SGT. AUDIE M VEDUA JR. INF PA, a Scout Ranger instructor was killed in an encounter against Abu Sayaf
SGT. AUDIE M VEDUA JR. INF PA, a Scout Ranger instructor was killed in an encounter against Abu Sayaf Terrorist group last August 23, 2016 at Basilan Mindanao.
Your sarifice will always be remembered
A snappy salute for your love and sacrifice for our country.
Isang kaibigan, isang ka buddy, isang kamag anak isang mandirigma.
Our condolcences to the family of our comrade.
Paalam SGT. VEDUA
courtesy post from proud filipino solidiers
Pres. Duterte reached out to Miriam Santiago and offered to help her Transfer to the Best Cancer Center in the World and to replace Supreme Court Justice Sereno!
President Duterte Reaches OUT TO MIRIAM SANTIAGO and OFFERED TO HELP her TRANSFER TO the BEST CANCER CENTER in the WORLD located in THE USA and offers her to replace Supreme Court Justtice Sereno!
Catholic priest is caught on video snorting cocaine in a room full of Nazi memorabilia
- Father Stephen Crossan filmed taking cocaine at party on church grounds
- Roman Catholic priest sniffed the class A drug through a £10 note at home
- He admitted taking cocaine but said he did ‘not have an issue with drugs’
- Revellers also claimed there was Nazi memorabilia at 37-year-old’s home
videoed in a room filled with Nazi memorabilia, this is the moment a Roman Catholic priest snorted a line of cocaine at a party in his house on church grounds.
Father Stephen Crossan, 37, is said to have sniffed the class A drug through a £10 note at the end of a night of drinking beers and whiskey.
In the footage he is heard saying ‘I shouldn’t’ before snorting the white powder off a plate while talking to a friend.
The probe on extrajudicial killings will continue, and Sen. Leila de Lima does not intend to inhibit from the probe, as suggested by one of her fellow senators.
De Lima, who faces an ethics probe at the Senate, also chose to ignore the latest broadside from President Duterte, saying, & I’ll let the people judge me.
“You know, close friends, family advised me not to speak on the issue in the meantime because there seems to be no end (to the allegations),” De Lima told reporters. “But what I can say now, I say it again, those accusations against my alleged drug links are complete falsehoods and an absolute lie.”
She reiterated she would not attend the inquiry to be conducted by the House of Representatives on the alleged proliferation of drugs at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) when she was the secretary of justice.
“I initiated (drug raids at the NBP) so why will they investigate me? I found a way to expose the drug problems there. Don’t they know that I exerted certain efforts, steps after discovering all of those inside Bilibid?” she said.
She also branded as unfair Duterte’s allegations that she benefited from prosecuting lawmakers in the multibillion-peso pork barrel scam by alleged mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles.
De Lima faces an ethics complaint in the Senate in connection with her alleged links to illegal drugs.
Duterte on Tuesday tagged De Lima as the protector of drug lords operating in the NBP.
Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said a complaint was filed against De Lima on Monday by a private citizen. The complaint will be tackled by the chamber’s ethics committee, which he chairs.
He did not give details on the complaint except that it was connected to allegations that De Lima was linked to drug lords operating from the NBP.
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano told reporters he would ask De Lima to inhibit from presiding over the inquiry on extrajudicial killings led by the Senate committee on justice, which she chairs.
Cayetano said De Lima was clearly biased against Duterte and has caused damage to the country’s image before the international community because of the way she conducted the hearings on Monday and Tuesday.
He said by her own definition, the extrajudicial killings are incidents condoned and/or unacted upon by the state. He said the Duterte administration has condemned extrajudicial killings and has been conducting investigations on the same.
De Lima dismissed the call of Cayetano, who she said was the one who’s biased, being “the defender and apologist” of Duterte.
“Why should I (inhibit)?” she said.
MARCOS CASES ACQUITED
(Interantional and Local News Links nasa ibaba)
Bagkus, pinamumuka pa sa mga tao sa pmamagitan ng Balita na NINAKAW ito ng mga MARCOS.
SHARE ! Para malaman ng mga tao. SHAME on the BIas PHILIPPINE MEDIA! Alam nio ktotohanan pero tinatago niyo.
MARCOS CLEARED $863 MILLION CORRUPTION CASE
Ex-Philippine first lady walks free after 17-year trial linked to Swiss banks
The Marcos Verdict; Marcos Is Cleared of All Charges In Racketeering and Fraud Case
Imelda cleared by RTC on 32 counts of dollar salting
SC clears FM heirs of ill-gotten charges
Philippines: Imelda Marcos Cleared Of Graft
Imelda Marcos Acquitted : Cleared of Looting Philippines to Buy N.Y. Skyscrapers : Khashoggi Also Freed in Blow to Justice Dept.
