David Teniers the Younger. Guardsroom. 1642. Oil on panel. 69 x 103 cm. The Hermitage, St. Petersburg, Russia. Right-clicked from http://www.abcgallery.com
TV and on-line news outfits reported that convicted rapist Romeo Jalosjos flew in and arrived in Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norter at about 5 pm this afternoon. He granted interviews but there were no visuals and no reporters with him, so we have to take his word for it and that of the local officials quoted.
If true, he can be validly arrested without warrant, on sight, by anyone. Since he is a prisoner still serving his sentence, as the Department of Justice had stated, he is considered to have escaped such lawful detention. Here’s the pertinent provision:
“Rules of Court. Rule 113. Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: “(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; “(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and “(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)” (right-clicked from lawphil.net underscoring supplied).
If true, In addition, he can be charged with evasion of sentence punishable with prision correccional medium to max, or four years and two months to six years; if found guilty thus, the penalty is in addition to his unexpired prison term (and if i were the prosecution i would oppose concurrent service of terms.). Here’s the pertinent provision:
“Revised Penal Code. Article 157. Evasion of service of sentence. – The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any convict who shall evade service of his sentence by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment. However, if such evasion or escape shall have taken place by means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, floors, or by using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation, or through connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its maximum period.”
If true, his custodians in Muntinlupa, the warden and the guards, can be charged with conniving with or consenting evasion, punishable with prision correccional medium to max with additional perpetual (since the convict is serving final judgment) special disqualification. The following the pertinent provision:
“Revised Penal Code. Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. — Any public officer who shall consent to the escape of a prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished: 1. By prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty.”.
If true, those who provided him with transport, whether they were paid or not, all those who chartered a plane for him or who gave him plane tickets, and the flight staff and crew who knew who he was, and all those local officials who gave him a place to sleep or stay, can be charged with harbouring, concealing, facilitating the escape of any person he knows or has reasonable ground to believe has committed an offense, etc., or “obstruction of justice” punishable with six years imprisonment, under the following provision:
“PD 1829. Section 1) c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction; xxx”
Discover more from marichulambino.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
EDITED VERSION
On December 15, the Philippine Daily Inquirer ran a story entitled ‘Biofuels eating into food security–Golez.’ The entire article looked like a press release from the opposition congressman, since the entire article depended on Senior Deputy Minority Leader Roilo Golez’s claim that food security may be threatened by the passing of a “law mandating the use of biofuels as an energy source.”
This is in violation of Section 2, Article III of the Code of Professional and Ethical Conduct of the Philippine Press Institute which says that “Single-source stories must be avoided as a rule. There is always the imperative to get a second, third or more sources… We must strive at all times to ascertain the truth of our sources’ assertions.”
—
In the December 21 issue of the Inquirer, a front page story had the headline “Adboard censures Star for making false claims.” The story was about how the Philippine Star has made “unsubstantiated” claims on its advertising reach and for containing images “disparaging” to its major competitors.”
Though the story may involve public interest, it is obvious how the Inquirer’s placing of the story on its front page is strategically done in its favor. The space could’ve been given to a story tackling issues that involves more stakeholders than advertisers and broadsheets.
Also, the article is one-sided, with no statements from the Star whatsoever.
These acts are in violation of The Philippine Journalists’ Code of Ethics which says that journalists should “recognize the duty to air the other side” and “not let personal motives or interests influence me in the performance of my duties.”
—
The previous stated story, along with PDI’s December 20 issue with the story ‘Adboard tells Philippine Star to pull out offending ad’ forms a series of articles meant to attack the Star. Though the KBP codes is devoted to different media, there is a clause in the Radio Code of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas that may be applied to this case. The said clause is in Letter f, Section B, Article I which tackles Commentaries and Analyses which says that “Personal attacks against fellow broadcasters and other stations are considered unethical and not be allowed.”
—
On a different note, the Inquirer’s coverage of the Sumilao Farmers’ ‘Lakaw Sumilao’ or Lakad Sumilao is worthy of acknowledgment. They have had an article on the Sumilao Farmers since October 25, and had a story on their quest for what they rightfully deserve in almost every day of December.
Also, the stories did present both sides of the issue, with stories on the San Miguel Corporation’s claims, the business sector’s concerns, and the government’s views on the matter. Their columnists (at least, most of them) have also taken their stand on the issue and, in effect, the Inquirer has run different opinions on the matter.
All these are in cognizance with the Philippine Journalists’ Code of Ethics, which states that journalists should scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis,” and Number 1 and 2, Section III of the Code of Professional and Ethical Conduct of the Philippine Press Institute which tackles ‘Writing the Story.’ Said clause states that “All efforts should be exerted to make stories fair, accurate and balanced,” and that “Single-source stories must be avoided as a rule.”
LikeLike
Student no. 10 post no. 3
For two days of watching “The Big News”, a 15-minute early evening newscast over ABC-5, I can’t help but criticize the newscast for some grammatical errors committed by its reporters and most especially on its captions for their news items. There are misspelled words such as “suplies,” “explane”, among others. This is really unethical because as journalists, they should check first everything before they flash it onscreen. Aside from that, there’s an instance that they don’t put the name of the interviewed government official, especially those who are controversial like Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez Sr. It’s really negligence on their part for not properly identifying personalities (by putting their names onscreen). The newscast violated the first provision on the journalist’s code of ethics that gives primary importance on accuracy of facts, grammar, information and the like.
LikeLike
Do you have any jurisprudence stating the application of PD 1829. Section 1) c) regarding harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction? I would appreciate if you can share with me the citation. Thanks.
LikeLike