MAKING A LAMP WITH YOUR FLASHLIGHT

LACSON: "PORK SHIFTS FROM LP TO MINDANAO SOLONS"

During the budget plenary debates, Lacson and lawmakers from the lower house hit a deadlock after the senator insisted on removing P8.3 billion the lawmakers took from the budget of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and allocated to the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).  “The ARMM congressmen came to see me to plead their case. Inabot nga kami ng 10 p.m. sa office ko (Our meeting lasted until 10 p.m. in my office) explaining in so many words, thus – ‘buti nga daw sila, tig P1.5-B lang na projects, yung iba raw mga congressmen abot ng tig P5-B (they said they only get P1.5 billion in projects each, while others get P5 billion each),’” Lacson said. “Change is coming? Maybe, pero (but) it's (pork allocations) changing hands from LP (Liberal Party) congressmen to those from Mindanao.” Lacson, a staunch enemy of the pork barrel system, which used to be called Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), believes that the approved budget is still laden with what he believes is an illegal form of funding. “What I'm trying to say is, Filipinos are made to believe that PDAF is dead after the SC [Supreme Court] ruling in 2013. I am not stupid. Filipinos are not stupid. They are just resigned, I think. After all these years that I and my staff scrutinize the budget books year in and year out, I know pork when I see it,” Lacson said. “I believe our people, especially our taxpayers, should know the real score behind all these pretenses and denials about the existence of pork.” Lacson also claimed that some of his Senate colleagues quipped that their lower chamber counterparts apparently got bigger pork allocations than them. “At least two of my colleagues commented in the lounge during session suspensions, ‘Sobra naman sila... tayo ngang mga senador, tig P300-M lang (they're too much... even us senators only got P300 million),’” he said. Lacson clarified, however, that as in the past, he did not submit a list of projects for the supposed P300 million pork barrel allocation. “Senators Tito Sotto and Kiko Pangilinan approached me on separate occasions to inform me that they too did not submit. I don't know who else among my Senate colleagues likewise did not submit their list,” he said. “There is no saying here that those who identified their projects in the 2017 national budget, both from the Senate and the House, would get commissions from contractors.” The House leadership has been insisting that the contested funding cannot be considered as pork barrel since no post-enactment intervention will be carried out.  SHARED FROM

123RD PERSUASIVE APPEAL_5JANUARY17_TO THE SCP JUSTICES : BRION, PEREZ AND VILLARAMA RETIREMENT BENEFITS BE SUSPENDED UNTIL RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINT

CONSPIRACY EXPLAINED Here are select February 2013 rulings of the Supreme Court of the Philippines on criminal law and procedure: 1.            REVISED PENAL CODE Conspiracy; joint purpose and design. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner in which the offense was perpetrated; or inferred from the acts of the accused when those acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interests.Proof of a previous agreement and decision to commit the crime is not essential, but the fact that the malefactors acted in unison pursuant to the same objective suffices. In this case, the prosecution decisively established a community of criminal design among Alvarico, Reyes, and appellant Pondivida. While there is no evidence of any previous agreement among the assailants to commit the crime, their concerted acts before, during and after the incident establish a joint purpose and intent to kill. As attested to by accused-appellant, they all went to the intended victim’s house bearing firearms. Accused-appellant himself knocked on the door. After failing to locate “Udoy” and “Bagsik,” and discovering that Gener was the latter’s brother, they then engaged in a lengthy conversation, as they circled around a nearby well outside the house.Accused even admitted to shouting the name “Bagsik” over and over.They all asked Gener to step outside and speak withthem. Upon his refusal, appellant Pondivida, together with Alvarico, entered the house through an upstairs window. Alvarico fired at George who was at the stairs. Reyes, from his vantage point at the front door, also shot at George.After fleeing the scene, appellant Pondivida admitted that he met with Alvarico in Novaliches. Alvarico gave him money, and the latter thereafter boarded a bus headed to Olongapo City. Their acts together were indicative of a common purpose, which was murder. People of the Philippines v. John Alvin Pondivida, G.R. No. 188969, February 27, 2013. Conspiracy; elements. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit the felony. Proof of the actual agreement to commit the crime need not be direct because conspiracy may be implied or inferred from their acts. Here, accused PO2 Valdez cannot avoid criminal responsibility for the fatal shooting by co-accused Edwin of Ferdinand and Joselito. Both accused were convincingly shown to have acted in concert to achieve a common purpose of assaulting their unarmed victims with their guns. Their acting in concert was manifest not only from their going together to the betting station on board a single motorcycle, but also from their joint attack that PO2 Valdez commenced by firing successive shots at Moises and immediately followed by Edwin’s shooting of Ferdinand and Joselito one after the other. It was also significant that they fled together on board the same motorcycle as soon as they had achieved their common purpose. To be a conspirator, one did not have to participate in every detail of the execution; neither did he have to know the exact part performed by his co-conspirator in the execution of the criminal acts. Accordingly, the existence of the conspiracy between PO2 Valdez and Edwin was properly inferred and proved through their acts that were indicative of their common purpose and community of interest. People of the Philippines v. PO2 Eduardo Valdez and Edwin Valdez, G.R. No. 175602, February 13, 2013. INFORMATION SEARCHED FROM: February 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Law and Procedure  by Dominador Maphilindo O. Carrillo Published: April, 2013 Submission: April, 2013 http://www.worldservicesgroup.com/publications.asp?action=article&artid=5332 ATTENTION SENATOR RICHARD "DICK" GORDON CHAIRMAN Accountability of Public Officers & Investigations (Blue Ribbon) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE CHAIRMAN