2 | ALAMAT NG 32-0 | THE DENIAL | RAFFY TULFO IN ACTION VS. ATTY. LIBAYAN
01:06.1
Sige, tagdagan mo pa.
01:13.2
Akala mo matatapot kaming malikat doon.
01:19.6
Eh, ikaw mismo ang may gawa ng likat na sinabo.
01:27.4
Sige, ayusin ko yung title. Thank you, Ragul.
01:30.0
Sige ang nanuloko sa mga tao.
01:35.3
Alam naming batas natin, may batas sa totoo.
01:44.8
Sige, isigaw mo pa.
01:51.3
Take the L then file another one.
01:54.5
Naalala ko tuloy yung pinaglalaban nila.
02:00.0
tatanggapin namin, tatanggapin namin,
02:02.1
tatanggapin, tas magpa-file ulit.
02:05.0
Tas madi-dismiss ulit,
02:06.1
tatanggapin nyo, tas magpa-file ulit.
02:08.3
Sinasabutahin nyo talaga yung justice system natin.
03:00.0
Yung discussion natin kanina, tulad na sinabi ko sa inyo,
03:03.2
ito mga kabatas natin
03:04.3
ay tungkol dun sa dismissal
03:10.5
noong motion for reconsideration
03:12.9
ni Rafi Tulfo, doon
03:20.8
Dun sa mga hindi nakapanood,
03:22.5
dun sa part 1, mga kabatas natin,
03:24.2
dun sa part 1, diniscuss natin yung
03:26.1
administrative determination
03:28.4
of probable cause, tapos yung
03:29.9
judicial determination of probable cause.
03:34.5
At ngayon din, mga kabatas natin,
03:40.8
dito sa motion for
03:44.1
reconsideration nila. At syempre,
03:46.3
mga kabatas natin, kung ano rin ang pinaglalaban
03:48.4
nila dun sa motion for reconsideration
03:52.7
Let's go, mga kabatas natin.
03:55.9
Sabi niyang ganyan,
03:56.9
nagkumpisa, mga kabatas natin,
03:59.7
korte yung nasa taas.
04:01.7
Pinapainhibit nila yung judge.
04:05.7
first two cases na finile nila,
04:07.9
mga kabatas natin,
04:10.6
napalitan yung judge,
04:16.1
ng early retirement.
04:20.1
mga kabatas natin, sandali,
04:21.5
ini-edit ko lang ng saglit itong
04:24.5
Ito. Ituloy natin yung
04:26.3
sinabi ng korte dito.
04:33.0
edit ko lang sa saglit ha.
04:35.4
Give me some time.
04:36.7
Give me some time.
04:42.0
Anyway, mamaya na lang.
04:43.2
Sabi dito, on the same date,
04:47.6
in the evening, the prosecution filed
04:49.3
the motion for reconsideration of the
04:53.5
for omnibus resolution
04:55.6
dismissing the cases herein.
04:57.7
The prosecution contented
04:59.7
in the said motion for reconsideration,
05:01.8
the court committed grave abuse
05:03.4
of discretion and the grievous
05:05.8
error when it reversed
05:07.9
its previous finding
05:09.6
of probable cause.
05:12.3
Sinabi ko na rin sa inyo kanina
05:13.8
kasi mga kabatas natin, no, na
05:19.8
case number is a different
05:23.4
One information equals one
05:27.7
So itong 32 na ito, mga kabatas,
05:29.7
mga kabatas natin, they were never
05:35.7
Okay? Actually, itong 32
05:37.8
na ito, we don't know where it came from
05:39.9
basta nagkaroon na lang tayo ng ganyan.
05:42.9
Okay? Tingnan nyo.
05:44.0
They emphasized that the instant 32,
05:49.7
32 informations emanated from the
05:51.8
same complaint affidavit where
05:53.3
two informations are handled by Honorable
05:55.5
Assisting Judge Maria Paz
05:59.7
They noted that the additional 32
06:01.8
informations were consolidated by the
06:03.6
Executive Judge in this same court
06:05.6
to avoid contradictory and conflicting
06:07.5
rulings. Mga kabatas natin,
06:11.6
Ang Executive Judge, hindi siya nagko-consolidate
06:18.3
The Executive Judge will
06:19.7
just cause the raffle to the same
06:22.9
the motion for consolidation
06:32.0
by the Executive Judge.
