Thursday, September 24, 2015

Atty Claire Castro: De Campanilla ng ABS-CBN?

Today I was able to watch the alleged video of the now trending incident in MPD that ended up in the arrest of Atty Claire Castro, her partner, and her client.  Here is the video:




Apparently, the MPD arrested her client upon the complaint of the latter’s live in partner.  Here are the facts of the case as narrated by Atty Reynold Villania in his Facebook account:



 Based on the video, I believe that the least that the IBP should do to Atty Castro is discipline her.  And I do believe that an argument can be made for her disbarment.  Here are the reasons why:

1.  The police station is not the place for argument.  It is a place for investigation.  The policemen made a decision to conduct an arrest so they must have a reason.  If Atty Castro believes otherwise, then the correct action is to file a writ of habeas corpus in the proper court.  Later, she may also throw the books against the police officers if she likes:  Articles 124 and 269 of the Revised Penal Code quickly come to mind.  She can even throw in coercion or abduction to boot, not to mention the administrative charges.  But a shouting match?  Come on!  What does she expect?  The police to fold up, wither, and die?  Hindi mangyayari sa MPD yan!
 
2.  Interfering with an active investigation is obstruction of justice penalized by PD 1829.  Common sense lang.  Hindi pa ba nya naririnig ang "Presumption of Regularity?"  Kung hindi pa, gusto kong malaman kung saang iskwelahan sya nagtapos ng abogasya at susunugin ko na agad ang iskwelahan na yun.  Walang itinuturong mabuti e.  Kasi nga naman kung ang style ni Atty Castro ay itolerate natin, wala nang kasong makakarating sa korte kasi sa PNP station pa lang, dedesisyunan na natin ito!  Ako bilang pulis gustong gusto ko ito.  Ang tanong ay payag ba kayo mga taga IBP?

3.  Forcing your way out of the station with your client in tow is very much unbecoming of a lawyer and could be criminal.  Shouting “Walang Warrant!” kaya illegal ang arrest is INTELLECTUAL PREVARICATION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL!  Even bar flunkers know that there are numerous instances that arrests can be legally made even without a warrant!  (Well, what do you expect?  She is a lawyer nga di ba?  Eto sila:  A Nation of Liars, Cheaters, and Thieves!”)  As to her opinion, “Wala namang ginagawa sa SM!”  Well, opinion nya yun.  She should present it in court at a later date but not in a police station!

Now I read that the three were eventually released the next day.  Let me guess:  she eventually took the correct route which she should have done in the first place:  bribe the fiscal who conducted the inquest proceedings?

Ang Abogado de Campanilla ng ABS-CBN ay nahawa na kay Vice Ganda?

God help the Philippines! 


74 comments:

  1. Napaka unbecoming lawyer. Dinadaan sa sindakan. Who cares if you are from ABS-CBN? Your action shows what kind of lawyer you are. A LOUSY LAWYER!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kasi naman marami ring pulis ang t@nga.

      Delete
    2. haha, complete the sentence then: ang pumatol sa tanga ay ...! and she is a lawyer you said?

      Delete
  2. hmp.....dapat hindi ganun ang pakikitungo dapat pakababa...lang...ginagawa lang naman ng mga pulis ang dapat nilang gawin...may tama namang lugar kung may pagkukulang ang mga pulis....sa korte...pakababa lang po tayo...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. buti ka pa naiintindihan mo. daming abogado dito na namimilosopo na lang e...

      Delete
    2. Because we cannot stand you. Your ignorance eats you alive dear

      Delete
    3. so the answer is mamilosopo? and do you think i can stand you too?

      Delete
    4. What the effin did you just say? "Do you think i can stand you too?" OMG HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHH shit goes real

      Delete
    5. tama naman yung "do you think I can stand you too?" as far as English is concerned. Ano mali dun?

