not supposed to do: it reweighed the evidence on a factual issue. In so doing, the Supreme Court usurped the function of the trier of fact, determining, but without the benefit of face-to-face observation, who was the credible witness and who was not.
A vision with action can truly make a difference.
The very reason why I entered law school was because my parents wanted me to. Having a very supportive family, both financially and emotionally, I followed their plans without hesitation. Although studying law is not really easy, the thought of my parents’ hard work inspired me to strive hard in my studies.
However, things change with time.