06:36.8
Sabi niya, in the same court
06:38.5
to avoid contradictory and conflicting rulings.
06:40.5
However, the said
06:42.5
32 informations were decided by a judge
06:44.7
different from the judge which handled
06:46.8
the initial two informations
06:48.2
although belonging to the same court.
06:50.4
They inferred that the 32 informations arose
06:52.6
from the same complaint and pertains
06:54.4
to the same videos enumerated in the
06:56.6
complaint affidavit dated 28 November
06:59.7
Which are the same videos for which probable
07:01.7
cause was already allegedly determined by
07:05.1
Parang sinasabi lang nila dito na
07:06.7
tapos na yung probable cause dyan.
07:09.5
Huwag niyo nang i-determine.
07:11.8
Diretso na nyo sa kaso.
07:13.6
Well, parang ipasok na lang.
07:15.8
Ipasok na lang. Wala nang
07:17.4
usap-usap. Wala nang probable
07:19.4
probable cause. Pasok na yan.
07:23.3
They enumerated the videos along with their
07:25.3
corresponding informations.
07:29.7
Newly filed informations are
07:31.7
merely amended informations pursuant
07:33.7
to the 7 December 2023
07:35.6
order. They opined that said
07:37.6
amendment is permitted per Section 14
07:40.0
Rule 110 of the Revised Rules
07:41.8
of Criminal Procedure. They declared
07:43.8
that while a different judge, Judge Cortez
07:46.0
issued the 19 April
07:47.4
2024 Omnibus Resolution, it's still
07:49.6
an order from the very same court
07:51.3
which effectively reversed itself.
07:55.3
Alam nyo, madali lang naman na intindihin ito.
07:58.2
Tulad nga na sinabi ko sa inyo,
08:02.2
isang information,
08:05.0
isang case number,
08:10.6
ang bilang. Kung pare-parehong
08:12.7
kaso yan, isa lang dapat
08:23.6
kayo, kung galing yan sa two counts,
08:25.8
hindi ba may double counting yan?
08:27.3
Sa law of identity, a unique
08:29.4
ang every information ay paano magiging
08:31.4
same yan? Ewan ko sa kanila.
08:36.2
Sabi niya ganyan, sa paningin ko,
08:37.8
it was a clever attempt to maneuver
08:39.4
to smuggle in the other counts.
08:43.9
Ewan ko din sa'yo.
08:47.8
Okay, let's go, let's go!
08:51.1
They argued that probable cause for copyright infringement
08:53.6
exists in relation to the instant cases
08:55.6
as all the elements of the said crime
08:59.4
They cited the cases of
09:01.5
Enrique V. V. Huidez
09:03.5
III v. The Court of Appeals
09:06.1
et al. Jose M. Galario
09:08.1
v. Office of the Ombudsman
09:09.6
et al. They enumerated
09:12.2
the elements of copyright infringement
09:13.8
under Section 216 of the Interactual Property
09:17.7
ownership of a validly copyrighted material
09:19.6
by the complainant, and infringement of the copyright
09:21.8
by the respondent. They posited
09:23.7
that private complainant Rafi Tulfo
09:25.6
in action owns the videos which are validly
09:28.0
copyrighted materials,
09:29.4
published in its official YouTube channel
09:30.7
as recognized in the Assailed Resolution
09:32.4
and 7th December 2023 Order.
09:35.5
They averred that the accused repeatedly
09:37.3
and continuously used the videos
09:38.7
owned by the complainant in his own videos
09:40.6
without obtaining private complainant's consent
09:42.6
as recognized in the 7th December 2023 Order.
09:46.5
They noted that the Court found
09:47.8
that all the elements of copyright infringement
09:50.8
are present in this case
09:51.9
and lifted the pertinent portion
09:54.0
of the Assailed Resolution.
09:55.8
And hindi ko maintindihan dito
09:57.0
yung sinasabi nila na all the elements are present.
09:59.4
If all the elements are present,
10:03.1
try the case anymore.
10:05.9
Kung yung Korte ang nagsabi,
10:07.6
kung yung Korte ang nagsabi
10:09.9
na all the elements,
10:12.0
kasi ito yung ina-assail ng prosecution,
10:14.1
all the elements are present.
