New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines



View Poll Results: Senate's verdict on CJ

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Guilty!

    58 84.06%
  • Not Guilty

    9 13.04%
  • i couldn't care less

    2 2.90%
Page 218 of 421 FirstFirst ... 118168208214215216217218219220221222228268318 ... LastLast
Results 2,171 to 2,180 of 4205
  1. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #2171
    Quote Originally Posted by wowiesy View Post
    di ko ma gets... why is there a distinction between BSP or PSBank as far as kung kanino nanggaling yung info ng mga bank accounts? pag BSP ba, it makes it illegal? meaning pag PSBank nanggaling legal? I would think the proper way to have done it, was through subpoena, okay una walang definite account numbers, pangalan lang... kung truthful ang PSBank, ilalabas nila yun... they also have to certify na yan din lahat ng accounts under a certain name at wala ng iba.. from that point, they could only list down peso accounts, they can mention naman na as far as FCD accounts, they are barred under certain RA kaya they can neither confirm nor deny that Corona has any accounts with their bank... kung ipilit nila FCD, tatakbo naman talaga sa SC si Corona e... karapatan nya yun at di yun maipagkakaila sa kanya... sa peso accounts, may exemption sa impeachment.. tama lang na ilabas ng bank yun.. but then by prematurely revealing the prosecutor's cards, they now run the risk of it being declared inadmissible..

    the fact that these accounts were known to the prosecutors before requesting for subpoena, di ba that makes it an illegal source of info na? whether BSP ba o PSBank galing ang leak? malinaw naman sa RA na exempted sa bank secrecy ang peso deposits kapag impeachment.. so that should've been the way...

    now for Enrile to insist na dapat specific, I think hindi dapat agad kumagat ang prosecution doon... sinusubukan lang naman sila.. bumigay agad sila.. even if they already had a hint of the account numbers, prudence and diligence dictate na they have to take a step back to gain 2 steps at that point.. noong nilabas nila yung mga account numbers, natural ang kasunod na tanong ay saan nila nakuha ang info nila... their source being illegal, of course they risked having all these being declared inadmissible...

    dyan lalabas na talaga wala silang legal strategy sa impeachment court.... strategy na lang talaga nila ay yung ipabulalas sa taong bayan through the media coverage ang mga alam nila... by doing that.. they are not promoting the rule of law.. rule of mob pa rin ang prino promote nila...
    Di pwede pag galing ng BSP. Bokya prosec dyan.

  2. Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    22,967
    #2172
    Hear no Brenda!


  3. Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    26,770
    #2173
    Kulungan ni Aguirre, handa na sa Senado
    Thursday, 01 March 2012 12:10


    Kinumpirma ni Senate Sergeant at Arms chief retired General Jose Balajadia na nakahanda na ang kulungan ng Senado sa oras na magpasya ang impeachment court na ikulong ang na-contempt na si Atty. Vitaliano Aguirre matapos ang ginawang pambabastos sa impeachment trial kahapon nang magsalita si Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago.

    Ayon kay Balajadia, ang kulungan noon ni dating AFP Comptroller Jacinto Ligot ang magiging kulungan ni Aguirre kung saka-sakali.

    Kompleto aniya ang kulungan na isang uri ng silid na may CR, higaan at aircon ngunit walang telebisyon bagama't papayagan pa rin ang detainee na magdala ng cellphone o laptop.

    Sa darating na araw ng Martes pa magpapasya ang impeachment court kung ano ang magiging kaparusahan ni Aguirre pero ayon kay Balajadia, dalawang bagay ang maaaring parusa sa abogado at ito ay pagmultahin o kaya ay makukulong ng hindi lalagpas ng 10 araw tulad ng sinabi ni Sen. Pia Cayetano.

  4. Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    433
    #2174
    Quote Originally Posted by CoDer View Post
    Don't count brenda out. She's even saying that the private prosec is mentally retarded in one of her interviews. Imagine that... comming from a brenda.
    really she said that? hahaha. its becoming a fun ride for the defense team i tell you that.

  5. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #2175
    Quote Originally Posted by baker123 View Post
    really she said that? hahaha. its becoming a fun ride for the defense team i tell you that.
    Yep she did and the reporters around her where chuckling when she said it. Yep the defense is enjoying a sweet ride with brenda around.

  6. Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    21,346
    #2176
    Originally Posted by CoDer
    Don't count brenda out. She's even saying that the private prosec is mentally retarded in one of her interviews. Imagine that... comming from a brenda.
    a ch.5 reporter quoted that to aguirre during a 1 to 1 interview.
    aguirre replied........"ayoko nang patulan yan. diyan siya bihasa eh...."

    ha-hah!

  7. Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,326
    #2177
    Quote Originally Posted by CoDer View Post
    Di pwede pag galing ng BSP. Bokya prosec dyan.
    Paniwala ko, kahit PSBank galing ang leak.. the fact na leak ito .. bokya din.. if they found out about the accounts from a subpoena.. then yun ang legal... pero the fact na leaked ito, whether galing AMLC, BSP or PSBank, illegal pa rin..

    magiging legal lang kung yung information was derived from a subpoena... or, kung voluntarily divulged by the respondent..

    in which case, it makes it more important yung pre trial... kelan ba nag oath taking mga senator judges as an impeachment court? dapat from that time on, pwede na sila humingi ng mga subpoena, kahit di pa sila nag start ng televised / media covered hearings...

    granted walang formal na pre trial.. where else could they get the information / evidence through legal means? perhaps a congressional investigation in aid of legislation and reelection?

    prosec / government should realize by now, mas madaling mag allege, kumpara sa mag prove ng kaso...


    by doing trial by publicity, they were trying to shift the burden of proof to the respondent... since hindi dumating o lumabas yung milagrong "big bomb" na inaasahan ng prosec, ayan sabog lahat..

    i think aside from the amendment of the constitution, the rules of impeachment for both senate and congress should be revisited and revised...
    Last edited by wowiesy; March 2nd, 2012 at 07:58 AM.

  8. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #2178
    Quote Originally Posted by wowiesy View Post
    Paniwala ko, kahit PSBank galing ang leak.. the fact na leak ito .. bokya din.. if they found out about the accounts from a subpoena.. then yun ang legal... pero the fact na leaked ito, whether galing AMLC, BSP or PSBank, illegal pa rin..

    magiging legal lang kung yung information was derived from a subpoena... or, kung voluntarily divulged by the respondent..

    in which case, it makes it more important yung pre trial... kelan ba nag oath taking mga senator judges as an impeachment court? dapat from that time on, pwede na sila humingi ng mga subpoena, kahit di pa sila nag start ng televised / media covered hearings...

    granted walang formal na pre trial.. where else could they get the information / evidence through legal means? perhaps a congressional investigation in aid of legislation and reelection?

    prosec / government should realize by now, mas madaling mag allege, kumpara sa mag prove ng kaso...


    by doing trial by publicity, they were trying to shift the burden of proof to the respondent... since hindi dumating o lumabas yung milagrong "big bomb" na inaasahan ng prosec, ayan sabog lahat..

    i think aside from the amendment of the constitution, the rules of impeachment for both senate and congress should be revisited and revised...
    Wrong, lusot pag galing the private entity ang leak.

    Remember hindi criminal case to and the annex will never be offered as evidence.

  9. Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,326
    #2179
    Quote Originally Posted by CoDer View Post
    Wrong, lusot pag galing the private entity ang leak.

    Remember hindi criminal case to and the annex will never be offered as evidence.
    REPUBLIC ACT NO.1405

    AN ACT PROHIBITING DISCLOSURE OF OR INQUIRY INTO, DEPOSITS WITH ANY BANKING INSTITUTION
    AND PROVIDING PENALTY THEREFOR *

    SECTION 1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government to give encouragement to the people to deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that the same may be properly utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist in the economic development of the country.

    SECTION 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation - [emphasis supplied - wowiesy].

    SECTION 3. It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of a banking institution to disclose to any person other than those mentioned in Section two hereof any information concerning said deposits.

    SECTION 4. All Acts or parts of Acts, Special Charters, Executive Orders, Rules and Regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.

    SECTION 5. Any violation of this law will subject offender upon conviction, to an imprisonment of not more than five years or a fine of not more than twenty thousand pesos or both, in the discretion of the court.


    SECTION 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
    Approved, September 9, 1955
    With due respect your honor, as emphasized above, Section 2 practically bars anyone from disclosing it... although listed are exemptions to the rule... while Section 3, specifically bars bank employees from divulging information, except in cases listed in Section 2...

    Your honor, this representation is of the position, that there is no distinction between private individual source or public official source, in so far as the leak is concerned. The fact that the account numbers (without admitting that such account numbers exist, nor that such account numbers are indeed owned by the respondent) have been known to the prosecutors prior to this proceeding, may be construed as prima facie evidence, that this information was acquired through illegal means. Having established that this was acquired through illegal means your honor, we move that said request for subpoena not be granted, and if it is already granted, that it be quashed, and assuming that Presiding Officer denies motion to quash, that all evidence and information derived from these accounts be deemed inadmissible for being illegal in nature.

