Category: Criminal law

Criminal law, Rules of Court, The President

The amphibians have to go

eucharistic-justice.jpg
“Eucharistic Justice” by Farid de la Ossa Arrieta from www.dlibrary.acu.edu.au

 

 

It is so like the Catholic Church (speaking through Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales) to preach to the public that they should accept whatever decision the Sandiganbayan would hand down in the Estrada plunder case:

 

“Of course [a guilty verdict] would be painful for others. But we have to accept whatever would be decision,” he said. (abs-cbnnews.com).

 

People should read, they shouldn’t just accept.

 

They should examine the pieces of evidence laid out, and not be swayed, or stilled, by the agitation, or pacification of their “leaders”.

 

And they can disagree. People are allowed to express their disagreement in orderly even if noisy, discourses, i.e., no smashing of windows and throwing of pillboxes and rocks. But shouting, walking, marching, stabbing the air with clenched fists – those are all legal, they’re not criminalized.

 

I don’t think the government would need amphibious vehicles on stand-by in case riots break out. The AFP displayed its APC’s, M-60’s, tanks, and amphibious vehicles, as preparation for the promulgation. Of course, seeing that Malacañang is by the Pasig river, it is imaginable that contingency plans for urban warfare would include the use of amphibious vehicles either as a physical exit plan for the President or an emergency rescue plan; but guys, really now….amphibians….i don’t know.

 

The decision would be, as in all cases, a matter of public record, and people have the right to examine the basis of the decision and see if it is supported by evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. That’s the standard, beyond all reasonable doubt, and it is the burden of the prosecution. If you think it’s a “he-said-she-said”, look at the corroborating evidence. Look at the bank accounts. Please look at them. And the bank employees’ testimonies. The deposits. The checks, in one account then in another and another then in the foundation. 200 million pesos, 28 pieces 28 times. The check, commissions one hundred eighty nine million pesos; then the trust accounts please look at them three billion and two million pesos.

 

If acquitted, all the accused can go ahead with whatever plans they have, their legal team would be congratulated, their supporters thanked. There is no appeal. The State in a criminal case is allowed only one shot at it (one criminal trial); double jeopardy attaches. Those who disagree with the decision can express themselves fully and orderly. On the other hand, if the decision goes in another direction; and the accused are not satisfied with the decision, they can appeal and have every right to file an appeal; and the principal accused here has expressed his intention to do so. I do not know anything about the supposed offer of presidential pardon, but if that were true, it’s really up to the team of the accused whether they’d withdraw their appeal in order to accept it; or what recourse they would take. Live to fight another day.

 

Those who think or know that the Court is honest and competent and who think or know that, since the members are honest and competent, the decision would be based solely on the evidence, and that people are intelligent and wise enough to discern whether the trial and the decision had been fair and just, would sleep easy at night.

 

But please still read.

 

 

And not sleep too deeply though. If we think or have evidence that that this regime itself is more corrupt than anything we’ve ever seen, we should outlive and outwit it one more day.

 

But the amphibians have to go.


Criminal law, Rules of Court, The President

“For your eyes only”

vasily.jpg

“Spy”, 1878-1879, by Vasily Vereshchagin, oil on canvas, published by The Museum of Russian Art, Kiev, Ukraine, at http://www.abcgallery.com

 

The Senate resolution on Agent Doble’s testimony on the Garci tapes is now mired in the Rules Committee and until it gets out of there, all discussion is futile. (to be fair, it’s obvious that many of the “presidentiables” are, this early, “positioning” or “pre-positioning” themselves for 2010; “all the world’s a stage”).

 

The matter was tossed there because administration senators said that the senators would be/ might get criminally liable if they play/ possess/ communicate the contents of the Garci tapes.

 

The tapes have been marked as exhibits and played in the House hearings. Everybody has a copy of parts of the conversation; the entire nation communicated its contents; it’s kinda unmanageable to cause a prosecution now.

 

But it’s the Rules Committee. Let’s be hypothetical, academic, theoretical, out-of-touch with reality, and engage those who are “afraid” of incurring criminal liability for communicating the contents of the Garci tapes.

 

The overt acts punishable in RA 4200 are (I short-handed this, just read the entire law, the words are plain) : 1.to tap any wire or cable; or 2. overhear, intercept, or record such communication by using a tape recorder, etc., 3. to knowingly possess such; 4. to replay the same; 5. to communicate the contents.

 

I wasn’t able to listen to the privilege speech or listen carefully to any discussions on it (soweee), but as I understand it, the following are sought to be investigated:

 

1.whether or not the MIG 21 team of Agent Doble conducted such an operation or tapped the phones of Garci and other individuals.

2.if they did, who ordered it? what other phones were tapped?

3.was this an S.O.P.? for how long now?

4.what equipment was used and how was it conducted?

5.whether or not the phone companies or any of their personnel were in on it?

6.whether or not Agent Doble’s family or families were indeed detained by the military to coerce Agent Doble to turn around; and who were involved in the detention.

 

If you were a fiscal or prosecutor investigating whether or not any illegal wiretapping had been committed by military agents, would you yourself (the fiscal/ prosecutor), if you marked the tapes as exhibits since you were investigating the fact of wiretapping, be criminally liable for possession? As long as you don’t communicate the contents, no.

 

If the senators are going to investigate the fact of wiretapping and not anymore the contents thereof which have been extensively covered by the House and published completely and discussed nationwide, then they don’t run into the overt acts; now if somebody during the Senate investigation asked, what again did the woman who sounded like Gloria say in the tapes, what did she say again; an objection can be raised. Then ruled upon. There’s a thousand ways of going about this.

 

And the procedure is a lot simpler than you think.

 

It’s the fact of who ordered the wiretaps, if it were the Commander-in-Chief who ordered those wiretaps, (or, who approved the S.O.P. but just forgot about it when she made the calls) that would make the issue of criminal liability “complicated”; who would be criminally liable, just the underlings and the listeners and the public but not the mastermind?