10:15.6
Pag sinabi nyo na all the elements are present,
10:17.5
na sinabi nung judge nga na all the elements are present,
10:19.8
isn't that prejudicial already
10:23.4
Because sinasabi nyo nga na all the elements are present.
10:28.0
ang ginawa ng judge dito,
10:31.2
into the merits of the case.
10:33.3
Yung sinasabi nyo dun sa una,
10:35.2
hindi siya nag-delve sa merits of the case, diba?
10:37.7
Sinabi niya na kailangan
10:39.3
ng full-blown trial.
10:41.1
Pero, bakit mo pa kailangan
10:43.5
ng full-blown trial
10:44.7
kung all the merits of,
10:46.5
all the elements of copyright infringement
10:49.8
are present already?
10:51.9
Hindi ko maintindihan din yun.
10:53.3
Pero, let's see, let's see.
10:57.6
they cited the case,
11:04.2
the court found that
11:05.3
all the elements of copyright infringement
11:07.0
are present in this case
11:08.1
and lifted the pertinent portion
11:09.6
of the Assailed Resolution.
11:11.4
They cited the case
11:12.5
of ABS-CBN Corporation
11:13.8
versus Philippi Gozon et al.
11:15.5
where the Supreme Court ruled
11:16.5
that the mere act of rebroadcasting
11:18.0
without authority
11:19.2
from the owner of the broadcast,
11:21.3
ito kasi broadcasting eh.
11:23.8
I did not merely broadcast.
11:26.6
Kasi ito mere act of broadcasting eh.
11:29.2
I did not merely broadcast.
11:36.5
Gives rise to the probability
11:38.1
that a crime was committed
11:40.0
under the Intellectual Property Code.
11:42.1
They reiterated that reference is made
11:44.1
to the elements of the crime charged
11:45.7
in the determination of probable cause
11:47.4
for purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest
11:49.5
and for the case to proceed to trial.
11:52.8
that it is not required to be definitively established
11:56.1
but it is sufficient that the elements
11:57.8
are reasonably apparent.
11:59.2
Yun nga ang ginawa ng Korte dito
12:01.2
na nilalabanan pa nila.
12:05.0
Diba nakita nyo yung ginawa nila
12:06.4
dun sa Omnibus Resolution?
12:08.1
Pinanood nung judge yung bawat video ko.
12:11.3
Inaaral nila kung may copyright infringement o hindi.
12:14.4
Nagkaroon pa ng mga comments doon yung Korte
12:16.9
kung ano yung ginawa ko
12:18.2
at kung ano yung part
12:20.2
ng video ng Rafi Tulfo
12:22.0
in action na plenay ko.
12:25.2
They did that meticulously.
12:27.0
Tapos sasabihin mo lang,
12:32.3
Dapat full-blown trial.
12:39.5
attorney, hindi ba considered as refiling yung 32
12:42.2
kasi same ng initial 36 videos na hindi pumasok?
12:47.2
yan din yung sinasabi ko eh.
12:49.6
Na what they needed
12:51.5
or what they can do
12:53.4
are mere amendments.
12:57.8
Dalawang information lang,
12:59.2
nga pwede mong i-amend.
13:00.7
Ang nangyari yung dalawa,
13:02.5
nagkaroon ng 32 pa.
13:12.0
They reiterated that reference is made
13:14.3
to the elements of the crime charge
13:16.6
in the determination of probable cause
13:17.9
for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest
13:19.7
and for the case to proceed to trial.
13:22.5
it is not required to be definitely established
13:25.1
but it is sufficient that
13:27.6
the elements are reasonably applied.
13:29.9
hindi ko rin maintindihan dito.
13:31.3
Sinabi nila nung umpisa
13:32.4
na nakita na daw ng judge
13:36.4
na present yung elements.
13:38.2
Pero dito, hindi naman daw kailangan na
13:40.0
establish sufficiently
13:41.1
pero reasonably apparent lang.
13:44.1
They averred that fair use is a matter of defense
13:46.5
that may be stretched out
13:47.6
in a full-blown trial
13:49.6
hence its determination is not proper before trial.
