People vs. Janet Lim-Napoles, et al

Just a teeny-weeny, itsy-bitsy tiny bit:

     

    The better policy and tactic now is to concentrate on building up the case against her  (for plunder or otherwise) – focus on gathering the primary documents:

        •contracts,

        •vouchers,

         •checks,

         •deposit slips,

         •transaction slips,

         •bank statements,

         •photos,

         •videos,

         •and other documentary evidence cited by the witnesses and by the COA report;  

        and object evidence: equipment, infrastructure, vehicles, real and personal properties, until the evidence is more than enough for a prima facie case – instead of relying on wild talk of  her possible offer of testimony.

      

        You will need to secure documents and witnesses from the banks and the clearing houses.  Fast. Now. Important.

      

       Don’t get distracted.

      

     — To be charged with a public official or public officials if for plunder (without prejudice to forfeiture proceedings). And, oh, important: don’t forget to add “John Does” when you craft the complaint; or as what other lawyers do in other criminal cases, you can put: “John Doe, Juan P. Doe, Bong Doe, Bongbong Doe, Jinggoy Doe,  Greg Doe, and other John and Jeanne Does”… more important, make sure your Information (formal charge), and not just the complaint, contains John Does.

     Make sure the Information complies with all the elements and all the terms of the criminal statute – plunder requires a series of predicate acts that are also criminal in nature, spell out what those overt acts are — open the statute books when you’re crafting the Info (do not copy and paste), make a back-and forth- and refer every line to it — even if you think it’s perfect, show it  to other criminal trial experts and CPA-lawyers; the Information (formal charge) will make your case rise or fall in the preliminary motions and throughout the presentation of evidence… 

Breaking News. From interaksyon.com as of 1pm: SC stops Cybercrime Law by TRO

Breaking News. From interaksyon.com (online news of Channel 5) as of 1pm: SC stops Cybercrime Law by TRO.

“MANILA, Philippines – (UPDATE, 1:02 p.m.) The Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously voted for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) stopping the enforcement of the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act. All 14 justices were present. xxx

xxx

The TRO was issued as the high tribunal deliberated en banc on 15 petitions from various groups and personalities from the media, lawyers’ and free-speech advocates’ sectors, all seeking a halt to implementation of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. xxx”    ” – interaksyon.com

     YES!  Unanimous.

    They read it. They know their constitutional law.

     A TRO from the Supreme Court is indefinite in character. It is effective unless set aside, and it becomes permanent when the SC decides in favor of the petitioners.

(Updated as of 5:20 pm: The SC in its resolution limited the TRO to only 120 days, oral arguments set: Jan. 15, 2013. Merry Christmas!)

     xxx (continuation of 1pm blog post)

Unconstitutional kayo, Senado, Konggreso, Malacañang ! On your faces, er,  este, on its face, the law is unconstitutional. “On its face” means just by a reading of the text. 

     Ipinilit pa ng Malacañang — violative of the right to be secure in one’s person, houses, papers, and effects,  the right to privacy of communication and correspondence,  the right against double jeopardy, the right to freedom from prior restraint,  the free speech clause, etc. etc.

    Mabuhay ang lahat ng netizens na pumalag at hindi pumayag sa Cybercrime Law!

      (Salamat di na madilim ang blog ko)  

      See previous blog post, below, for context, posted five hours before issuance of TRO: