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 219 of 421 FirstFirst ... 119169209215216217218219220221222223229269319 ... LastLast
Results 2,181 to 2,190 of 4205
  1. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #2181
    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... =)
    Hehehe... You see its clear that you cannot even inquire on bank accounts according to the law, with exception of course.

    Eto ngayon ang problema dyan, Enrile demanded that the prosec must specify the account numbers in a subpoena. Now how in the world are you going to put there the account number without someone leaking it to you? Unless you want to break the law and go to the bank and force them to give the details to you.

    Ok naman na subpoena mo ang lahat ng account ni Corona without indicating the account numbers eh, dahil may lead na ang prosec na may deposit nga si Corona sa PSBank Katipunan. It was done in the time of Erap impeachment, bat di na pwede ngayon?

    To quote Enrile.

    “We’re having a problem in the impeachment court, to tell you the truth. We are going to judge a person, one of the highest officials of the country, recognized by the world as a chief justice of this country. And we are now in a quandary on how to deal with this problem,” Enrile said. “We are ready to exercise our duties to convict him on the basis of evidence presented if those evidence are indeed authentic, genuine.”
    Now you know why Cuevas said they might go to SC if those subpoenaed documents will be admitted as evidence. May case ang prosec as far as article 2 is concern. That's why Enrile is going an arms length to detain Leal until he tells a story that Enrile like, or Leal go to SC.

    Kung ikaw si Leal tingin mo makaka takbo ka sa SC to invoke your bill of rights the Senate grilled De Lima with? Senate are a bunch of hypocrites. Joker and Enrile concluding that BSP abused its power to investigate Corona when in fact it was a regular BSP audit, already gives you a clear picture who will get their favor.

    You also have to understand that Cuevas was Enrile's lawyer during the time Aquino government. This is in light of the coup attemp during those times.

  2. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #2182
    Quote Originally Posted by wowiesy View Post
    In addition, RA9160 or the Anti Money Laundering Act provides, in Section 9:


    the point I am raising, the leak, by whatever means, never should have made it to the impeachment court... 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 ...
    Wrong again. Kahit may pre-trial pa yan you still need those bank details for the subpoena, balik nanaman tayo sa violation ng bank secrecy law nyan.

  3. Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    22,342
    #2183
    Bilib ako kay Aguirre, finds humor in all this.

  4. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #2184
    Quote Originally Posted by Ry_Tower View Post
    Bilib ako kay Aguirre, finds humor in all this.
    Aguirre: At least na "in your face" ko ang sira ulong senadora. 2 night is a very small price to pay.

    May magandang punch line na pala para kay brenda ngayon...

    Hear no evil!
    Last edited by CoDer; March 2nd, 2012 at 09:49 AM.

  5. Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,326
    #2185
    although a big part of transactions goes through banks... the other side of the transactions does not...

    when you pay your bills through the bank, you course your payment through the bank, but the bills also get information on the payment details.... ang naisip ko nga (although mas mahirap gawin - pero para ano pa andyan ang buong bureaucracy ng gobyerno kung di rin lang gagamitin)... check Meralco, water utilities, megaworld.. mga entities na maaaring nagbabayad sya ng check... o hindi yan covered ng bank secrecy because bank secrecy primarily involves DEPOSITS and not WITHDRAWALS... payments to utilities are in effect WITHDRAWALS from the account. na nasa bank...

    may alam ba prosec na mga investments ni Corona? o kanino binili yung bahay.. yung kotse... ganun.. financial transactions from the side of the operations yung pag bili o pag bayad mismo sa pinag bilhan... dun nila kunin yung bank details, check number... from the check number.. makuha na nila yung account numbers.. all during the time of the impeachment proceeding na...

    ang kaso ginawa ng prosec, inuna ilabas yung bank details agad.. natural unang tanong agad ay pano nya nakuha inspite of bank secrecy laws?

    nung tinanong ni Enrile na mag specify ng bank accounts sa PSBank.. ang mali ng prosec.. they didn't lay the predicate... kahit ako man.. hingan mo ako ng permit to look through bank accounts.. unang tanong ko will be how sure are you that those accounts are relevant? na hindi fishing? eh kung sa ibang tao pala yung account na yun? lalong wala sa position ang Impeachment court to divulge that since hindi naman pala kay Corona..

    dapat di muna nilabas ng prosec yung "altered" document na yun... nagpasakalye muna sila na they are establishing muna which banks does Corona transact with... yun muna i establish nila... meralco is a Lopez company (well at least used to be, i'm sure may connection pa yan sa loob), aside from being a law abiding and socially responsible company.. what will they gain by not helping in identifying the meter number of the residence of Corona, and then eventually going to the form of payment ni Corona to pay his utilities... kapag na establish na which banks nag transact si Corona, tsaka na nila palabasin yung account numbers...

    the point is.. there are ways around... just because they have the backing of the president, just because they have the exemption sa bank secrecy law, it doesn't mean that they get a free ride na... ayusin din nila ang trabaho nila...