13:52.5
They insisted that the court
13:53.7
earned in making a distinction between fair use
13:55.6
as a limitation and or as a defense.
13:58.4
They posited that the court earned in making a distinction between fair use as a limitation and or as a defense.
13:58.4
They posited that the fact
13:60.0
that fair use is a limitation
14:01.5
and copyright does not negate the fact
14:03.0
that fair use is a defense
14:04.3
which must be stretched out during trial proper.
14:07.1
They alleged that this court cited
14:09.2
the aforementioned case of ABS-CBN
14:11.7
Corporation versus Philippi Gozon et al.
14:14.9
They cited Section 185, Chapter 8 of RA 8293
14:19.7
or the Intellectual Property Code
14:21.1
of the Philippines
14:21.9
which enumerated the factors to consider
14:24.0
in determining whether the use made of a work
14:26.2
in particular case
14:27.4
in a particular case
14:29.8
They maintained that fairness
14:31.3
and due process dictate
14:32.5
that the parties be given
14:33.7
full and complete opportunity
14:35.0
to prove or negate the presence
14:36.6
or absence of such factors.
14:40.2
Yun nga rin ang sinasabi ko kasi dito.
14:42.1
The very evidence
14:43.1
in copyright infringement cases
14:44.6
are the videos themselves.
14:47.5
You don't need anything any further.
14:51.1
Especially in these cases
14:52.2
where the issue on fair use
14:53.5
is heavily disputed
14:54.5
and contested by both parties.
14:57.0
They opined that the acts
14:58.1
committed by the accused
14:59.0
cannot be considered as fair use.
15:00.8
They declared that the court
15:01.8
erred in treating the first
15:03.1
and fourth factors as one element
15:05.3
since said in Chapter 185, Chapter 8
15:10.5
or the Intellectual Property Code
15:12.6
of the Philippines
15:13.3
clearly and expressly provides
15:14.7
four factors in determining
15:16.3
whether the use of a work
15:18.1
Pero ginawa naman ng korte yun eh.
15:22.1
Tinignan niya nga lahat
15:23.2
yung apat na factors na yun eh.
15:26.4
Bakit ganito kaya?
15:27.4
They claimed that the court was not able to determine the use of a work.
15:27.9
They claimed that the court was not able to determine the use of a work.
15:27.9
They claimed that the court effectively disregarded
15:29.8
the first factor on whether use is of commercial nature.
15:33.0
Diniscuss nga ng korte rin yung commercial nature eh.
15:38.7
That's why I don't understand also.
15:40.4
What's the argument?
15:41.5
They pointed out the accused
15:43.0
used private complainant's videos commercially
15:45.5
to generate profit.
15:47.8
They avowed that the court committed grave error
15:50.5
in outrightly concluding that the views
15:52.5
on the videos of private complainant
15:54.0
did not diminish.
15:54.8
They posited that the use by the accused
16:00.2
of private complainant's copyrighted videos
16:01.7
will surely have a negative impact
16:03.2
on the number of views received by the private complainant's videos
16:06.1
as the viewers may opt to just watch
16:07.7
the reaction videos since the original clip
16:09.6
is already being shown therein.
16:11.9
Now they're watching the reaction video
16:13.4
because of the reaction.
16:15.0
Kaya nga may reaction video at copyright
16:16.8
at exemption sa copyright infringement
16:20.4
yung mga reaction videos
16:22.1
kasi nga they are criticisms,
16:24.2
they are comments,
16:24.8
kaya nga daming reaction videos sa YouTube
16:27.5
na hindi natatanggal.
16:29.7
Pati nga yung number one na vlogger nyo
16:32.6
reacts yung nasa dulo.
16:37.8
Tawag ko ba sa inyo?
16:44.4
They contended that the court erred in ruling
16:46.7
that the amount and substantiality of the portions
16:49.8
Tignan mo, sinabi niya dito nung umpisa
16:52.0
na parang trinit lang ng kumulang.
16:54.8
Korte na iisang element lang daw
16:58.2
yung apat na elements.
17:00.3
Ngayon, dinidiscuss nila kung paano
17:03.7
trinato ng korte yung apat ng elements
17:06.7
bilang individual elements.
17:17.6
Anyway, let's go.
