By: Ramon FarolanPhilippine Daily Inquirer04:48 AM April 20th, 2015
Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff Cudia was a member of Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) at Fort Gregorio del Pilar in Baguio City.
A few months before graduation in November 2013, Cudia was reported to the Honor Committee (HC) for violation of the Honor Code. The report stated “. . . lying, that is, giving statement that perverts the truth in his written appeal, stating that his fourth period class ended at 1500 hours that made him late in the succeeding class.”
After an investigation, formal hearings were conducted by the HC, resulting in an 8-1 guilty verdict. Upon further deliberation, the presiding officer announced a 9-0 guilty verdict.
In February 2014, Col. Rossano Briguez, the commandant of cadets, affirmed the findings of the HC and recommended to Vice Admiral Edgar Abogado, then PMA superintendent, the separation from the PMA of Cadet Cudia for “violation of the First Tenet of the Honor Code” (lying).
The Cudia family appealed to the Office of the President for reconsideration of the decision of the PMA Honor Committee.
In June 2014, the Office of the President sustained the findings of the AFP chief of staff and the Cadet Review and Appeals Board (CRAB). The letter signed by Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. stated: “After carefully studying the records of the case of Cadet Cudia, the decision of the Chief of Staff, AFP, and the Honor Code system of the AFP Cadet Corps, this Office has found no substantial basis to disturb the findings of the AFP and the PMA CRAB.
“In the evaluation of Cadet Cudia’s case, this Office has been guided by the precept that military law is regarded to be in a class of its own, ‘applicable only to military personnel because the military constitutes an armed organization requiring a system of discipline separate from that of civilians.’ Thus, this Office regarded the findings of the AFP Chief, particularly his conclusion, that there was nothing irregular in the proceedings that ensued, as carrying great weight. Accordingly, please be informed that the President has sustained the findings of the AFP Chief and the PMA CRAB.”
Among other courses of action taken, Cudia appealed to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)-
Cordillera Autonomous Region for alleged violation of his rights, particularly his right to due process, education and privacy of communication.
Before this, in May 2014, the CHR issued its resolution recommending that “the PMA set aside the 9-0 guilty vote, and respect the 8-1 guilty result, and make an official pronouncement of NOT GUILTY in favor of Cadet Cudia.” It also called for the passage of an antiostracism and/or antidiscrimination law. It recommended the comprehensive review of all rules of procedures, regulations and policies, including the so-called practices in the implementation of the Honor Code.
The case was also elevated to the Supreme Court when the family filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with temporary restraining order. Last month, the Supreme Court came out with a decision penned by Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta. The foreword to the decision reads as follows: “The true test of a cadet’s character as a leader rests on his personal commitment to uphold what is morally and ethically righteous at the most critical and trying times, and at the most challenging circumstances. When a cadet must face a dilemma between what is true and right as against his security, well-being, pleasures and comfort, or dignity, what is at stake is his honor and those that [define] his values. A man of an honorable character does not think twice and chooses the fore. This is the essence of and the Spirit of the Honor Code—it is championing truth and righteousness even if it may mean the surrender of one’s basic rights and privileges.” (Quoted from the PMA Honor Code and Honor System Handbook, Series 2011, p. 7.)
On the CHR findings:
The findings of fact and the conclusions of law of the CHR are merely recommendatory and therefore, not binding to this court. The CHR. . . is only a fact-finding body, not a court of justice or a quasi-judicial agency. It is not empowered to adjudicate claims on the merits or settle actual cases or controversies. The power to investigate is not the same as adjudication.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court upheld the findings and conclusions of the Office of the President, and with it that of the PMA CRAB, which were found to be not contrary to law and jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court in the dispositive portion of its decision ruled: “WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The dismissal of Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia from the Philippine Military Academy is hereby AFFIRMED.” (Voting was 13-0 with two justices not participating.)
|
Friday, September 30, 2016
Cadet Aldrin Jeff Cudia from soldier to lawyer
GANDA CHINESE NATIONAL NAHULIHAN NG SHABU 6.2 MILLION
GANDA a Chinese national 27-Year old caught 6.2 million of shabu at cebu airport july 20, 2016 |
57TH PERSUASIVE APPEAL_30SEPT16_TO SCP JUSTICES AND SHELL : CONSPIRACY PRIMER
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
SYNDICATED ESTAFA
MY QUEST FOR SWINDLED
RETIREMENT PAY BY SHELL
 
SWINDLING ITO, SYNDICATED ESTAFA
HOT PURSUIT
DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES
SHELL SWINDLING OF RETIREMENT PAY 5TH YEAR
|
