VOTE SONIA ROCO FOR SENATOR

I have seen the campaign ad of sonia roco last night, big thing? Yeah it was. I have grown apathetic over her cause after learning that she is running under the genuine opposition. I would have preferred to see her running independently, but the obvious is indeed undeniable – our party is too small to stage a successful, well ran, national elections. My professor in legal writing last semester said that before the independent, highly respected, supreme court justices reach their present stature, they have to, at least once in their career, rub elbows with the right set of people to get nominated and appointed. Nothing wrong to see it narrowly because it is their performances in the judiciary that counts and not on the way they got there. But seeing it in a different perspective, I cannot doubt anymore that it is not power that corrupts people, but rather the system. Same thing goes in this election, if there is one person who shares the same perspective in life as that of raul roco’s that would be maam sonia. I would like to even believe that living together that long they both got to learn and embrace each other’s political point of views, and I believe that maam sonia carries with her the principles of aksyon demokratiko – women and children getting first priority in national resources, equal distribution of national wealth, free education, utilization of natural resource for sustainable development, honest and dignified government, youth empowerment for realistic standards of reform. But I guess one vital principle has to be set aside for the mean time, politics of non-compromise. I could not blame maam sonia for opting to run under the party ran by the exact person rsr fought in EDSA DOS, we learned to accept that our present system is not susceptible to an ideal campaign that we have ran last 2004 presidential elections. And I realized that broken promises from losing candidates are as worse as broken promises of winning candidates. It is reality that I have learned to embrace; learn to dance the music, only, dance it differently from the others. VOTE SONIA M. ROCO FOR SENATOR

legal philosophy

Ray John Bangi
I H
Judge Andres Soriano

The truth in law

A is red and B is blue = true then
B is blue and A is red = false

To a colorblind:
A is blue and B is red = true then
A is red and B is blue = false

To a Vilmanian:
Ate Vi is the best actress = true then
Ate Guy us the best actress = false

To a Noranian:
Ate Guy is the best actress = true then
Ate Vi is the best actress = false

To a National Democrat:
Republicanism is key to progress = true then
Communism is key to progress = false

To a Social Democrat:
Communism is key to progress = true then
Republicanism is key to progress = false

In Montenegro v. Castañeda:
Suspension of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is a political question = true then
Suspension of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus reviewable by court = false

In Lansang v. Garcia:
Suspension of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is a justiciable question = true then
Suspension of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is not reviewable by court = false

Come to think of it, is there really a genuine truth? In life, do we really get to unravel a truth or we just come to realize that the false proves to be the truth? In science, do we get to discover new concepts as true or our facts just prove that our theory is false?

Since the time of Aristotle, people believed in Geocentric Cosmology stating that the earth is the center of the Solar System until the Heliocentric Theory of Copernicus persuaded the people that the sun and, not the earth, is the center of the universe. In 1986 and beyond we believed that People Power is legitimate cry for reform in this country, but after May 1, 2002, we are starting to believe in the idea that the People is a mob rule. In law, the Supreme Court ruled that the acts of the political departments of the country fall under political question which the court cannot take cognizance of; but in Par. 2 Sec. 1 Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides

Par. 2 Sec. 1 Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government,

expanded the power of the judiciary to cover even political questions. And thus in the case of Daza v. Singson the Supreme Court held that the acts of Congress are justiciable questions that are within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the court.
I think that in the first place, there is no genuine ideal truth that is universally adhered thereto by the people, there are only paradigms, which the people tend to hold to and believe dearly, and in the second place, there is paradigm shift every time old paradigm proves to be unacceptable to the people, and thus becoming false.

There are ideas of truth embodied thereto in paradigms. The paradigm of the theists espouses that there is a supreme being that rules the people and judges them according to their deeds, and the paradigm of the atheists, on the other hand, espouses there is no God and that they are the rulers of themselves. Paradigms may prove to be correct to those who adhere thereto and false to those who do not. Therefore it is safe to say that truth is relative.

