The grammar-conscious Supreme Court justices must have suffered nausea and severe headache after reading this single-paragraph lamentation, err.. decision from a lower court judge. The case (People vs. Edison Mira, October 10, 2007) was about a rape committed by a father against his own daughter. Read on:
“AAA and her sister could not testify and narrate the said heinous crime against their father if this is not true x x x and this Court is indeed convince that the child would not put up this testimonies if it were not true. What makes these bastardous act more appalling is the fact that this rape is being committed in front and at the very eyes of her other children. Indeed, the bestial act committed by the father against his own flesh and blood deserves the highest penalty which this Court could impose. Now could the father commit this grievous crime against his own daughter when it should be the former who should protect and care for the latter is a question as perplexing and enigmatic as todays’ time. Everyday, it is judicial knowledge how common this type of canards are being committed by the parents against their [helpless] children. The very least that this Court could do is to minimize, if not to eliminate this heinous crime is by way of showing an example by meting out the supreme penalty to the perpetrator of this crime so as to deter others from committing this kind of mayhem, specially so when this Court is convinced beyond any doubt as to the complicity of the accused. Indeed, what a horrendous [world this would] be if the child could no longer trust their parents because of their bestial deeds. When the two daughters, [AAA] and [BBB] were asked whether or not they still love their father, the duo immediately without an iota of hesitation, responded in the negative. When asked why, they answered that they don’t love their father [any] longer because of the rape; the sexual molestation committed by Edison. Truly, no daughter in her right mind could continue to love their father if the latter continuously commits this kind of malfeasance.”
“AAA and her sister could not testify and narrate the said heinous crime against their father if this is not true x x x and this Court is indeed convince that the child would not put up this testimonies if it were not true. What makes these bastardous act more appalling is the fact that this rape is being committed in front and at the very eyes of her other children. Indeed, the bestial act committed by the father against his own flesh and blood deserves the highest penalty which this Court could impose. Now could the father commit this grievous crime against his own daughter when it should be the former who should protect and care for the latter is a question as perplexing and enigmatic as todays’ time. Everyday, it is judicial knowledge how common this type of canards are being committed by the parents against their [helpless] children. The very least that this Court could do is to minimize, if not to eliminate this heinous crime is by way of showing an example by meting out the supreme penalty to the perpetrator of this crime so as to deter others from committing this kind of mayhem, specially so when this Court is convinced beyond any doubt as to the complicity of the accused. Indeed, what a horrendous [world this would] be if the child could no longer trust their parents because of their bestial deeds. When the two daughters, [AAA] and [BBB] were asked whether or not they still love their father, the duo immediately without an iota of hesitation, responded in the negative. When asked why, they answered that they don’t love their father [any] longer because of the rape; the sexual molestation committed by Edison. Truly, no daughter in her right mind could continue to love their father if the latter continuously commits this kind of malfeasance.”
Paging Mr. Gibbs Cadiz! :-)
13 comments:
at sino ang nagsulat nito? bagsak sya sa writing class ko. hehehe
Judge siya, Mandy. Judge! Baka ma contempt ka. hehe
so you really hate me, huh, enough to give me this heinous aggravation? haha. :)
ganito ba talaga pag lawyer/judge ka? too many flowery words, indeed.
=)
Idol Gibbs: Can you please send me an edited version? :-)
Carlotta: He he. That's one thing one should learn when going to law school - control. Bawal i flaunt ang literary flair (i'm not saying this particular case has it). Legal writing must be direct and simple. Lumang style na yung legal gobbledygook. :-)
How did this judge pass law school?
ang sakit sa ilong! hehe
hehehe... naremember ko nung college days namin na required kami manood at mag observe ng court hearings... natawa nmn ako sa interpreter... kase sinulat nya na "the suspect knocked down the wall" para sa interpretasyon ng mga salitang "kumatok ang me sala sa dingding"... ang layo dba... tawa kami ng tawa... pinalabas tuloy kami ng judge... then nung nasa labas na kami ng court room naiiyak kami sa tawa then me lumapit sa amin at sinabihan kami na "nanalo kayo sa kaso? buti pa kayo"... lalo tuloy kami napatawa hehehe... weird tlaga...
Anonymous: Meron din namang recitation sa law school. Bka magaling siyang magsalita. he he.
Amicus: Dumugo ba ilong mo? :-)
Hxero: Ansaya naman ng court room experience mo. Buti di kayo pinakulong ng judge sa sobrang saya nyo. :-)
bat may mga ganung factor?
I bet the judge had a thesaurus handy while writing this. Malfeasance, ha?
sabi ni anabel rama, mas mabilis at mabisa ang advil! advil nga please!
[ingat! *saludo*]
argh. migraine + nosebleed attack!
hinanap ko ung Decision ng Supreme Court. grabe puro "[sic]" ung paragraph na un. buti na lang "AFFIRMED" pa rin ung decision ng CA at naparusahan ang maysala.
"as perplexing and enigmatic as todays’ time" --> pa-impress pa yung judge sa mga highfalutin words eh glaring ung mga grammar errors niya. i can only imagine the Justices shaking their heads in disbelief.
Post a Comment