17:23.9
they contended that the court is not going to do anything.
17:24.6
They contended that the court erred in ruling
17:25.7
that the amount and substantiality of the portions
17:28.1
used by the accused could not be taken against him
17:30.9
considering that there are way more comments
17:32.7
made by the accused
17:33.7
than the entire streaming of the videos
17:36.4
and that there is a need to reproduce
17:38.2
the entire video in order to react fairly thereto.
17:41.4
They posited that while the accused did not use
17:44.1
the full copyrighted videos of private complainant
17:46.1
in his video contents,
17:47.4
the clips and footage shown and used by the accused
17:50.1
are sufficient to amount to a substantial reproduction
17:54.6
that the accused admitted in his counter-affidavit
17:56.8
that he reproduced the ETBT parts
18:00.4
of private complainant's copyrighted videos
18:02.8
which are the main and material portions
18:05.7
of the subject matter of the copyrighted works.
18:10.2
Ewan ko kung ano yung sinasabi nila dito
18:12.2
na admitted-admitted.
18:13.7
Hindi naman nila kinongkota ko.
18:15.9
They cited the case of Pasita A. Habana
18:18.6
et al. versus Felicidad C. Robles et al.
18:21.3
where the Supreme Court has ruled
18:22.6
that it is not necessary
18:24.1
that the whole or even a large portion of the work
18:26.4
shall have been copied.
18:28.4
They asserted that the court committed grave error
18:31.0
in assuming and concluding that YouTube has the same rule
18:34.0
and factors in determining of whether a video
18:36.6
should be taken down for not being considered as fair use.
18:40.2
Hence, the cases must proceed to trial
18:41.9
to give parties the opportunity to submit evidence
18:44.2
on YouTube's policy that may help determine
18:45.9
if indeed copyright infringement is committed.
18:49.6
They stressed that Section 185,
18:52.4
Chapter 8 of Republic,
18:54.1
Public Act 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code
18:56.8
of the Philippines is clear
18:57.8
on the factors that must be considered
18:59.6
in determining fair use.
19:01.1
Hence, the court cannot use the fact
19:02.9
that accused videos were not taken down
19:04.9
by YouTube as evidence
19:06.3
and proof that accused use
19:07.7
constitute fair use.
19:09.2
Siyempre, proof na rin yun.
19:10.8
We are in the same platform.
19:12.6
Yun kasi ang sinasabi ko eh.
19:13.9
We should be honest to ourselves also.
19:17.5
Everybody knows already.
19:18.9
Ito rin yung kailan hindi ko gusto kay Rafi Tulfo.
19:20.8
Hindi siya honest sa sarili niya eh.
19:22.2
Alam niya naman na hindi lang dadalawa yung anak.
19:24.1
Pero pag magde-declare siya ng anak niya,
19:26.0
sasabihin niya isa lang.
19:27.1
Alam niya rin naman na hindi lang
19:28.9
iisa yung entry sa kanyang semnumar.
19:31.6
Pero magfafal siya ng kaso,
19:37.0
parang pinaparatangan daw siya
19:39.0
na marami siyang entries dun sa kanyang semnumar
19:41.0
when in fact it's the truth.
19:48.9
strategy para malihis ang attention mo.
19:51.0
Well, I think it's...
20:00.0
they really want to
20:08.2
the actions of Rafi Tulfo.
20:19.2
The court cannot use the fact that
20:21.1
Akis videos were not taken down by YouTube
20:22.8
as evidence proof.
20:24.1
Accuses used constituted fair use.
20:27.0
It's material also
20:29.6
It's also evidence.
20:35.0
It's also in my favor.
20:37.7
They considered as untenable
20:39.0
the ruling that the very nature
20:40.2
of private complainants program
20:41.8
opens up the limitation of fair use
20:43.5
as a function of freedom of speech
20:45.0
and freedom of the press.
20:46.6
They emphasize that the gravamen
20:48.1
of copyright infringement
20:49.1
is the unauthorized manufacturing
20:50.5
of intellectual works
20:51.6
and the unauthorized performance
20:53.1
of any of the rights
20:54.1
exclusively granted
20:55.0
to the copyright owner.
20:56.2
Hence, any person...
20:57.0
Parang ano lang, no?