      Delete
  3. It seems Atty. Castro is correct although she was shouting all the time. The moral of thew story is for lawyers to be calm when stressing a point. The police didn't follow correct procedure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. paano naging correct yun e imbestigasyon pa nga lang. may opinion sya, may opinion ang pulis but at that point, opinions do not matter. there are procedures that should be followed and that is to present arrested people for inquest. in inquest, the only opinion that matters is that of the fiscal. hehehe

      Delete
  4. Sorry i beg to disagree. And i guess only lawyers would understand that what the police did was wrong. Check the rules of court.
    She's a lawyer of the client and as far as that is concerned, she has to be there as the client is under investigation. Also, she has the right to ask what triggered the arrest of the client becauae the rule of thumb is that when there is no warrant of arrest, there is unlawful arrest. what you were saying are EXCEPTIONS. as a lawyer, castro may ask. The manner however that it was done was unbecoming. Please, know the law first. You're a law enforcement officer, but not a lawyer. Check the rules of court and Supreme Court cases to know what castro was trying to do to protect the interest of the client and how wrong was the arrest implemented

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct. Parang ganito lang yan e:

      http://www.philstar.com/opinyon/556797/imbitasyon-o-inaresto-simula-na-ng-kapalpakan

      Delete
    2. attorney, are you going to parrot the line of atty castro that when there is no warrant of arrest, there can be no arrest made? If so, then erase from the books Rule 113. and what can you say about this statement from the supreme court?

      In the case of Valmonte vs.De Villa (1990) the Supreme Court held that:

      “To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for the evidence and tokens of his crime without a warrant, would be to leave society, to a large extent, at the mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape in many instances.”

      as for your admission that atty castro's manner of doing things was unbecoming, well, i agree with you attorney.

      salamat sa visit and the comment!

      Delete
    3. Well, do you know what the exceptions really mean? And do you REALLY KNOW how to apply them? I can cite countless of cases involving hot pursuit cases or in flagrante delicto cases. And may i ask you, what is the accused doing inside the mall when he was arrested? Was he committing an offense? ABSOLUTELY NOT. unless he was holding the child against his will and he committed kidnapping inside the mall. But he was just like any regular mall goer. So then, what was the crime? Read the case of People v. Mengote, People v Amminudin, People v. Malacat and the list goes on. Please do not pollute the minds of the netizens as to your expertise as to how to APPLY the law when you clearly don't understand them. And please be reminded that little knowledge is dangerous.

      Delete
    4. AND PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE NEVER MISQUOTE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION. ive read that case of Valmonte and entirely different from the case at bar. And please, just know what the exceptions mean and you would realize how erroneous your application is.

      Delete
    5. http://www.philstar.com/opinyon/556797/imbitasyon-o-inaresto-simula-na-ng-kapalpakan

      so si ben tulfo pala ngayon ay otoridad na sa batas?

      Delete
    6. and to you attorney who made those two quotes above: so do you want that at the station ay mag presinta na tayo ng mga ebidensya at mag pataasan ng boses? kahit tama pa ang opinion ni atty castro (granting without admitting yan ha), the police station is not the proper forum to present those evidence and raising your voice and pulling your client out of the station is even worse. ano gusto mo, sa station na natin desisyunan ang mga kaso?

      and do not cite to me those cases above as they are of no moment sa incident. dapat mag antay kayong mga abogado na makarating sa korte ang kaso bago kayo magsubmit ng ebidentsya!

      Delete
    7. Clearly and sadly, you didnt get my point.

      I do not tolerate her behavior because no matter who she is, she has to respect the laws. The same goes for your fellow officers.

      My point is that please, do not assume to act like a lawyer and cite various legal precepts when you do not really understand them. Don't be a lawyer wanna be. I do not know how to instill further to you that YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER so please, do not misquote and misapply the law because it is really offensive for those who studied to be one.

      And the cases are of no moment? I just thought we're throwing cases here because you've cited a really irrelevant one. And I just thought I might cure your ignorance.

      Delete
    8. The difference between you and me is that you passed all those eight subjects covered in the bar. I however, mastered only half, but those are the main things that i need in my being a policeman anyway. And believe me when I tell you that I may have mastered those better than you did. Kaya kwidaw ka sa pagyayabang nyang pagka abogado mo kasi pag nalingat ka sa akin sa criminal law, baka masingitan kita. And by the way, dalawa singko ang abogado sa PNP and i will tell you this: wala pang tumalo sa aking abogado sa order of merit ng lahat ng naging schooling ko. So get the hint attorney...

      Delete
    9. But are you a lawyer? No? That settles it. :) you're JUST a policeman. And dont brag about that because there's nothing to be proud of, in case you are not aware.

      Delete
    10. Are we talking about criminal law here? Isnt this a matter of procedure? REMEDIAL LAW? Oh my. You're boasting about your alleged intelligence and mastery about the law but this simple classification as to subject matter you didnt actually understand. KAWAWA KA NAMAN.

      Delete
    11. you're JUST a policeman --hahaha! salamat sa visit and comments atty CASTRO. you just made my case. hahahaha!