Notwithstanding the relativity of truth, it may prove not absolute. The theory of falsity provides that people tend to refine their paradigm once they learn new ideas or the existence of new facts, thus altering the old paradigm to make it better. People once saw the United States invulnerable to external hostile attacks, but after 9/11, people now see that somehow, there is a weak point in the security of the US without altering their belief that still the US is invulnerable.

These falsities may refine the paradigm until the falsities refine it into a paradigm distinct paradigm from that of the old, proving it to be false and thus facilitating paradigm shift. The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) were once hailed as the two super powers of the worlds. After the regime of Nikita Khrushev productivity in USSR began to lag and the people believed that the USSR is not that powerful after all. The Civil war in Afghanistan, the rise to power of Mikhail Gorbachev brought changes in USSR and after the failed coup in early 1990’s the Communist union was dissolved into eleven separate states. Due to this, there was a paradigm shift from the truth that there were two superpowers in the world, the USA and USSR, to the truth that the USA is now the only superpower in the world. And in the developments that China is undergoing and its membership with the WTO may prove to be a falsity that there are no other state that can rise into superpower status. In due time, should China sustain its development, there would be another paradigm shift from the truth that the USA is the only superpower in the world, to the truth that China is also a superpower.

The relativity of the concept of truth brings about chaos in the society. I may see sex as a mere erotic genital experience (the contrary is the truth) and I may have carnal knowledge with as many women as I want without bearing the burden of social disapproval. Some may, however, see that sex is a manifestation (this, in reality is what I now believe in) and therefore, it should only be done only with the partner one loves. To these people, casual sex is a social taboo. This is what the law provides, an order midst the chaotic concepts of truth.

Dura lex sed lex, the law may be harsh but it is the law. One’s belief of truth may run aground against what the law say but one may not excuse himself from the law on account of his belief. If I adhere into casual sex I cannot practice it with those who do not share the same belief as mine, and more importantly, I cannot have carnal knowledge with those who do not believe in casual sex and therefore do not consent on such carnal knowledge, otherwise, I may be held liable for violating Article 246-A of the Revised Penal code. What the law says provides order in the chaos; it provides a standard of order in the exercise of the people’s concept of truth. It subordinates the varying concepts to its language for the greater objective of justice and social order.

Law provides the truth that should be acceptable to the people regardless of their beliefs, otherwise, should law be subordinated to the people’s belief, anarchy will result. The principles of communism are not false; one may adhere thereto and may even join the Communist Party of the Philippines on account of such belief. Consequently, he may not be prosecuted for subversion for becoming such a member but he may not, thru overt acts, rebel against the government to substitute his own beliefs, otherwise, he will be held liable for violating Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes rebellion.

However, even in law, the truth may be relative. The Anti-Subversion Act was enacted to punish memberships in subversive organizations such as the CPP-NPA, but it was subsequently repealed by RA 1700 and makes such membership legal. The paradigm of the law may also be proven false and may be subjected to paradigm through amendments, and as far as the Constitution is concerned, amendments and revision; this may be done by the Congress, the Constitutional Convention, or directly by the people. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court rulings are deemed part of the fundamental law of the land, the Supreme Court may subject the application of the law to paradigm shift by overruling the existing jurisprudence; this may be done at the instance of any petitioner asking the court to revisit such jurisprudence. Despite of the relativity of the truth in law, this does not remove the coercive authority of the law over the people.

go loco over koreano

Finally a Korean novella that makes sense. Somehow. I always make it a point that I catch the late night news over at abs-cbn, and much to my chagrin, the news comes after princess hours, that darn silly Korean novella about the royal family of korea, particularly that of its self esteemed crown prince, and his commoner wife. The show is so silly that it tries so much to become a youth oriented romantic comedy show, only to fall short of becoming a total farce. I have to admit that I have endured watching couple episodes, you can all laugh now, and I did not like it at all. However, I have to admit that somehow the show makes sense and it hides its sensibility behind the silliness of the plot and the characters. There was one episode where the king and the crown prince were conversing about how monarchy run aground from oligarchic leadership, and there was this episode where the two contending princes debated on giving the people the power through democratic republicanism and at the same time maintaining the respect for the monarchy. There was also this episode where the king said that he is willing to relinquish the throne to the once crown prince who is silently launching a rebellion against the ruling family. Simple pieces of principles that I think the people in the government need to take into consideration. If they neither have nor learned about it in their Georgetown or Atenean education perhaps they better learn it over princess hours, with a vomit bag at hand of course.

