Results 61 to 70 of 70
-
Verified Tsikot Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 306
May 7th, 2015 10:38 PM #61sadly may katotohanan sinabi mo.
1. pwedeng takot din yung naagrabyado kasi may koneksyon yung dinedemanda
2. Naareglo sa pera
3. Matagal kasi lumakad kaso dito, magastos pa.
Sa LTO ba, consistent ba sila sa pagsuspend/revoke ng driver's license sa mga nahuhuli sa videos?
Pero, thinking about it, parusa na rin at least yung public shaming. Im pretty sure less friends yan sa FB and less friends din yan sa real life. hehe.
-
May 8th, 2015 03:50 AM #62
-
May 8th, 2015 05:50 AM #63
In the Philippine laws, seems like the plaintiff /complainant bears the burden of proof and the prosecution is bayot
Last edited by jick.cejoco; May 8th, 2015 at 06:07 AM.
-
May 8th, 2015 08:44 AM #64
Saw this in the news, since kinasuhan na hindi pa din ba sila i-detain?
hanep din si jeje driver, maamong tupa sa harap ng camera.
pero areglo nga din ending niyan. Pera pera.
-
May 8th, 2015 09:12 AM #65
Yes, they may settle amicably with the 2 TE pero yung carrying ng gun & exposing in public + baka walang license hindi maareglo sa PNP unless dikit sila kay "Time on Target". Itong si driver is the trial balloon and how the hell he has the guts to do such act with matching gun kung walang utos ang amo, if all clear sunod naman lalabas si among kupal.
-
May 8th, 2015 09:36 AM #66
this is not only a crime against a private individual, this is a crime against the state. it is terroristic conduct, it is a violation of public laws, it is an assault against a law enforcement officer while in performance of his duties. even if he pays the individual for damages, the crime against the state stands.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
this is not only a crime against a private individual, this is a crime against the state. it is terroristic conduct, it is a violation of public laws, it is an assault against a law enforcement officer while in performance of his duties. even if he pays the individual for damages, the crime against the state stands.
-
May 8th, 2015 01:52 PM #67
Sino dito malapit or may kakilala na Senador or Congressman? Baka pwede nyo isuggest na mag pass ng bill para sa mga ganitong klaseng scenario na government na ang magfifile ng kaso sa kanila. The bill should specify na ang government ang magtutuloy ng kaso even though na settle na siya amicably or walang nag file. My only concern is baka gawin lang din gatasan sa judiciary yung mga ganitong kaso.
Sana ang mga Abu Sayyaf or kung sino man yung mga rebelde, mga ganitong klase na lang ng tao yung tinatarget.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sino dito malapit or may kakilala na Senador or Congressman? Baka pwede nyo isuggest na mag pass ng bill para sa mga ganitong klaseng scenario na government na ang magfifile ng kaso sa kanila. The bill should specify na ang government ang magtutuloy ng kaso even though na settle na siya amicably or walang nag file. My only concern is baka gawin lang din gatasan sa judiciary yung mga ganitong kaso.
Sana ang mga Abu Sayyaf or kung sino man yung mga rebelde, mga ganitong klase na lang ng tao yung tinatarget.
-
Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Posts
- 276
-
-
BANNED BANNED BANNED
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
- Posts
- 4,581
May 8th, 2015 05:27 PM #70Under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the crime of DIRECT ASSAULT is committed when the malefactor shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance. Please take note that direct assault does not have a private offended party because under the RPC direct assault is a crime against PUBLIC ORDER. Because it is a crime against public order and it does not have a private offended party, it cannot therefore be settled in any way, *in the same way that violations of RA 9165 (drugs) or RA 10591(comprehensive law on FAs and ammunition) cannot be settled also. Likewise, please take note that because direct assault is a crime against public order, the accused, if convicted, is NOT eligible to apply for probation under PD 968, as amended by PD 1990, even if the penalty of direct assault does not exceed 6 yrs (the penalty provided for by the RPC is only prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods). The role of the two traffic enforcers (TEs) in the case is relegated merely as witnesses for the prosecution. They cannot even be represented by a private prosecutor in the direct assault case because private prosecutors can only intervene in the civil aspect of the case, and there being no private offended party, there is also no civil aspect.*
kung ayaw mag file yung TEs for one reason or another, QCPD can file the case. Under the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, because direct assault is a crime which can be prosecuted de officio, law enforcement officers can initiate the filing of the case. And, yes, the video can be used against the accused. But, under the Rules on Evidence, the authenticity of the video shall be established first to be admissible. This is done through the testimony of the person who took it.
of course! the former was more enlightening than reading the Holy Book. mom loved the Ten...
Traffic!