  6. Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    26,770
    #2186
    hinikayat pa ni Corona ang mga recent bar exam passers to be part of his defense team.

  7. Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    22,342
    #2187
    Quote Originally Posted by CoDer View Post
    Aguirre: At least na "in your face" ko ang sira ulong senadora. 2 night is a very small price to pay.

    May magandang punch line na pala para kay brenda ngayon...

    Hear no evil!
    Amen. Tinanong nga ako sa office ng mga staff kasi alam nila nag-Legal Mgt ako if kaya ko yung ginawa ni Aguire. Sabi ko malamang.... kung binabastos at wala na respeto sa pagkatao mo, abay kahit sino pa yan, tao pa rin yan. hehehe

  8. Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    22,342
    #2188
    Quote Originally Posted by Retz View Post
    hinikayat pa ni Corona ang mga recent bar exam passers to be part of his defense team.
    Oo, yung topnothcer from AdMU kaso ayaw, corporate law raw gusto e. Hehe, ayaw madawit sa magulong public war.

  9. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #2189
    ^^^^ The only blunder prosec committed is when they attached those annex, but then sa dami ng account number na yun and all were proven to be true. Ang tanong naman dyan eh, pano nyo nakuha tong details na to at tama lahat?

    Babalik at babalik tayo sa violation ng Bank secrecy law. Here's the catch... Those annex will not be offered as evidence so lusot na ang prosec dyan.

    Kaya nga ubod ng sipag si Enrile ngayon to the point that he will detain Leal ASAP until Leal sings a tune Enrile wants to hear. If those leaked documents indeed came from BSP then automatic bokya ang prosec. That's the fastest route Enrile can take to do defense a favor.

  10. Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,326
    #2190
    Quote Originally Posted by CoDer View Post
    Ok naman na subpoena mo ang lahat ng account ni Corona without indicating the account numbers eh, dahil may lead na ang prosec na may deposit nga si Corona sa PSBank Katipunan. It was done in the time of Erap impeachment, bat di na pwede ngayon?
    nagkaroon ng bank run noon... yun ang iniiwasan nila.. in the first place nung dati, dapat din with account numbers dapat ang subpoena.. now why in the world didn't CJ Davide insist on that.. I think moot and academic na...


    Now you know why Cuevas said they might go to SC if those subpoenaed documents will be admitted as evidence. May case ang prosec as far as article 2 is concern. That's why Enrile is going an arms length to detain Leal until he tells a story that Enrile like, or Leal go to SC.
    there is a perspective na nagtatago na lang sa bill of rights kasi walang ibang depensa... maaari yun.. but as a lawyer.. kailangan i exert nya lahat ng effort and all avenues to defend his client... not invoking the bill of rights would mean his dereliction of his sworn duty... dapat lang gawin nya trabaho nya bilang abogado ni Corona... mayroon silang nakikita nilang iinvoke... why not invoke that kung malinaw naman na questionable naman talaga...


    Kung ikaw si Leal tingin mo makaka takbo ka sa SC to invoke your bill of rights the Senate grilled De Lima with? Senate are a bunch of hypocrites. Joker and Enrile concluding that BSP abused its power to investigate Corona when in fact it was a regular BSP audit, already gives you a clear picture who will get their favor.
    kung ako si Leal, hindi ko nga matatakbuhan ang SC.. tiklo ako dito.. ang sisisihin ko dito yung prosec ... they mishandled the information kaya now ako ang nadidiin... another reason why a lot of witnesses get killed or are hesitant to be witnesses.. hindi pirnotektahan ng prosec ang source ng info nila...

    on the other side.. ibang issue ang level ng hypocirsy (kung meron man) ng ilang Senador... the fact is, there are laws... and hangga't maaari you use the law on your side.. whether Enrile / Arroyo intent in doing all these is to really protect Corona specifically, or to protect the rule of law in general is hard to prove... motive and intent are always hard to prove... mai relate lang ang resulta sa motive / intent sa action nila which in this case is yung acquit / convict vote nila... until that happens, pointless na mag speculate kung pro o anti Corona ba sila... important is to let the rule of law prevail..




    You also have to understand that Cuevas was Enrile's lawyer during the time Aquino government. This is in light of the coup attemp during those times.
    as a prosecutor, with due respect, at kung ito rin pala ang ipupukol ko, i should've at least manifested my intent to move for inhibition on the part of Enrile as Presiding Officer.. at least man lang mag manifest sila.. or reserve the right to invoke / move for inhibition later on... again... do all that is necessary... all details.. para hindi masisi later on...

Impeachment against CJ Corona..