No, I have no doubt that a sentence with a single subject has only one doer.

In that case, one can raise more reasonable doubts.

ika nga “if the glove does not fit, one must acquit”.

I looked at the CA decision, and after the “After all the above-mentioned facts…” (lower portion of page 66, right?) saw a liberal use of the word “we” to refer, of course, to the CA Justices which gives no fill-in-the-blank vagueness.

Who said that Suzette passed out?

Remember that a Blood Alcohol Content or BAC was NOT done on Suzette to see the amount of alcohol in her blood.

The level of her intoxication was based on what Suzette and her so-called witnesses said.

that judges write a THEORY to justify their findings of acquit or not. they acquit or not based on an standard of evidence, which in turn based on the presumption of innocence. bottom line: that evidence had better be good, airtight, cover all complaints, before the court convicts.

as i said to Abe, we can disagree about the evidence standard as regards rape. it may be too high a standard, but i don't have an opinion yet either way…

and then the judges write down the theory. the problem with pundits and the media, is that they FOCUS on the THEORY.

But thats putting the cart before the horse!

the only reason they wrote those things, is coz of their appreciation of the evidence based on the standard of presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt.

Then passed out from the booze – before/during/or after the act.

Is that not enough for reasonable doubt?

" “ All these taken into account, the court is morally convinced that accused Corporal Daniel Smith committed the crime charged. He admitted…."

so i agree, we should understand how these decisions are written. decisions are funny and strange documents. here is the structure:

the judge looks at the evidence. this is the "All these taken into account", and in the inq.net article, this is the bullet point list of stuff…

the link is here: http://opinion.inquirer.net/viewpoints/columns/vi...

next, the judge says: according to the standard of evidence i must follow, to "All these" lead to " …the court is morally convinced that accused Corporal Daniel Smith committed the crime charged."? the answer was yes.

the next sentence is interesting…

not only do courts answer the "is this evidence enough to establish doubt", but they ALSO come up with an alternate story, a theory if you will, of what really happened…

this part is confusing, and i wish they wouldnt do it. but fact is, this is how decisions are written.

so WHAT is pozon's theory: Daniel was wrong (lying), he knew she was unconsious, admitted to it, etc… this is the "HE ADMITTED" part

what is KEY is this is pozon's THEORY of what happened, based on his finding that the "ALL THESE" evidence was enough…

this is EXACTLY what happened with the CA as well. SAME STRUCTURE: they look at the evidence. they say, "ALL THESE" facts are not enough to convict, and THEN tell people about a THEORY of what happened.

this theory is what Abe is writing about in this post — let me summarize: that it was a romantic engagement gone wrong, she felt wronged after the quickie sex, etc etc….

the stuff that Abe was writing about is NOT EVIDENCE. it is the judges' appreciation of that evidence, which reflects the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE assumption.

i commented to Abe exactly that earlier on this post. my understanding of his response is that he basically only said that he disagreed with the CA justices THEORY on what happened…

We are not defenders of Daniel.

We are defenders of TRUE justice based on FACTS and evidence.

Again… Daniel said that he knew Suzette was intoxicated. Daniel did NOT say that Suzette was unconscious.

When Daniel said that Suzette was intoxicated, Judge Pozon then rendered his verdict on Smith that since Suzette was intoxicated, therefore, she was unconscious to give consent to sex.

See the difference?

Suzette and Smith were BOTH used by Gabriela, Pozon, Ursua, Madrigal, Legarda, Hontiveros, etc., for their OWN political and career aspirations.

Judge Pozon let those users PRESSURED him to convict Smith eventhough all the FACTS presented pointed to consensual sex.

Judge Pozon should just QUIT being a Judge because he MUST based his verdicts and convictions on LAW AND FACTS and not based on EMOTION.