Cory Aquino cleared the Marcoses in a letter in 1992 but the media does not want you to know the truth.
The government lost a nearly 30-year-long battle to recover several properties, including 67 pieces of land, allegedly purchased by the brothers of former First Lady and now Ilocos Norte Rep. Imelda Romualdez Marcos.
This was after the Sandiganbayan dismissed the civil forfeiture case against Marcos’ brothers — Armando and Alfredo Romualdez.
In a decision promulgated on August 15, a copy of which was obtained by the media Wednesday, the anti-graft court’s First Division granted the demurrer of evidence filed by Alfredo, Armando and his spouse Vilma.
A demurrer to evidence seeks the dismissal of the case halfway through the trial based solely on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
The subject of the forfeiture case were 67 pieces of real property located in various areas nationwide, as well as personal property composed of various shares of stock in different companies, bank accounts, vehicles, aircrafts, racehorse, and livestock.
In a 76-page ruling, the Sandiganbayan said the government “miserably failed” to prove that the Romualdezes acquired the properties using government resources and obtained them because of their close relationship with the late President Ferdinand Marcos, their sister’s spouse.
“[O]wnership of the properties and relations of the Romualdezes to President Marcos alone do not make these properties ill-gotten, especially considering that the Republic did not substantiate with concrete evidence abuse of power or authority on the part of the Romualdezes,” the court said.
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed the forfeiture case against the Romualdezes in 1987 to recover the properties which were allegedly acquired by the Romualdezes through illegal means.
The PCGG accused the Romualdezes of allegedly conspiring with each other to create dummy corporations— Golden Country Farms Inc (GCFI)., Highway Builders Inc., Dipudo Industries Inc., Maconacon Airways Inc., and Isabela Gas and Power Develoment Corporation.
These companies were allegedly used to siphon funds from the government coffers in the guise of a lone from different financial institutions such as the Development Bank of the Philippines and the National Investment Development Corp., and credit accommodations from the National Grains Authority.
The monies obtained were then supposedly used for the acquisition of the properties.
The government argued that the assets acquired by the Romualdez brothers should be returned to the Filipino people since they were allegedly ill-gotten.
To support its case, the PCGG presented 25 witnesses and about 400 documentary exhibits from the time the complaint was filed in 1987 up until it submitted its amended formal offer of evidence in 2015.
However, even with the voluminous evidence presented by the government, the Romualdezes said the case against them should be dismissed as the PCGG failed to prove the subject assets came from the government itself or were acquired through illegal means.
In deciding to dismiss the case, the Sandiganbayan took issue with the documentary exhibits presented by the government to prove that GCFI was a dummy company with links to the late President Marcos since majority of them were photocopies.
It said that under the “best evidence rule,” a party which desires to present photocopies of the original document must first prove the following elements before the secondary evidence is admitted by the court:
- the existence or due execution of the original;
- the loss and destruction of the original or the reason for its non-production in court; and
- the absence of bad faith on the part of the offeror to which the unavailability of the original can be attributed.
The Sandiganbayan said the government failed to support the acceptability of its secondary evidence and instead proceeded with the presentation and identification of the photocopied documents without explaining why the original documents could not be produced in court.
“What is only obvious to the Court is that the documents passed or were transferred from one office to another and kept by the designated custodians but it is unclear if the documents that were turned over to these offices were originals,” the ruling read.
The Sandiganbayan said the government likewise failed to comply with the requirements for the authentication of private documents, which formed bulk of its documentary evidence.
While the court said the circumstances “directly and positively linking” former President Marcos to the GCFI can be gleaned from the private documents such as letters, reports and memorandum presented by the government, it failed to establish their evidentiary worth.
As such, the Sandiganbayan said “there is no competent evdence showing the GCFI was a dummy corporation of former President Marcos.”
The court said the four other corporations mentioned by the PCGG also depend “on the same incompetent evidence,” although prosecutors did not present as much documents about them compared with GCFI.
The late President Marcos and his wife were also named defendants in the case although they were declared in default due to their failure to file their answer within 60 days from Nov. 10, 1988, when the alias summonses were served upon them.
Another defendant, Ricardo Quintos, was subsequently declared in default while the other one, Nelia Gonzales, filed her answer but did not participate in subsequent proceedings.
(excerpt from source) VVP, GMA News