THE UNGUARDED COMMENT BECAME A DELIBERATE CONFESSION

The TV stations don’t report the truth; they report what they’re told. They seem to be in paranoia about PDU30 as they have shown all the time to be too ready to broadcast anything that could be the mosaic tool to destroy the President. 

The Emblematic of hatred, self-righteousness, and mendacity of those who dance to the music of the Yellows are at it again. They don’t seem to learn their lesson as they incessantly continued in their attempt of cunning and deception to gain an advantage over the president. Sadly, their efforts have always ended up in futility and in vain. It only exhibited their absurdity if not lack of judiciousness as they couldn’t seem to seal their lips. A hard lesson in life is that whoever wishes ill-will to others will always trip off in the process. How foolish humans are, hopelessly beckoned into destruction like a firefly being seduced by the burning light of fire. 

According to Senator Trillanes and his ever subservient orchestra, Duterte was caught unguarded when he blurted the statement: Did I steal a single peso? Did I prosecute somebody whom I jailed? My only sin is extrajudicial killing. The unguarded utterances became a deliberate confession. Innocent acts became sinister schemes. Innocent words became coolly calculated commands. Resultantly, PDU3O found himself facing the prejudice of an aroused groups, who, obviously were swayed by the tide of human indignation, rode on the occasion because they have an ax to grind against him. Admittedly, these are the more dangerous adversaries because they are the unreasoning accusers, feeding on their revulsion and resentment for PDU30 who they had already condemned.

In PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Alex Aleman, et al, G.R. No. 185710, January 19, 2010, Confession to be admissible must consist all the following essential requisites, to wit; a) it must be voluntary; b) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel; c) must be express which means the confession has details that only the person who committed the crime could have possibly known; and d) must be in writing. 

Clearly, not even one of the 4 requisites is present in the alleged confession. The accusation such as this, and the fractured syntax by which they are tendered, should really have no place in a judicial record. They cannot persuade; they do but irritate. What is worse, they produce much waste of valuable time. They belong to the realm of fantasy than the narration of the truth. 

This storyline upon which the President is being charged with the admission of guilt for EJK is redolent of badly written scripts from third-rate local movie fare, and while it might by some imaginative stretch be deemed "entertaining", it cannot stand in the court of law.