21:04.2
Hence, any person
21:05.1
who performs any of such acts
21:06.5
without obtaining the copyright owner's
21:09.4
renders himself civilly and criminally
21:11.1
liable for copyright infringement.
21:12.7
Except if the use
21:13.6
falls under the limitation
21:14.7
to copyright under Section 184
21:16.5
Chapter 8 of Republic Act 80-93
21:19.3
or if the same constitutes fair use.
21:22.8
Hence, freedom of expression
21:23.8
cannot be used as a defense.
21:26.6
Ngayon, sabi niya,
21:27.5
on April 29, April 2024,
21:30.2
the accused filed a comment
21:31.0
under the said motion for consideration
21:32.9
and motion for voluntary inhibition
21:35.1
declaring the prosecution
21:36.1
is not telling the truth
21:37.2
and such causes deception.
21:39.1
So rampant and deliberate.
21:40.9
The accused maintained
21:41.7
that there is no grave abuse of discretion
21:43.4
on the part of the court.
21:45.7
the filing of additional cases
21:47.9
is not within the ambit of an amendment.
21:50.3
He argued that it is not true
21:51.6
that the instant 32 informations
21:53.2
emanated from the court
21:53.7
from the same complaint affidavit
21:55.1
where two informations
21:55.9
are already being handled
21:57.0
by honorable assisting judge.
21:59.3
yun yung sinasabi ko dito eh.
22:01.2
Hindi galing dun sa
22:02.2
tunay informations yung 32.
22:04.8
Because they're new.
22:05.9
Sila rin nagsabi naman
22:06.9
na newly filed eh.
22:09.7
only two informations
22:11.1
emanated from the complaint affidavit.
22:14.3
this fact can be seen
22:15.2
in the resolution of the prosecutor
22:16.6
which is part and parcel
22:17.6
of the records of the case.
22:19.7
if the private complainant
22:20.8
was not available
22:21.7
to the resolution,
22:23.2
finding only the information
22:23.5
of copyright infringement,
22:25.5
the remedy was to file
22:26.6
a motion for reconsideration
22:27.9
or a petition for review
22:29.0
and not amendment.
22:31.7
that there was no consolidation
22:32.9
as the motion for consolidation
22:34.7
was denied by Judge Ison
22:37.2
in which the prosecution
22:40.3
they still choose
22:41.5
to mislead the court.
22:43.4
He maintained that
22:44.2
the prosecution is misleading
22:45.3
the court since nothing
22:46.3
in the law states
22:46.9
that the executive judge
22:49.0
to consolidate the cases
22:50.2
but will just cause
22:51.3
the raffle to only one court
22:52.8
and the court will not
22:53.5
resolve the motion
22:54.5
for reconsideration
22:55.4
for the revised guidelines
22:56.7
for continuous trial
22:58.0
of criminal cases.
23:01.6
of the 32 informations
23:03.8
to the December 7, 2023 order.
23:08.6
to amend the informations
23:10.9
and not to file new ones.
23:14.5
that the newly filed
23:16.1
were merely amended
23:17.8
for how will it be
23:18.9
considered amended
23:19.7
when it was newly filed.
23:26.7
finding of probable cause
23:28.2
yet for the newly filed cases.
23:30.8
that it is not true
23:34.7
finding probable cause.
23:36.1
It is the prosecution
23:38.5
these cases were newly filed
23:44.2
rules of criminal procedure
23:47.3
that it is impossible
23:49.0
to determine probable cause
23:53.5
not even filed yet.
23:55.8
the very evidence
23:57.7
or copyright infringement
23:58.8
in the cases herein
23:59.7
are the videos themselves.
24:01.9
even without a full-blown trial,
24:03.5
the court can determine
24:04.8
based on the videos
24:05.6
and no other evidence
24:06.7
is needed by the court.
24:08.5
the tax of the court
24:09.5
in watching and reviewing
24:12.4
every applicable law
24:13.6
cannot be reversed
24:15.0
contentions of the prosecution.
24:19.9
omnibus resolution.
24:21.6
that the dismissal
24:23.3
is the very essence
24:24.7
and speedy disposition
24:27.2
that there is nothing
24:28.2
left to do herein
24:30.1
a full-blown trial
24:30.7
is a waste of time
24:32.9
that he cannot comment
24:35.2
and copyright infringement
24:36.3
than what is already said
24:37.9
Omnibus Resolution.