legal philosophy 1

Ray John Bangi
I-H
Legal Philosophy
Judge Andres Soriano

Universal justice and how it prevails over universal law

First, let me delimit my scope of the law in the Philippine setting. Ideally I would like to believe that there is no universal law, that the law is relative to the people’s acceptance of such law based on their religious or political beliefs. But as I went through the process of ascertaining how justice prevails over universal law I have come to the realization that I could not ideally believe such. Before going to the universal justice let me first explain my take on the universality of the law.

I used to believe that since there are concepts of law that gives varying definitions of the law, and that one of these concepts is the classical concept, the law is therefore relative to the norms upon which this law is based on. Law on the validity of a marriage subsequent to an existing valid marriage provides that such marriage is unacceptable to Christians, whose norms view such subsequent marriage as a social taboo. On the other had, such is valid to Muslims because their norms dictate that such subsequent marriage is acceptable. Law is based on the religious beliefs of the people because no one religion holds that absolute truth on righteousness and salvation. Moreover, law is relative based on the political inclinations of the subjects: national democrats may view the law in the same way as Locke, Rousseau, or other democratic philosophers view such and; social democrats may view the law the same way Marx, Lenin, and other communists view such.

I have come to the realization that these differences are disorders in the proper sense, which the law endeavors to reconcile in such a way that people espousing these differences may cohabit in a society harmoniously. This can only be done if a concept a concept of order is imposed upon the people by the law that is all encompassing or universal.

The Webster’s Dictionary defines “universal” as general or for everybody; a general proposition, concept, or idea. Moreover, “general” is defined therein as synonymous with the word universal. The established concepts of law are just general ideas on what the law is, these do not provide universal definition of the law and these do not provide for the validity of the law on a certain body politic. The law does not directly get its authority from Marxist or capitalist theories.

In a society, people have concepts of moral right and obligations among each other even without the need of any legislation. This moral rightness, to which the people give habitual obedience, is called customs, and in the book The Concept of Law by H.L.A. Hart, such custom is called primary rules. However, these customs, though habitually obeyed, are not automatically integrated into the body of laws and do not have coercive authority for their enforcement. When conflicts arise between two primary rules, no body or written rules will impose the real and correct primary rule. These are unofficial rules, which in the present reality need more coercive implementation other than the social pressure. It is in this regard that Hart thought that there are secondary rules that transform these rules into law and subsequently be given coercive authority. For a primary rule to become a law it should be recognized as a law through the rule of recognition, which specifies some feature or features possession of which by a suggested rule is taken as a conclusive affirmative indication that it is a rule of the group to be supported by the social pressure it exerts.[1]Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides for the body that will identify these primary rules as part of the law of the land. It further provides the rule of recognizing such primary rule in the form of legislation and sections 25-27 provide for the procedural rules in recognizing such rules as part of the law of the land. These legislated laws are based on the primary rules, the custom, which the Filipino people have accepted.

The foundation of this legal system is based on the doctrine of sovereignty, which asserts that in every human society, where there is law, there is ultimately to be found latent beneath the variety of political forms, in a democracy as much as in an absolute monarchy, this simple relationship between subject rendering habitual obedience and sovereign who renders habitual obedience to no one.[2] The sovereignty is the basis of the acceptance of the law and in this country where the sovereignty resides in the people; the people therefore are the basis of the law. The people are the ones who authored these laws that were merely written by the legislators through the principle of republicanism; therefore, by mere membership in the body politic, the people have the obligation to follow the law, which they themselves authored. The constitution has never distinguished people according to their religion, culture, or political ideologies and therefore such factors will not, in any way, preclude the fact that the law is universal in scope.

