TRUE STORY ON CUDIA: "HE IS NOT GUILTY"

TRUE STORY ON CUDIA: 

"HE IS NOT GUILTY"

 -- CADET CUDIA CONTINUES FIGHT FOR FUTURE PMA CADETS

  

It will show that the secrecy of Honor Code proceedings was TAKEN ADVANTAGE to advance the purposes that are Satanic: "jealousy" and "hate."

1st Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia continuously stands up with his chin up as he stays in the holding center of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA).

He insists he is innocent and he refused all resignation papers dangled on him to be signed by him.

He could have walked away because this is the easiest thing for him to remove this biggest problem of his life.

But he chose to stay on because, according to his sister, he does this for all future PMAers who would enter the Academy in the enclave named after the country's youngest general to serve the Philippines, General Gregorio Del Pilar.

Obviously, he has become a victim of envy and greed among the Honor Committee. 

For sure, what will turn out after analysis is that the systemic setup of secrecy of the Honor Proceedings was taken advantage to the hilt by those who have harbored hate and jealousy against Cadet Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia.

The actual incidents: Let the readers judge

The following narration is the truth about the incidents that occurred prior to the finding of guilt of Cadet Cudia.

In presenting this, the author let the readers make their own judgment whether Cudia is guilty of lying or not to warrant his removal from the PMA and deny him commission to the AFP as a Navy ensign.

His tactical officer, Major Dennis Hindang, started all these problems that have now turned into a very important NATIONAL ISSUE.

It is a national issue because netizens are arguing they as citizens of the Philippines have the right to demand transparency and accountability on why the Honor Committee of cadets at the PMA just decided to kick out Cadet Cudia when the People through the government spent more than P2 million for each for four years in the Academy.

It would turn out that the national issue was something that Hindang did not think would result from his simple act described by Avee Cudia, the cadet’s sister, as an “act of hatred.”

As if Hindang signed the "death warrant" called by them as "honor violation report."

In the first blog about this that was posted by Aldrin's sister, Avee Cudia, she complained that other than Aldrin there were classmates of him who were also late in reporting to their English 412 class under Professor Juanita Berong.

As stated in the Appeal of Cudia published exclusively by Rappler.com, these four classmates who were also late were: 1^st Class Cadet Miranda; 1^st Class Cadet Arcangel; 1^st Class Cadet Narciso; and 1^st Class Cadet Diaz.

Berong originated Delinquency Report (DR) No. 183925 dated 19 November 2013 where she wrote about Cudia, to wit: "Late for two minutes in his Eng. 412 class o/a 14 1500H - 1600H Nov. 2013."

To this DR dated 19 November 2013, Cadet Cudia explained as follows: "Our class was dismissed a bit late...."

On 19 December 2013, Cadet Cudia received the information that Major Hindang punished him with 11 demerits and 13 touring hours while his classmates who were also late by the same time because they were together were only punished with 8 demerits and 8 touring hours.

Cadet Cudia went to Major Hindang and verbally made an appeal. 

Cudia said that Hindang said the latter made a phone call to Dr. Costales, the professor of the class period before the class of Berong was to begin.

Cudia said in his appeal that Hindang claimed that Dr. Costales said they had that protocol to dismiss the class 15 minutes or 10 minutes before 1500H. 

(It will turn out later that Dr. Costales said that Hindang called up a month after the late-reporting incident and Hindang did not inquire on a specific date about the issue of Cudia's being late but that the inquiry was about her general routine on the dismissal of her class.)

Because he was told by Hindang to make his appeal in writing, Cudia filed his supplemental appeal on the same December 19, 2013 where he said:

"Sir, I strongly believe that I am not in control of the circumstances, our 4th period class ended 1500H and our 5th period class, which is ENG412, started 1500H also. Immediately after 4th period class, I went to my next class without any intention of being late Sir."

On January 7, 2014, or 19 days after December 19, 2013, Hindang filed an honor violation case against Cudia, where Hindang stated:

“Lying that is giving statement that perverts the truth in his written appeal, stating that his 4^th period class ended at 1500H that made him late in the succeeding class.”

Stated otherwise, it is very clear that Hindang’s accusation is that Cudia lied when Cudia stated that the 4^th period class, that was prior the English 412 class under Berong, ended at 1500H (3:00 p.m. in layman’s term) on 14 November 2013.

The 4^th period class was for the subject they call “OR432.”

The issue:

It is very clear that the issue now here brought up by Major Hindang was whether Cadet Cudia lied for stating his OR432 class ended at 1500H.

The Conclusion of this writer:

There was no act of lying.  This is very clear.  If at all, the circumstances will show that Hindang created a big thing out of nothing.

