Comments on: Monday morning quarterbacking

By: Watch and Pray photos — The Four-eyed Journal

Watch and Pray photos — The Four-eyed Journal — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:26:27 +0000

[...] a well represented crowd. A lot has been talked about the size of the crowd, Sir Manolo Quezon has a good wraps on this little arguing over the number of people who attended and its implications. It wasn’t a people power movement so one could say that numbers would not really matter [...]

By: UPn student

UPn student — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 17:13:30 +0000

on mlq3′s statement : “that separation from office as an objective does not require as stringent a legal case as criminal prosecution”. This is true, and the Constitution affirms it. The Constitution also has explicit paragraphs on how to remove government officials from their offices (with not a whit about “people power”, much less military or police coups, mentioned in said paragraphs).
As for proving “knowing intent” given that science still is incapable of reading a person’s mind, the process is for prosecution to show a prepondenrance of evidence (written notes, documented conversations, verifiable meetings), the judge to determine admissability of evidence presented, and judge (or jury, if applicable) to determine guilt.
To be remembered that lack of intent does not mean not guilty. Marine Smith’s intent was most likely for intercourse only with Nicole’s approval. Marine Smith was convicted of rape because of his action (and despite his intent).

By: justice league

justice league — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 04:22:42 +0000

Bencard,

You’re right on the impossible crime and also on mutilation of the dead per se not in the Penal code. It’s in the civil code and the person will be liable but not necessarily guilty.

However, at which the intention also of the perpetrator was not to commit an impossible crime yet he will be liable for it.

Calling a commissioner is not a crime but it will depend on whether the act will be seen as coercion of an election official. Election offenses have a prescription of 5 years from commision unless discovery was part of a contest proceeding but the court may look kindly on the prescription period in light of the fact of the President’s immunity.

Impeachment is not the only legal way but I think what you wish to mean is that it is the only legal way available to the opposition right now.

Merry Christmas to you too.

Merry Christmas to you Manolo.

Merry Christmas to everyone and one and all.

Cheers.

By: Bencard

Bencard — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 04:01:32 +0000

justice league: I think the person would be liable for “impossible crime” under Art. 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code in connection with the offense he intended to commit (premeditated murder). I don’t think there is such a crime as “mutilating” a dead body in the Penal Code.
But, of course, I could be wrong and you may have a better answer.

mlq3: I think the only legal way to involuntary terminate a president’s tenure is by impeachment which, if successful, may or may not lead to criminal prosecution. I think, however, for the reason I have already stated, that the possibility of conviction and jail time are nil.

Merry Christmas to both of you

By: justice league

justice league — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 03:07:07 +0000

I mean to be found guilty of multilating a body.

By: justice league

justice league — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 03:06:06 +0000

BENCARD,

There was a case wherein a person wanted to murder another.

While the victim was supposed to be sleeping; the other sneaked and stabbed the “sleeping” one dead.

THe perpetrator was caught.

But it turned out that the “sleeping” one died during the night of natural causes. All the suspect did was allegedly mutilate a dead body.

Using your statement that “a knowing intent to commit itÃ¢â‚¬Â; should the perpetrator be found guilty?

By: mlq3

mlq3 — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:39:13 +0000

my only inquiry with bencard is in a previous comment (http://www.quezon.ph/?p=1122#comment-351149) elsewhere, but i’ll repeat it here for everyone’s convenience:

bencard, not being a lawyer i bow to your knowledge as to what can be determined in court and how. but let me invoke another lawyerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s opinion on two things:

first, that a person need only be morally convinced, in contrast to having sufficient evidence as required in court, to embark on a course of action that ultimately seeks the removal or separation of an official from office, even if elective office.

second, that separation from office as an objective does not require as stringent a legal case as criminal prosecution, which can follow after the official is removed from office:

http://www.quezon.ph/?p=403

By: watchful eye

watchful eye — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:31:49 +0000

I’ll remain watchful Bennie boy.

btw, I hope the “explicit mandate of the law against those who rob the wealth of the nation on a massive scale” would serve as a stern warning to Ate Glue, her cohorts and minions.

By: Bencard

Bencard — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:09:49 +0000

watchful: I don’t have to show my competence to you to get clients. Let Manolo ask me if he has any question and I would gladly answer him to the best of my ability. From here on, you are not getting from me the time of day.

By: watchful eye

watchful eye — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:41:59 +0000

Bencard, limiting ourselves to the example I have given above, you are still not telling us what evidence should be presented to prove “knowing intent to commit” the crime that you are trying to explain to Manolo. If you cannot show your competence to be responsive to this particular question, why should anyone hire you as his lawyer?