The law is universal and persists as time passes. The authority of the law is not based on the legislators but rather on the will of the sovereign, therefore, as long as the sovereign exists, the law will remain valid, though it may be proven, through time, that it has become absurd. Only when the sovereign changes that the old law will lose its validity. It is enunciated therein in the case of Co Kim Cham v. Valdez and Tan Keh, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that the sovereignty is absolute and is not divested even during war. It is only divested from the people when the people themselves pass such sovereignty to others. When there is war, the exercise of sovereignty is suspended and therefore, the political law of the land is also suspended, but the sovereignty is not ipso facto transferred to the belligerent occupant so the common law of the land will remain valid. The law will, also never lose its validity because it has become inefficient. There is no doctrine of obsolescence [3]articulated in the rule of recognition in the Article VI of the Constitution.

One may argue that the stand I took is absurd because the sovereignty resides on the people and if the people do not accept such the law on account of their beliefs, then the sovereignty does not accept such law. They may have a point but as I have said, mere membership in the body politic will subject the people under the cloth of the law. The law will continue to be valid even if within the group there exists a minority who not only break the rules but refuse to look upon it as the standard either for themselves or others.[4] Dura lex sed lex so did the maxim say, and the law will never take into consideration the views of the people and put the people under its jurisdiction where transgressors will be dealt accordingly. Law brings order and members of the society do not have to conform on the wisdom of the law but still law provides a coercive authority for the attainment of order. Differences of beliefs, morality, and normative rightness are forms of disorders within the society which the law reconciles to provide a general concept of law to be obeyed regardless of these differences.

Justice, on the other hand, provides people should give others what is due. In a society there is a fusion of the paradigm of the people to form a common principle. In this line, personal paradigm of the people will be subordinated to the paradigm of the society. Such accepted paradigm of the society takes priority because it is reflective of the common interest, which by being part of the society; the member is required to embrace. Justice therefore is universal in this sense. In the Thomist tradition of natural law it has been contended that there are certain principles of true morality and justice, discoverable by human reason without the aid of revelation, even if they have divine origin and if man made law conflict with these principles, such man made laws are not valid.[5]

But justice is not always based on what is morally right or wrong. A law will not be just or unjust because of morality alone. There is a presumptive balance among the people in the society. And once this balance is breached, justice will endeavor to retain it. If A kills B by a gunshot because A mocked B’s family, there has been an imbalance between A, who was prejudiced by the superior strength of B on account of his gun. Justice therefore will retain balance by penalizing B for murder even if it will be proven that the shooting should not have occurred had A never mocked B’ family.

Moreover, Justice is relative because it endeavors to treat like cases similarly and different cases differently. If a state university is formed and in its charter it has provided that only students within the poverty line are allowed to enroll in said university, it cannot be said that the charter is unjust for prejudicing the right of the students beyond the poverty line to education. The subjects of the charter are students who do not have the financial capacity to provide for their education and therefore it is only just that free education should be given to them. It will only be unjust if students within the poverty line will only be allowed to enroll in said university if they have graduated from Metro Manila. In this case, injustice will prejudice the students who have graduated outside Metro Manila because they have the right to free education on account of poverty. Such classification should be based on certain standards so as to provide everyone equal protection of the law

When faced with conflict between the needs of justice by an individual and the society, or the needs of one cluster will conflict with that of the other cluster, justice will dictate that in making the law that will work for one and against another, the needs of the adverse party or cluster should first be taken into consideration by the legislature before enacting such law. In this was, no law though adversely affects others, is done arbitrarily to cause injustice. Justice will be applied relative to the circumstances of the subjects.

Justice, therefore, never prevails over the universal law but rather, the universal law serves the ends of justice. What is just depends upon the circumstances of the case and once what is just to parties has been ascertained the universal law will provide for ways to provide or serve the ends of justice.