24:39.6
that the two judges
24:44.0
no probable cause
24:45.4
against the accused
24:47.8
that the original
24:49.9
Honorable Judge Santiago,
24:58.5
there is a high probability
25:01.5
are already dismissed.
25:03.7
that if two judges'
25:04.9
resolutions are in sync
25:08.3
only three judges
25:12.7
of the two judges
25:13.6
which are incongruent
25:16.8
that it is unfair
25:17.9
to implicate bias,
25:21.7
their duties well.
25:24.4
resolution or decision
25:25.5
is not tantamount
25:28.4
like what the prosecution
25:32.8
that the prosecution
25:34.5
bias, partiality,
25:37.9
that Judge Santiago
25:38.6
is a former police officer
25:39.9
and Mayor Magalong
25:47.6
that the prosecution
25:48.3
is forum shopping.
25:49.7
They are shopping
25:51.0
which is prohibited
25:52.5
He cited the cases
25:57.6
Quilos Bayan Foundation
25:58.6
v. Judge Leon Che
26:04.4
Code of Professional
26:07.0
and Accountability.
26:10.7
mga kapatid natin,
26:16.5
Nakita naman na natin,
26:18.3
meron na dito yung,
26:19.4
yung, yung, yung,
26:20.5
yung binasa ko kanina,
26:22.5
mga kapatid natin.
26:26.6
for reconsideration
26:29.2
in Action Foundation
26:33.8
for reconsideration nila.
26:38.3
for inhibition nila
26:39.4
against Judge Cortez
26:43.7
for reconsideration nila
26:44.9
against Judge Cortez.
26:48.8
mga kapatid natin,
26:51.0
pag makikita nyo,
26:59.8
to walk you through din
27:01.0
to what really is happening
27:05.4
Without, of course,
27:07.2
yung tinatawag nila na,
27:12.0
nag-iingat nga ako sa inyo, eh.
27:13.9
we, we are reading this,
27:15.2
mga kapatid natin.
27:16.2
We are showing both sides.
27:19.4
a decision of the court,
27:22.1
So, we cannot influence
27:23.5
the court any further.
27:25.1
Nandiyan dyan naman na siya,
27:26.2
mga kapatid natin.
27:33.5
So, sasabihin mo ito,
27:35.0
sasabihin ko rin ito.
27:36.7
It's really adversarial.
27:42.6
yung nangyayari sa korte.
27:44.0
Para hindi na rin
27:46.4
you will be participating
27:54.3
Yun lang, mga kapatid natin.
27:55.5
Itutuloy natin yung bukas.
27:58.0
Pag-aaralan natin
27:59.0
kung ano yung sinabi
28:04.8
at saka sa arguments
28:08.3
in Action Foundation.
28:09.9
Maraming salamat.
28:12.0
ni Susako Cronod dito.
28:18.7
Pinapaganda mo pa
28:21.0
participating in court cases.
28:22.5
If you participate
28:24.4
ganyan yung mangyayari.
28:26.9
Maraming salamat.
28:29.4
Lipat tayo sa kabila
28:31.2
na yung natutulog
28:35.8
yung Judge Santiago,
28:37.4
sharpshooter na SWAT?
28:44.2
si Judge Santiago.
28:45.0
Siya yung na-early
28:54.5
sa sang small vlogger
28:57.5
na-dismiss lahat.
28:58.2
Kung may nagastos
28:59.7
pwede ba siya mag-file din
29:00.6
para may reimburse
29:01.6
yung mag-gastos siya?
29:02.8
Well, pwede naman.
29:04.3
Kapag malicious yung prosecution,
29:06.4
malicious prosecution
29:14.1
SPO for sharpshooter.
29:15.9
Tapos naging judge siya.
29:19.5
marami siyang awards eh.
29:22.2
si Judge Jamie B. Santiago.
29:25.0
Andami niyang awards.
29:26.2
Andami niyang accolades
29:27.7
bilang isang judge.
29:29.5
Maraming salamat.
29:32.2
na yung natutulog
29:34.1
siya yung laging panalo.