      Delete
    12. Are we talking about criminal law here? Isnt this a matter of procedure? REMEDIAL LAW?

      napansin mo ba na pinag uusapan kung may violation of law o wala di ba? yan ang kinukwestion ni atty castro in the first place. yan criminal law yan.

      ngayon ang ginawa ni atty castro na pagtatalak at paghila sa kliyente nya ay covered ng remedial law.

      i am surprised na alam nyo rin pala ang remedial law!!!

      so saang parte ng libro nakasulat na kung sa OPINYON ng abogado ng isang arestadong tao na walang basenah ang aresto, ang procedure ay magtatalak ON VIDEO at hilain ang kliyente palabas ng station para iuwi?

      hahahaha!

      Delete
    13. But are you a lawyer? No? That settles it. :) you're JUST a policeman. And dont brag about that because there's nothing to be proud of, in case you are not aware.
      ==================

      salamat sa comment atty castro. kaya pala ganun ang ginawa mo sa mpd. ganyan pala talaga pagtingin mo sa pulis!

      hahahaha!

      Delete
  5. And sir, do you know that the presumption of regularity does not overcome the presumption of innocence? If you dont agree, argue with supreme court justices. [People v. Capuno, G.R. No. 185715, January 19,2011] So, you may want to think about setting your school on fire as well?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. aling supreme court, yung nag decide ng G.R. No. 176951, G.R. No. 177499, at G.R. No. 178056? hahaha, thanks but no thanks!

      Delete
    2. and about setting my school on fire: well i changed my mind about setting HER school on fire. i will just recommend that they hire the language teachers from my school to teach them what are figures of speech especially sarcasm. maybe your school is interested as well?

      hahahaha!

      Delete
    3. So what about the cases? "Thanks but not thanks?" Ooooh. So you mean you don't understand. Yeah i get it! You really don't because it's too much for you to take.

      Delete
    4. You are impossible HAHAHAHAHAHAHA thanks for making my day! Too ignorant HAHAHAHAHA.

      Delete
    5. nabasa mo ba ang mga cases na yun at alam mo ba kung ano ang mga nangyari doon? google google muna pag may time bago tumawag ng ibang tao ng ignorant...

      Delete
    6. Sorry but I dont use google to search for cases. I subscribe to the SCRA. But you dont know it so nevermind mister

      Delete
    7. parang mission impossible ba? so you do not use google? that is quite a revelation! that is the reason why you made that idiotic challenge for me to debate with the supreme court justices!

      read whose cases that i enumerated. i really encourage you...

      hahahaha!

      Delete
    8. Matalinong abogado si atty Claire. Ang mga walang alam sa batas dyan magbasa basa muna bago magkomento. Magiging corporate lawyer ba yan Kung Hindi magaling. Baka naman nagpapakitang gilas Lang ang pulis na yan at gusto mapromote Lang ha hahha. Sino ba naman ang Hindi ma stressed out kung ang client mo arestuhin na walang warrant of arrest? Pinangunahan nya! Maraming pulis ang sangkot sa droga hahaha o ano masasabi nyo?

      Delete
    9. wala kang ibang agumento? the ikaw ang magbasabasa muna bago mag komento...

      Delete
  6. Please don't use a supreme court ruling when it cannot support your arguments. It's unintelligently made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thats for you mr blogger

      Delete
    2. and that is a double edge sword attorney. read what happened in G.R. No. 176951, G.R. No. 177499, at G.R. No. 178056?

      and that is for you mr commenter!

      hahaha

      Delete
  7. Why are you bashing her school? I dont know either from what school did she come from but may i ask you, where did you graduate again? And are you even a holder of a degree at least? All i know is that lawyers have two bachelor degrees. How about you? :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i graduated from a school where i was taught the different figures of speech and recognize sarcasm...

      as to my degree? well, my degree there enabled me to pursue higher studies in my current school: the school of hard knocks, university of life...

      Delete
    2. Seriously, is plain english really difficult for you to understand?

      Delete
    3. i think there is a reason for the thesaurus...ngayon kung dictionary lang ang gusto mo, e style mo yan...

      hahahaha!

      Delete
  8. Atty. Claire is correct. Its frustrating that many policemen don't know the law. Kaya madaming palpak na police. Let me do this brief outline for you and pakisabi nlang din sa mga kakilala mong pulis.