[1] H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law second edition, New York: Oxford University Press Publishing Inc., 1994, p. 94
[2] Ibid p. 50
[3] Ibid p. 103
[4] Ibid p. 57
[5] Crisolito Pascual, Introduction to Legal Philosophy revised edition, Manila: Premium Printing Press, 1994, p. 101

this is how boring i have become in writing blah blahs

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 156983
Respondents,

-versus- For

VICTOR WOOD Destructive Arson
Petitioner
Promulgated:
February 1, 2007
x--------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
BANGI, CJ.:
The Case
This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court Branch 30 of Metro Manila convicting herein petitioner for the crime of Destructive Arson
Antecedent Facts
That on the night of February 29, 2006 in Baranggay San Beda, Mendiola, San Miguel, Manila, spouses Victor Wood and Ara Mina had a fight on the latter’s addiction to the game of Mahjong; that on the same night herein accused set their mahjong table and pieces on fire inside their dwelling. The fire grew big that it engulfed the ceiling of the spouses’ dwelling and spread through the entire San Beda Baranggay, burning all 163 houses therein, included the entire campus of San Beda College.
The Accused was arrested by agents of the Western Police District while evacuating their properties from their burning house and was taken directly to Camp Aguinaldo to submit him to an inquest. The accused was interrogated inside the interrogating room, which was being recorded and watched. Herein accused denied the allegations that he had caused the fire in Baranggay San Beda and invoked his right to remain silent until he talks to his lawyer. At about 2:00 AM of March 1, 2006 the agents interrogating the accused took a break and to eat meals. It is at this moment that herein accused got down to his knees and prayed: “Oh God, let me get away with it just this once.”
In about 10:00 AM of March 1, 2006, herein accused was charged for violation of Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code for causing destructive arson upon 163 houses and San Beda College. Victor Wood pleaded not guilty.
During the trial, the prosecution presented the recorded prayer of the accused was used as evidence for his confession of guilt. Herein was convicted by the Regional Trial Court, except of the decision reads:

“Whereas the evidence presented is clear that said accused has confessed his guilt at the moment he was being interrogated and that this court finds it absurd that the accused would feel so hopeless if he is indeed innocent of the crime charged against him. Other evidences and testimonies also corroborate the theory of the prosecution that the accused has intentionally caused the fire. Therefore, this court finds the accused guilty of Destructive Arson beyond reasonable doubt and hereby sentences the accused, Victor Wood, to Reclusion Pertpetua and to pay each of the affected families Php 50,000.00 and San Beda College Php 6,000.000.00 as actual and moral damages.” [1]


The Issues
The petition raises the following issues:
Whether the lower court erred in taking the prayer as a confession of the petitioner’s guilt.
Whether the recorded prayer of herein petitioner is admissible as evidence in the court of law.
Whether or not the Lower Court erred in convicting the petitioner for Destructive Arson.

The Ruling of the Court
There is no merit to the petition.
Despite of the merit of the arguments of herein petitioner, herein petitioner has failed to present substantial evidence to prove his innocence of the crime charged against him.

1. The petitioner’s prayer is not a confession of his guilt to the crime of Destructive Arson.

Section 3, Rule 116 of Revised Rules of Court provides that it is mandatory in a confession of guilt of a capital offense that the court shall inquire into the voluntariness of confession and the comprehension of the accused of the consequences of his confession. The Section provides:
Sec. 3. When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may present evidence in his behalf. [2]

Said prayer cannot be, in any way, be a confession of guilt by the accused since he had pleaded not guilty for the crime of Destructive Arson upon his arraignment. Provided that said prayer is a confession of the guilt of the accused, such is not valid for it is done without the presence of his counsel and without him being informed of the consequences of his actions. Section 12 paragraph 1 and 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Sec. 12 (1). Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in presence of counsel. [3]
Paragraph 3 of the said constitutional provision further provides:
Sec. 12 (3). Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this of Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
[4]

The Lower Court erred in taking the prayer as confession of the guilt of the accused whereas it can also be construed to be a mere manifestation of the petitioner’s religion, wherein he calls upon his God in his time of need. A confession is an acknowledgement in express words, by the accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the main fact charged, or some essential parts thereof – there is no such thing as implied confession. (People v. Porio, 376 SCRA 596) It cannot be argued that the confession can be inferred from the prayer uttered by the petitioner for it will be a violation of his right to due process.

