Law – marichulambino.com

Jade Castro case, criminal procedure: Make sure to question the legality of the arrest formally and early on before any kind of arraignment takes place.

The job of the inquest fiscal is to determine whether or not the warrantless arrest is valid (it is valid only if in flagrante delicto or caught in the act of committing a crime, or if policemen saw the person committing a crime and pursued him/her/them : This is called “hot pursuit”. Or if the person is a fugitive). Facts show that the CCTV and other documentary evidence show that Jade Castro and his prod crew were in another town, Mulanay town, on stage production, the entire time and when the police visited them;

there is an entire CCTV footage on this by the local government unit itself. The police then visited them, then the next day, the police invited them for questioning, and there they were detained).

The facts show that the warrantless arrest therefore of Jade Castro and colleagues is not valid and the inquest fiscal should have ordered their release.

Because of what the inquest fiscal did, the Information (formal charge) would have already been filed in court. (Correction, see next post : But apparently, without any Mirandizing and without a lawyer they were made to sign a waiver of Art. 125 so their detention was extended and the inquest fiscal has not yet filed the Information (formal charge) in court?) I will let the handling lawyers deliberate on the procedure, and will post an explainer later. But an important reminder po: Make sure to question the legality of the arrest formally and early on before any kind of arraignment takes place.

Daily writing prompt

Are you a good judge of character?

View all responses

WordPress Daily Prompt Q: Are you a good judge of character?

Answer: Yes – of character based on behavior.

“Character” of individuals and institutions:

SMNI, an outlet that allows itself to be a channel of death threats, ominous and unfounded red-tagging that endangers lives, and of harmful disinformation :

The clear and present danger test, applicable to all, where utterances with their context most likely lead to loss of lives/loss of life, or mayhem and destruction, as a standard, is the only safe and true ground upon which the right to freedom of expression can reside. All other arguments lead to confusing comparisons, confusing differentiation, confusing congress-charter-change debates, and in some cases, dangerous selective application, illegal shutdown, and discrimination, that work as forms of prior restraint on those selected.

(the interview below was conducted on 2-hours’ notice right before our Law on Mass Media class – Many thanks to the interviewee and producers (ABS-CBN News) for the opportunity to explain the clear and present danger rule as the only valid ground upon which utterances that endanger lives can be put to a stop)