Tag: evidence

Criminal law, News, Rules of Court

Altering evidence for cover-up, Atimonan killings

News peg: “Police fired fallen passengers’ guns in Atimonan shootout — NBI report xxx  Policemen involved in the January 6 bloodbath that left 13 people dead at a checkpoint in Atimonan, Quezon were seen firing the fallen men’s guns – ‘one by one into the air and other directions.’ “ 

Without prejudice to the filing of complaints/ charges upon a finding of prima facie case for any acts of premeditated killings or killings with treachery, or superior strength,  or with armed men,  or by weakening the defense of persons to afford impunity (murders, for each count) or homicide if not attended by any of the circumstances constituting murder, the following provisions are also pertinent for the acts of contaminating the crime scene, e.g.,  one count for each alteration of the evidence, i.e., one count for each firing of the weapons that are evidence or part of the crime scene (each count punishable with six years prison)

PD 1829, Obstruction. “Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:

xxx

“(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any …  object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;

xxx

“(f) making, presenting or using any …  object with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;

xxx

“(i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of background information and not for publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to the court.

“Section 2. If any of the foregoing acts is committed by a public official or employee, he shall in addition to the penalties provided thereunder, suffer perpetual disqualification from holding public office. xXxx”

 

 

Rules of Court

news flash: Lozada’s testimony corroborated by Neri’s negative pregnant

agnesarrelano.jpg

Agnes Arellano. Carcass Cornucopia/ above, Music for Making the Sun Rise, below. Sculpture installation: cold-cast marble, unhusked rice, crushed marble, wood. 1987. Fukuoka Asian Art Museum. Right-clicked from www.faam.city.fukuoka.jp searched thru www.artcyclopedia.com   

     This early, the evidence given by Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada on the ZTE negotiations has been corroborated, unwittingly, by no other than former NEDA secretary-general and now CHED chair Romy Neri himself.

    When asked for his reaction on the testimony of Jun Lozada that he (Romy Neri) instructed him to “Modify their greed.”, his response was: “oh, i just used colourful language, i just meant to make it cost-efficient.”     

        At the very least, Romy Neri had corroborated the following:    

         1.He knew Mr. Lozada .      

      2. He knew him enough to give him instructions.     

    3.He did give those instructions in those words: “Moderate their greed.”    

      4. The subject-matter of his instructions was the ZTE negotiations.    

       5.Both of them (Mr. Neri and Mr. Lozada) were involved in the contract-negotiations  as seen from the nature of the instructions, even within the purported belated meaning he gave to it.     

       6. He had asked and assigned Mr. Lozada to review the project and inform him of developments in the ZTE negotiations:  This is the import even within the context of the limited supposed meaning given by Mr. Neri.       

    7.Mr. Lozada was getting instructions from him on the ZTE negotiations and apprising him of its stages.     

           In other words, Romy Neri by not giving a general and specific denial  gave the public  (and now admissible in evidence as extra-judicial admission in the form of  negative pregnant) what in evidence and litigation is  called a  “negative pregnant”. Or, a denial that attempts to refute a specific qualification or quality and therefore  in effect admits the truth of the general statement that the event took place.   

        That’s a neat rule, isn’t it?  Lawyers always like to use it.    

         In other words (take a look at Number 7): by denying his meaning but not the event itself, Mr. Neri also established the context that indeed Mr. Lozada was being sent  by him to the contract negotiations in his (Mr. Neri’s) stead, to be his eyes and ears in the negotiations, and to report to him.    

       His negative pregnant is pregnant with the truth. Romy Neri  has unwittingly demolished all the demolition job and efforts of the Macapagal-Arroyo minions (his fellow minions) against Mr. Lozada.       

       I like that rule negative pregnant. It’s positive.