    As a general rule, there must be a warrant of arrest in order to apprehend an accused. Exceptions are the following: 1. In flagrante delicto, 2. Hot pursuit, 3. Evasion of service. Igoogle mo nlang ibig sabihin nyan. Tingin ko, medyo tanga ka nlang kung kasama dyan ang pag"MALL". Dyos ko po.

    Tapos check mo nman yang case na cinicite mo. Valmonte vs. De villa. Checkpoint yan sir. May check point ba sa mall. Tapos search ang subject matter dyan. Search, hindi arrest. Nakakainit ka ng ulo eh. Kung may icicite ka na kaso siguraduhin mo nman na tama, nakakainsulto ka sa mga nagaral nyan eh.

    And lastly, buti nlang hanggang bunganga lang inabot nyo kay atty. Claire. Kung ako yan, magfifile ako ng criminal complaint for arbitrary detention + administrative. Anong ground? Bawal ang TANGA sa polisya.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. mr anonymous, basahin mo ulit ang article ko. ang punto ko, ke tama pa si atty castro, ang istasyon ng pulis ay hindi ang lugar para ipresent nya yun. e di maghintay sya ng pi. ipawaive nya ang article 125 sa kliyente nya tapos mag submit sila ng counter affidavit. hindi pwede yung sindakan na ginawa nya. akala ko ba tanga ang pulis at magaling ang abogado? e bakit sya nag initiate ng sindakan e alam na alam mong mga walang pinag aralan lang ang gumagawa noon?

      gaya ng sinabi ko sa taas, complete the sentence: ang pumatol sa tanga ay ...!

      go figure. anyway salamat sa mga comment nyo at sa visits!

      hahahaha!

      Delete
    2. Good point. I agree that this was an illegal detention. The police should have built a solid case first, maybe get a warrant to search the suspect's home, maybe conduct a survelliance, anything legal that can nail him. Other than that, just because the ex claimed that their child is being held by the father/suspect illegally doesn't mean there's a case already. I'm not an attorney, but you don't have to be one, or be a "attorney-wanna-be" cop to smell the stink in this scenario.

      Delete
    3. noted miss westgrove. just a question: it appears that you are a woman. now, put yourself in the shoes of ms taylor. you said search warrant. are you willing to be the deponent? iporma mo nga ang statement mo taking into consideration this requisite of a search warrant: Sec. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. – A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.

      take note of the words "personally describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized." So sasabihin mo "doon ho sa bahay ng ex ko nakita ko po na itinatago nila ang anak ko?" sunod na tanong ng judge, "paano mo nakita." so sagot mo "napunta po ako doon." then the judge says, "bakit hindi mo pa kinuha ang anak mo e nandun ka na nga? alam ba nila na nandun ka. hay naku ms west grove, gagawa ka ng kasinungalingan maissue lang ang sw?

      and about sa warrant of arrest, please read my follow up post http://pulisnapogi.blogspot.com/2015/09/above-law.html for the details.

      Bottomline: are you willing to wait for 6 months before seeing your child again?

      siguro yumaman nang husto sa yo ang abogado mo nu?

      Delete
  9. Dapat knowledge of law ang pinairal ni atty.. hndi rule of emotions... yan ba ang tinuro sa law school idaan sa brasuhan ang pagtatanggol aa kliyente.. ang auspect may right to counsel under custodual inv... pero limitado lng... ang pwede lng niyang kunin na detalye mula sa arresting pnp ay kung ano ang kaso... hndi ang buong detalye... lalot ra9262.. basahin nio.. may matter of confidentiality nklagay..
    Ok granting sa kanyang opinion may mali sa pgka aresto... yan ang opinion nya....nalamn nio nb un side ng complainant... at hndi sila mg asawa.. sila ay live in partner lng .. at sa batas ... khit wlng court declaration sa mother ang custody..... kuncsa palagay ng atty ay mali si pulis den may procedure abogado sya... ano sya tambay...... labag yan sa ethics ng lawyers.... sa totoi lng sa tagal ko nakikipgbaliktaktakan sa mga abogado ...sita lng nakita kong ganyan...... sa ias marerespeto ang umaaten na atty ng complainant ng pulis .... eto palengekra..

    ReplyDelete
  10. Maaring correct ang opinion niya... pero correct ba na magwala sya at mgtatalak sya sa pnp office.....
    the end doesnt justify the means....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. mismo. yan ang kataka takang hindi naiintindihan ng mga abogado rito...