2. The recorded prayer of herein accused cannot be admitted as evidence by the prosecution.

The recording of the prayer of the accused is a violation of Republic Act 4200 or the Anti Wiretapping Law. Section 1 of RA 4200 provides:
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a Dictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described:
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person: Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in Sec. 3 hereof, shall not be covered by this prohibition. [5]
Yes, the communication between the interrogators and herein petitioner was not private in nature as it is done in the lawful exercise of their functions. But they seized their investigation upon the invocation of the petitioner’s right to remain silent and to confer to his counsel, as mandated and protected by the Constitution. Thus, when herein petitioner got down to his knees to pray it was done in his private moment, being done not in the course of the investigation and especially without the presence of his attorney; RA 4200 is also quite clear in this aspect as articles gathered in violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law is inadmissible as evidence in the law of court. Section 4 of the aforecited statute states:
Sec. 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding Sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation. [6]
The law is very clear on this and it does not require the lower court to construe the intention of the framers, for by mere use of common sense will lead an ordinary prudent man to learn that such recorded prayer is inadmissible as evidence.

3. Notwithstanding the errors of the lower court in the appreciation of evidence, it still has not acted in excess of its jurisdiction.
The petition to overrule the decision of conviction has no merit since it is not only from the said inadmissible evidence that the trial court had based its decision. It can be missed that Ara Mina, herein petitioner’s spouse had identified the petitioner as the one who burned the mahjong table and pieces inside their dwelling. When examined by the prosecution, the spouse pinpointed at his husband without butting an eyebrow. Excerpt of the transcript of the direct examination is as follow:
Counsel: What had happened between you and your husband in the night of February 29, 2006?
Mina: We had a fight over my addiction to the game of mahjong.
Counsel: And in the said fight what else had happened?
Mina: My husband took a match and rolled three pages of the broadsheet; he has set it into fire and burned the mahjong table and pieces in our sala.
Counsel: Did you not stop him from doing so?
Mina: I did but all he said was that it is better to burn the entire house for me to learn the value of money I gamble. [7]
This was corroborated by their maid, Maribel Manantan, who happened to have witness the fight of the spouses and the growth of the fire. Excerpts of the decision are as follow:
Counsel: Where were you when your bosses were fighting?
Manantan: I was hiding behind the refrigerator peeping to see them fight?
Counsel: And what did you notice in their fight?
Manantan: In the heat of their fight, Sir Vic got a broadsheet and some matches and set the mahjong table and pieces to fire inside the sala.
Counsel: What else happened while the mahjong table and pieces were burning?
Manantan: Ma’am Ara tried to stop Sir Vic but Sir Vic just said that it was better to burn the entire house down. [8]
These testimonies were not belied by the defense and the denial of the accused of the said crime was not substantiated by any valid evidence.
WHEREFORE, we affirm the decision of the lower court to hold Victor Wood guilty of Destructive Arson with cost against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

RAY JOHN E. BANGI
Chief Justice

WE CONCUR:

JOHN MICHAEL . BUESER
Associate Justice


LUISITO TONGSON
Associate Justice


BERNARDO TABUNAR
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo Regional Trial Court p 26
[2] Section 3, Rule 116, Revised Rules of Court
[3] Section 12, 1987 Constitution
[4] Ibid
[5] Section 1, Republic Act 4200
[6] Ibid
[7] Rollo, Regional Trial Court p 23
[8] Rollo, Regional Trial Court p 24