    The annex may not be offered as evidence, but the information purpotedly being asked of which is alluded to by the annex, is grossly illegally acquired and should therefore be treated as such...




    hehe.. trip lang po... medyo iba ang gising ko ngayong umaga... =)

  10. Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,326
    #2180
    Quote Originally Posted by wowiesy View Post
    With due respect your honor, as emphasized above, Section 2 practically bars anyone from disclosing it... although listed are exemptions to the rule... while Section 3, specifically bars bank employees from divulging information, except in cases listed in Section 2...

    Your honor, this representation is of the position, that there is no distinction between private individual source or public official source, in so far as the leak is concerned. The fact that the account numbers (without admitting that such account numbers exist, nor that such account numbers are indeed owned by the respondent) have been known to the prosecutors prior to this proceeding, may be construed as prima facie evidence, that this information was acquired through illegal means. Having established that this was acquired through illegal means your honor, we move that said request for subpoena not be granted, and if it is already granted, that it be quashed, and assuming that Presiding Officer denies motion to quash, that all evidence and information derived from these accounts be deemed inadmissible for being illegal in nature.

    The annex may not be offered as evidence, but the information purpotedly being asked of which is alluded to by the annex, is grossly illegally acquired and should therefore be treated as such...




    hehe.. trip lang po... medyo iba ang gising ko ngayong umaga... =)
    In addition, RA9160 or the Anti Money Laundering Act provides, in Section 9:
    When reporting covered transactions to the AMLC, covered institutions and their officers, employees, representatives, agents, advisors, consultants or associates shall not be deemed to have violated Republic Act No. 1405, as amended; Republic Act No. 6426, as amended; Republic Act No. 8791 and other similar laws, but are prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, to any person the fact that a covered transaction report was made, the contents thereof, or any other information in relation thereto. In case of violation thereof, the concerned officer, employee, representative, agent, advisor, consultant or associate of the covered institution, shall be criminally liable. However, no administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, shall lie against any person for having made a covered transaction report in the regular performance of his duties and in good faith, whether or not such reporting results in any criminal prosecution under this Act or any other Philippine law. - [ emphasis supplied - wowiesy ]

    When reporting covered transactions to the AMLC, covered institutions and their officers, employees, representatives, agents, advisors, consultants or associates are prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, to any person, entity, the media, the fact that a covered transaction report was made, the contents thereof, or any other information in relation thereto. Neither may such reporting be published or aired in any manner or form by the mass media, electronic mail, or other similar devices. In case of violation thereof, the concerned officer, employee, representative, agent, advisor, consultant or associate of the covered institution, or media shall be held criminally liable.
    the point I am raising, the leak, by whatever means, never should have made it to the impeachment court... granted na umabot na nga sa kanila yung info... they should've used the information they had (regardless kung legal o illegal ang source) in a different way... it's possible na yan na yung different way nila.. ifake yung documents to make it look real... but by doing that, illegal pa rin yun so bokya.. .. hmm they could've made it like hm... subpoena utilities, check ano form of payment sa utilities, kung check, may record ng check number anong account anong bank.. from their may bank na sila... sa megaworld.. ano ba ipinang bayad.. check ba... MC... o direct debit? those kinds of information...

    by making it appear that bank documents ang source ng info nila on the account numbers, it makes their information doubtful for legality, they run the risk of getting everything declared inadmissible... but, if they walked through the process of discovery under the impeachment court, at least, covered na ng exemption ayon sa batas... clear as sunshine pa na magiging admissible ang evidence... sure na ma elect pa sila nyan as senators kung sakali...

    again... all these discovery... pre trial dapat... by dispensing with pre trial... napilitan mag short cut ...

    in addition uli... the emphasized portion of Section 9 of the AMLC Law somehow creates a grey area... bawal nga i divulge and criminally liable ang nag divulge... pero kumambyo naman na kung good faith ang ginawa, and in the performance of duties ay hindi rin administratively / criminally liable ang nag divulge ng info...

    now... with this grey area, distinction ba here is good faith ba and still within the performance of duties yung ginawa ng AMLC / BSP audit team? What I mean is yung pagpasa ng info (account numbers, etc) to the prosecution? I will stipulate of course na yung audit na ginawa nila sa PSBank ay part ng job nila and there is presumption of regularity. However, when they passed that information to the prosecution, kahit pa man impeachment nga yun... for me its a gray area... what the prosecution should've done, to erase any iota of doubt about how they got their information, was let it come out during the impeachment proceedings mismo.. and not prior...

    yan ang napapala ko sa mga napanood kong episodes ng The Practice dati.. hehe
    Last edited by wowiesy; March 2nd, 2012 at 09:40 AM.

Impeachment against CJ Corona..