      Delete
  11. Let's not teach this blogger anymore about the law. What we've studied for years cannot be taught to him in few exchanges of thoughts. I just hope we conveyed you the idea that it's not proper for you to misguide people especially about the law. do not bring the name of the police force into this. It's indeed disgraceful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As you can observe, he cannot actually corroborate his points. Thus, it's senseless for us to raise our points anymore. It's improper to ask the blind to tell you what color of the car is. Right?

      Delete
    2. style nyo. naubos kamo ang argumento nyo. basahin nyo uli ang article. hindi ko kinukwestyon kung tama or mali ang opinion ni atty castro or ang appreciation nya sa kaso. ang pinupuntuhan ko ay mali ang ginawa nya...sige, ijustify nyo pa na tama na kaladkarin nyo palabas ng presinto ang inyong kliyente kung sa tingin nyo ay mali ang pagka aresto sa kanya.

      in the first place, kailan ba kayo nagkaroon ng kliyenteng may kasalanan aber? di ba basta kliyente nyo ay automatic walang kasalanan sa mata nyo at ito ang ginagawa nyo sa korte kasehodang magsinungaling kayo at ibenta nyo ang kaluluwa nyo kay satanas, manalo lang kayo?

      kaya naging ganito ang bansa natin: http://pulisnapogi.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-nation-of-liars-and-cheaters-and.html

      sige banat pa...

      Delete
  12. I supposed you cant argue using the English language that's why you are using Filipino now to fully express your point. HAHA.

    Anyway, whatever we tell you, you won't understand because you're just that-- an ignorant person.

    So I guess we'll take the higher road by not answering your allegations. You generalize lawyers now huh?

    HOW ABOUT THE MOTHERFUCKER POLICE OFFICERS WHO ARE IGNORANT ABOUT THE LAW THEY ARE IMPLEMENTING AND WHO ARE TOO CORRUPT?

    At least lawyers are earning a living because of their own merits. How about police officers? You're forever dependent on the money of the people. And you guys must be already burning in hell even before your death.

    And We've proven a point here-- IT'S USELESS TALKING TO A REALLY REALLY STUPID LAWYER WANNA BE.


    At para maintindihan mo dahil kanina ko pa ginagamit ang ingles, kung lahat ng taong inaakusahan mong guilty ay hindi karapat dapat na magkaroon ng abogado, hindi ba't nilalagay mo sa iyong mga kamay ang batas? Bakit hindi mo na lang kaya sila ikulong agad o bitayin at ipagsawalang bahala na lang ang batas kung hindi sila maaaring bigyan ng kanilang karapatan?

    And mind you, you're our laughing stock now here because it seems you cant keep up with us! Haha

    Anyway, go work! Why are you using your time to answer us when you should be working BECAUSE WE ARE PAYING YOU TO RENDER US COMPETENT SERVICE AND THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE MAINTAINING A BLOG?

    Pulis patola!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. huh? questioning my english language proficiency? ano ka, grammar police? hahaha. let me see your blog then.

      may pa high road high road ka pang nalalaman. is that the same high road that atty castro took in that mpd incident?

      hahahaha!

      and by the way: where in the article did i claim that "lahat ng taong inaakusahan mong guilty ay hindi karapat dapat na magkaroon ng abogado?"

      uy, at sa lagay na yan ay ako pa ang nagsasabi ng mga bagay na hindi ko kayang suportahan ha...

      hahahaha uli!

      Delete
    2. Anyway, go work! Why are you using your time to answer us when you should be working BECAUSE WE ARE PAYING YOU TO RENDER US COMPETENT SERVICE AND THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE MAINTAINING A BLOG?

      hahaha! kayo ang entertainment ko pag breaktime ko...

      hahahaha!

      Delete
    3. So I guess we'll take the higher road by not answering your allegations. You generalize lawyers now huh?

      HOW ABOUT THE MOTHERFUCKER POLICE OFFICERS WHO ARE IGNORANT ABOUT THE LAW THEY ARE IMPLEMENTING AND WHO ARE TOO CORRUPT?

      Pulis patola!
      =======

      so this is what you call the high road huh?

      hahahaha! haysus. i am now really getting entertained!

      Delete
    4. And you guys must be already burning in hell even before your death.
      ========
      have you seen the movie "Devil's Advocate?" ano message ni al pacino doon? hahahahaha!

      Delete
    5. At least lawyers are earning a living because of their own merits. How about police officers? You're forever dependent on the money of the people.
      ==================

      eto palalampasin ko at baka maiyak ka pag ginising kita sa katotohanan...