In other words, Major Dennis Hindang could be liable here under the Articles of War for conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.  He must be charged before the Court Martial.

The Discussion:

To begin with, the official time schedule of classes of their subject for OR432 was from 1330H up to 1500H.  Their Eng 412 class schedule was from 1500H to 1600H.

For any ordinary student in an ordinary university, it is no big thing to state that your class ended at 1500H if you know that your class schedule was to end at 1500H even if the actual time of dismissal on a particular day is earlier by five minutes or so.    Among ordinary students, nobody looks at his wrist watch all the time to monitor the actual end of the class as against the time scheduled.    Additionally, nobody among ordinary students synchronize their time with their professor’s watch or fellow students’ watches.

Their being at the PMA is not sufficient to say that a cadet lied if he said that his class ended at 1500H even if in truth the actual dismissal time for a particular day was minutes earlier or later than that.

Obviously, Cudia here did not look at his wristwatch when the bell rang to signal the actual dismissal of the class.   If he did, he could have marked the actual time of dismissal of the class on 14 November 2013 accurately in seconds and minutes.    A cavalier source said that the first ring of the bell should be known by cadets to be five minutes before the actual end time of the schedule of class, while there is that second bell known to cadets as actual time of end of the class based on fixed schedule.  But there was no saying whether the one who tasked to switch the bell would always be accurate to do that duty at exactly five minutes before the class must end and at exactly the time the class is scheduled to end.    

After the first bell rang, it is undisputed that Cudia and his classmates, 1^st Class Cadet Miranda and 1^st Class Cadet Arcangel, asked their professor if they could get their grades on their previous long examination.   It is also undisputed that 1^st Class Cadet Narciso and 1^st Class Cadet Diaz stayed with the three.

Their professor, Dr. Costales, consented and told them to wait.

While waiting for the professor, it is equally undisputed that the five (5) cadets waited for their professor at the hallway outside the ACAD5 office.

When their professor went out to give their grades, they then proceeded to their next class, Eng 412, scheduled for 1500H to 1600H.

Obviously, Cadet Cudia did not look at his wristwatch what time in seconds and minutes when they finally left Professor Costales.  To be sure there was no more bell that rang when the teacher handed out the grades.  So that nobody can be expected to know what time was it that Costales gave the grades.

In the process, they were late in entering the class of Professor Berong.  It is undisputed also that Professor Berong originated a Delinquency Report (DR) stating that Aldrin was late only for two minutes for their class schedule of 1500H to 1600H.   Any person will have logic to say that if Aldin was late by two minutes, he must have entered the class of Prof. Berong at 1502H.  And it turned out that Aldrin's reliance on the statement of Prof. Berong caused him to be dragged to a dragnet.

It is a fact that Professor Berong did not submit the DR until 19 November 2013.   Why did she not submit the DR on the same 14 November 2013 was never explained.   If indeed the military training regimen had to be strict, Prof. Berong should submit the DR right on the same day.

Let us then analyze if Cadet Cudia lied considering the circumstances narrated above.

The definition of lying is simple and it is an act of making a statement of fact despite knowledge it is false.

In the case of Cudia, he was obviously making a statement that they were dismissed by Professor Costales at 1500H.  Can he be guilty of lying here?

There is only one way of making Cudia guilty here. It is by means of establishing a fact that Cudia knew that the actual dismissal was not 1500H, but earlier or later.

However, it is by nature of the circumstance that only Cudia would knew whether he had the knowledge that the actual dismissal of their OR432 class was not 1500H.    That is, even if it is a knowledge of all cadets that the first bell was five minutes before the class schedule time of dismissal and the two bells later signaled the actual end of the class per schedules of classes fixed by the college.  Nobody certainly knows what is in the mind of another unless that other person reveals what he was thinking.

In short, on issues whose answers require the discovery of the state of the mind, it is the hardest thing in the world to probe.

In the law of evidence, the nearest way to prove what was in the mind of a person is to judge all his actions or overt manifestations and know the totality of the circumstances.

If it was established by the Honor Committee that Cudia looked at his wristwatch when the first bell rang, then it would be justified to say that Cudia lied if the first bell is to be considered as the time of dismissal.     As if, the Honor Committee can even rebuke Cudia by saying: “Hoy, Cudia, you lied when you said you were dismissed in your OR432 class at 1500H because there is CCTV with sound recording showing you were looking at your watch when the first bell rang and the time was not 1500H.”

Now, if we consider the actual time that Professor Costales handed out the grades as the legal time of dismissal, it was not established either that Cudia looked at his wristwatch at that very moment. 

If it was established by the Honor Committee that Cudia looked at his wristwatch when they were finally given grades by Professor Costales, the Honor Committee could be justified in saying that Cudia lied when Cudia stated that their 4^th period class ended at 1500H.  It is undisputed that there was no bell that rang when Prof. Costales gave the grades so nobody could be expected to have looked at the wrist watch.

