Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 674 views

    Gross Ignorance of The Law or Crass Stupidity? Memorandum of Associate City Prosecutor Maureen M. Dangwa

    Uploaded by

    Khoo Boo Boon
    When the law is sufficiently basic, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. What is funny about this ruling is that the Associate City Prosecutor acted with grave abuse of authority and discretion and in gross ignorance of the law in conducting an investigation as if it were a trial on erroneous application of the laws and facts, such as Art. 11 paragraph 5 of the Revised penal Code of the Philippines. What is interesting is that the Respondent (Legal Counsel and Compliance Office of HSBC Philippines) did not even invoke the Art 11 of the Revised Penal Code! Isn't this an obvious act of the City Prosecutor lawyering for Respondent? Is it proper? And again the funny thing is the application is even misplaced for Article 11 provides the justifying circumstances that do not incur criminal liability! Isn't it that the function of the City Prosecutor is to conduct a preliminary investigation "in determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-rounded belief that a crime has been committed and that the private respondent is probably guilty of". In the evidence I submitted in my complaint, the Respondent admitted executing a document disclosing both my peso and dollar deposits without my consent in her counter-affidavit. In addition to this, I also submitted the sworn answer of the Joel B. Cruz, the Vice-President, denying that the signature of the certification bearing his name is his as he was on leave on the day certification was issue. Certainly, his signature was forged. Isn't this more than sufficient evidence in determining probable cause? The nation has learned from the Corona impeachment trial a basic lesson on the absolute confidentiality of bank deposit, more so dollar deposits -- that even the Senate with all its might could not look into. And here comes a Prosecutor claiming otherwise. It is interesting to note that the Office of Special Investigation of Bangko Sentral Pilipinas has found probable cause to charge this counsel of HSBC Philippines for violation of RA. 6426 in a separate administrative case I filed against the Bank and its legal counsel.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Gross Ignorance of The Law or Crass Stupidity? Memorandum of Associate City Prosecutor Maureen M. Dangwa

    Uploaded by

    Khoo Boo Boon
    674 views4 pages
    When the law is sufficiently basic, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. What is funny about this ruling is that the Associate City Prosecutor acted with grave abuse of authority and discretion and in gross ignorance of the law in conducting an investigation as if it were a trial on erroneous application of the laws and facts, such as Art. 11 paragraph 5 of the Revised penal Code of the Philippines. What is interesting is that the Respondent (Legal Counsel and Compliance Office of HSBC Philippines) did not even invoke the Art 11 of the Revised Penal Code! Isn't this an obvious act of the City Prosecutor lawyering for Respondent? Is it proper? And again the funny thing is the application is even misplaced for Article 11 provides the justifying circumstances that do not incur criminal liability! Isn't it that the function of the City Prosecutor is to conduct a preliminary investigation "in determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-rounded belief that a crime has been committed and that the private respondent is probably guilty of". In the evidence I submitted in my complaint, the Respondent admitted executing a document disclosing both my peso and dollar deposits without my consent in her counter-affidavit. In addition to this, I also submitted the sworn answer of the Joel B. Cruz, the Vice-President, denying that the signature of the certification bearing his name is his as he was on leave on the day certification was issue. Certainly, his signature was forged. Isn't this more than sufficient evidence in determining probable cause? The nation has learned from the Corona impeachment trial a basic lesson on the absolute confidentiality of bank deposit, more so dollar deposits -- that even the Senate with all its might could not look into. And here comes a Prosecutor claiming otherwise. It is interesting to note that the Office of Special Investigation of Bangko Sentral Pilipinas has found probable cause to charge this counsel of HSBC Philippines for violation of RA. 6426 in a separate administrative case I filed against the Bank and its legal counsel.

    Original Title

    Gross Ignorance of the Law or Crass Stupidity? Memorandum of Associate City Prosecutor Maureen M. Dangwa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    When the law is sufficiently basic, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. What is funny about this ruling is that the Associate City Prosecutor acted with grave abuse of authority and discretion and in gross ignorance of the law in conducting an investigation as if it were a trial on erroneous application of the laws and facts, such as Art. 11 paragraph 5 of the Revised penal Code of the Philippines. What is interesting is that the Respondent (Legal Counsel and Compliance Office of HSBC Philippines) did not even invoke the Art 11 of the Revised Penal Code! Isn't this an obvious act of the City Prosecutor lawyering for Respondent? Is it proper? And again the funny thing is the application is even misplaced for Article 11 provides the justifying circumstances that do not incur criminal liability! Isn't it that the function of the City Prosecutor is to conduct a preliminary investigation "in determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-rounded belief that a crime has been committed and that the private respondent is probably guilty of". In the evidence I submitted in my complaint, the Respondent admitted executing a document disclosing both my peso and dollar deposits without my consent in her counter-affidavit. In addition to this, I also submitted the sworn answer of the Joel B. Cruz, the Vice-President, denying that the signature of the certification bearing his name is his as he was on leave on the day certification was issue. Certainly, his signature was forged. Isn't this more than sufficient evidence in determining probable cause? The nation has learned from the Corona impeachment trial a basic lesson on the absolute confidentiality of bank deposit, more so dollar deposits -- that even the Senate with all its might could not look into. And here comes a Prosecutor claiming otherwise. It is interesting to note that the Office of Special Investigation of Bangko Sentral Pilipinas has found probable cause to charge this counsel of HSBC Philippines for violation of RA. 6426 in a separate administrative case I filed against the Bank and its legal counsel.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    674 views4 pages

    Gross Ignorance of The Law or Crass Stupidity? Memorandum of Associate City Prosecutor Maureen M. Dangwa

    Uploaded by

    Khoo Boo Boon
    When the law is sufficiently basic, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. What is funny about this ruling is that the Associate City Prosecutor acted with grave abuse of authority and discretion and in gross ignorance of the law in conducting an investigation as if it were a trial on erroneous application of the laws and facts, such as Art. 11 paragraph 5 of the Revised penal Code of the Philippines. What is interesting is that the Respondent (Legal Counsel and Compliance Office of HSBC Philippines) did not even invoke the Art 11 of the Revised Penal Code! Isn't this an obvious act of the City Prosecutor lawyering for Respondent? Is it proper? And again the funny thing is the application is even misplaced for Article 11 provides the justifying circumstances that do not incur criminal liability! Isn't it that the function of the City Prosecutor is to conduct a preliminary investigation "in determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-rounded belief that a crime has been committed and that the private respondent is probably guilty of". In the evidence I submitted in my complaint, the Respondent admitted executing a document disclosing both my peso and dollar deposits without my consent in her counter-affidavit. In addition to this, I also submitted the sworn answer of the Joel B. Cruz, the Vice-President, denying that the signature of the certification bearing his name is his as he was on leave on the day certification was issue. Certainly, his signature was forged. Isn't this more than sufficient evidence in determining probable cause? The nation has learned from the Corona impeachment trial a basic lesson on the absolute confidentiality of bank deposit, more so dollar deposits -- that even the Senate with all its might could not look into. And here comes a Prosecutor claiming otherwise. It is interesting to note that the Office of Special Investigation of Bangko Sentral Pilipinas has found probable cause to charge this counsel of HSBC Philippines for violation of RA. 6426 in a separate administrative case I filed against the Bank and its legal counsel.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    You might also like