      Delete
  13. And sorry, i dont read shit. I wont bother to read another entry of yours anymore because it pains me to read this already. It just happened that this article was shared to us because your argument and grammar are just too funny to be ignored. So dont be flattered if we're all over here giving attention to this crap. You satisfied us already since you're our laughing stock now. Anyway, good luck on your endeavors. I, We got some more sensible things to do. i just hope this wont be repeated again. Dont be a lawyer wanna be. And LITTLE knowledge is dangerous SPO1! Haha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so you don't read shit. so why are you still here?

      thanks for the hits anyway! bukas number 3 na itong blog ko sa topblogs.ph!

      hahahaha!

      Delete
    2. i just hope this wont be repeated again.

      ============

      just ask atty castro not to do it again!

      hahahaha!

      Delete
    3. It just happened that this article was shared to us because your argument and grammar are just too funny to be ignored.
      =============

      so pulis ka rin pala? GRAMMAR POLICE!

      aminin! hahahaha!

      Delete
    4. And We've proven a point here-- IT'S USELESS TALKING TO A REALLY REALLY STUPID LAWYER WANNA BE.
      =============

      and can i call you police wanna be?

      hahahaha!

      Delete
  14. Readers, tigilan nyo na po siya. Hindi na po siya makapag-english o. Nose bleed na yan si mamang pulis. Tama na. Ubos na yung baon nya.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You guys shouldn't be bothered commenting here. This is so cheap. Blog name says it all. And i dont think people read this

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and yet you bothered yourself! salamat sa hits!

      hahahaha!

      Delete
  16. tinamaan ng kidlat ang mga kritiko mo sir PNP, at nagyabang pa na naubusan na ng english...teka, taga saan ba sya? ano to english vocabulary at grammar contest? hmmm...di ba nila alam na ang mga naging kliyente ng ating mga abugado ay mga naipakulong ng ating mga mamang na pulis? di ba't kahit na matipid lang sa english ang ating mga imbestigador at mga tropa ay maraming mga notoryus na kriminal an nahuli't naipakulong at karamihan dito ay walang warrant of arrest? di po ba't may disciplinary authority kayong mga lawyer at yung iba nga diyan ay nadidisbar pa dahil sa sobrang talino na pati ang rule of law ay inapakan na dahil sa sila'y magaling? di po ba't mas mabuti nang bansagang ignorante sa batas na ipinapatupad ang iba sa ating mga pulis na hindi umabot sa kalingkingan ng ating mga abugado ang pinag-aralan...at di po ba't mas masakit na tawaging ignorante sa batas na kanilang pinag-aralan sa mahabang panahon ang ilan sa ating mga ABUGAGO na nadidisbar at nasususpendi dahil sa inabuso ang batas? at sabi pa niyan, na mga KURAP daw ang mga pulis...siguro, sa kabilang dako at sa maliit na bilang lang sa buong hanay ng kapulisan ay totoo...pero sa ating mga abugado, eh lalo silang kurap kasi nga di sila nagdedeklara ng tamang kinikita at pagbayad ng tamang buwis, baka nga siguro ay mas malaki pa siguro ang ibinabayad na buwis ng isang Police Officer 1 and ibinabayad ng iab nating de campanilla diyan...sila pa yung nagtatangol sa mga kurap na polpolitiko- kung sa bagay ay trabaho nila iyon na dapat ay gampanan kahit iyan pa ay makailang ulit nang nangungulimbat sa kaban ng bayan...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hahahaha! salamat sa suporta at affirmation. nice start for a week!

      Delete
    2. Hala... tapos na? Ano ang conclusion? :)

      Delete
    3. well confused citizen, i made a separate follow up article. here you go:

      http://pulisnapogi.blogspot.com/2015/09/abogadong-pulis-entertainment.html

      Delete
  17. Ang yabang naman ng ibang commenter...
    QUESTIONS:
    Is it that only lawyers can ever comprehend the law?
    Is being a lawyer (Does profession), a direct measure of intelligence? Or of the ability to understand the provisions (spirit) of the law?
    Since when the (command of) English language became a measure of intelligence?
    (Ironically) Why is that not all lawmakers are lawyers?
    Anyway, this is what I really meant to ask: Whether the arrest made was legal or illegal, who should give the order to release the suspect? Say, if I (and my lawyer) deem that the arrest made was illegal, can I just have my lawyer pull me out of such a situation (of course with all the antics para epektib)?

    Just curious. Thank you

    ReplyDelete

tell me what you think!