But if the Honor Committee cannot establish a proof that Cudia looked at his wristwatch when the first bell rang and when Professor Costales handed them their grades, then Cudia is NOT GUILTY OF LYING.  As this write argued, it can never be presumed or assumed that it is true that the first bell is always five minutes before the class is scheduled to end because it cannot be expected that the one tasked to ring is always precise in doing that duty or that his watch might have defects to be out of sync compared with others' watches.  

Now, let us assume that the PMA is very strict as to every tick of the clock that all students are required to look at their wristwatch every bell of the class and at every actual dismissal from the class.    With this premise, the question would then be: Can Cudia be guilty of lying when he said their 4^th period class ended at 1500H when in truth it was earlier or later?   And the answer is still no, “not guilty.”

To prove that Cudia lied cannot be founded on the fact that it is their obligation to look at their wristwatches.   It can never be founded on the ringing of the bell, the first or the second that is a set of two rings. 

To adjudge that Cudia lied must be founded on the fact or the existence of a fact that he actually looked at his wrist watch at the first bell and that the first bell was indeed exact as to seconds to be five minutes before the schedule end of the class.   This, if the considered time of dismissal is the time when the first bell rang. 

And if the time Cudia was finally handed his grade by Professor Costales were to be considered as actual time of dismissal, nobody can say what actually the time of dismissal was.    This is so because Cudia and his classmate cannot be expected to look at their wristwatches at the time the grades were given to them.   The cannot be expected either to look at the watch because it was not a war subject.   It was not a special-forces raid training that all clocks of the team members must be synchronized and that they must monitor their clocks at regular intervals to make their move very precise.    

Another thing, when what is at issue is a matter of seconds or one or two minutes, nobody is permitted to rely on the first bell as the exact time of five minutes before the schedule of time of dismissal: this is because it is always a habit of life that the one ringing the bell cannot be perfect in ringing the bell at exactly five minutes before the schedule time of dismissal. 

And if it is indeed an obligation to look at the watch at the bell of the ring and at the time of actual dismissal, then Cudia can be guilty only of NEGLIGENCE IN NOT MONITORING HIS TIME.  The act of negligence is simply being careless and there is no intention to commit that act.

Over and above these circumstances is the fact that no cadet will ever dare to lie when he fears dismissal is the punishment and when other cadets were with him to contradict whatever falsities that would be delivered by the concerned cadet.  Stated in another way, will a man steal when there is a witness?  To say yes is to say that he must be a born thief or a super thief that he does so even before the eyes of others.

Then, there is an issue semantics that have to contend with because without making it clear the words may be confusing to understand.  An example of it is the word "right", which may mean an entitlement or the opposite of "wrong."

Now, the first of the two questions asked by the Honor Committee to a cadet being tried is this: Did you intend to lie?

Since it is very clear there was no way for an intention to occur, then it is simple: CUDIA CANNOT BE GUILTY OF LYING.

The second question of the Honor Committee, “Did you take undue advantage?” is simply superfluous.  It does not need to be answered when there is no intention at all.

So it is clear.  CUDIA IS CLEARLY “NOT GUILTY.”

For the Honor Committee members to vote Cudia is guilty is either:

(a)    To make out an evidence of LACK OF INTELLIGENCE among the members thereof; or

(b)   To make out an evidence of DELIBERATE ACT OF CAUSING PREJUDICE; or

(c)    To commit the wrong of cheating on their conscience.

Second round of voting:

Now, Cavalier Clemente Enrique, Baron of Class '83, and Aldrin himself filed an honor violation case against the Honor Committee members upon the ground that they manipulated the voting.

The first voting was eight (8) votes for "guilty" and one (1) for "not guilty."  Under the rules of the Honor Committee, the vote must be unanimous 9-0 to convict the cadet under trial.

This first voting that was 8-1, according to Cavalier Enrique as told to him by Cudia, was revealed by one of the committee members who asked forgiveness from Aldrin because after dissenting he was compelled to change his vote in the second round.

Rejecting the appeal made Honor Committee Guilty Twice Over:

              Cudia filed his appeal and his single new evidence is the CERTIFICATION signed by Dr. Costales.

              But the Appeal became DEAD ON ARRIVAL.

Without even looking at what could be the new evidence, the Honor Committee immediately voted down the request to give due course to the appeal.

This made them guilty of cheating twice over.

Certainly, netizens like me who pay taxes do not want this kind of cheaters in the Armed Forces. Else, they will continue the human rights violations committed against the people.  They will be unforgiving for every rebel they will catch.  There will be endless game of torture. I bet on these statements.