tk421 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 Umabot ba sa point na na-trigger yan Double Jeopardy protection? Hindi naman ata umabot sa trial ang kaso, if I remember right. Quote Link to comment
haroots2 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 I guess we’re feeling the effects of TRAIN now... http://business.inquirer.net/247527/inflation-rises-bsp-turns-gun-shy-promised-reserve-cuts Its just your guess, nothing factual about it yet right? Even in the article you've posted nothing said about the train law, you just added it up para may maipost lang dito. Quote Link to comment
tk421 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 Umamin na nga na drug pusher, dinismiss pa din ang kaso. Selective justice talaga. At nag aabugado pa yun isa dyan. Quote Link to comment
tk421 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 We've been saying for months now that the TRAIN law will raise inflation. And now, how fast it is rising cannot even be predicted by the BSP. Quote Link to comment
haroots2 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 We've been saying for months now that the TRAIN law will raise inflation. And now, how fast it is rising cannot even be predicted by the BSP. Umiwas ka rin sa tanong, even the article doesn't say its because of the train law. So where is your data proving it. Ngayon lang ba nakaranas ang Pilipinas ng inflation para sabihin mo na dahil sa Train law ito? Gusto mo lang ba sabihin na magaling kang manghula? Quote Link to comment
darksoulriver Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 yung naiinis sa pagbasura ng DOJ sa kaso ni bigtime pusher/druglord eh maige po munang intindihin... nsa DOJ pa yung case at nadismiss due to poor evidence daw... isipin nsa DOJ pa yung case at wala sa Local Court kung nsa local court na yung case at dahil poor evidence baka madismiss kaagad so laya na si druglord... hanapin nyo yung video ng isang Abogada para magets ninyo... Quote Link to comment
Sam1226 Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 si "suspended" lawyer trixie angeles ba mini mean mo? yung naiinis sa pagbasura ng DOJ sa kaso ni bigtime pusher/druglord eh maige po munang intindihin... nsa DOJ pa yung case at nadismiss due to poor evidence daw... isipin nsa DOJ pa yung case at wala sa Local Court kung nsa local court na yung case at dahil poor evidence baka madismiss kaagad so laya na si druglord... hanapin nyo yung video ng isang Abogada para magets ninyo... Quote Link to comment
tk421 Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 prevailing financial market circumstances, after the inflation rate exceeded government forecasts for the second consecutive month in February. Ano ang difference from 2 months ago? Right. The TRAIN law was enacted. Umiwas ka rin sa tanong, even the article doesn't say its because of the train law. So where is your data proving it. Ngayon lang ba nakaranas ang Pilipinas ng inflation para sabihin mo na dahil sa Train law ito? Gusto mo lang ba sabihin na magaling kang manghula? Quote Link to comment
tk421 Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Yun self-confessed amo nila nakalaya sa weak evidence. Pero yun evidence kay de Lima was just as weak nakakulong pa din. Iba talaga pag may padrino sa itaas. Quote Link to comment
tk421 Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Duterte announces withdrawal from the ICC. One thing's for sure: after Duterte's time (maybe after 30 years kung umabot siya ng 100 at ginawa siyang ruler for life), we'll have a harder time reclaiming our international reputation. Hubris at its worst. Quote Link to comment
tk421 Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Well... may power naman ang DOJ to hold suspects in custody indefinitely kahit walang matibay na ebidensya eh. Habang nag fi fishing expedition sila. Ganun naman ginawa nila kay GMA at ginagawa kay de Lima ngayon diba? So bakit ito, eh mas matibay na ebidensya kaysa kay de Lima, pinalaya agad? Ano pagkakaiba? yung naiinis sa pagbasura ng DOJ sa kaso ni bigtime pusher/druglord eh maige po munang intindihin... nsa DOJ pa yung case at nadismiss due to poor evidence daw... isipin nsa DOJ pa yung case at wala sa Local Court kung nsa local court na yung case at dahil poor evidence baka madismiss kaagad so laya na si druglord... hanapin nyo yung video ng isang Abogada para magets ninyo... Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) Well... may power naman ang DOJ to hold suspects in custody indefinitely kahit walang matibay na ebidensya eh. Habang nag fi fishing expedition sila. Ganun naman ginawa nila kay GMA at ginagawa kay de Lima ngayon diba?De Lima wouldn't be jailed if there wasn't sufficient evidence. First of all, drug trafficking is an unbailable offense so you are mistaken that they are holding De Lima without sufficient evidence. Edited March 14, 2018 by will robie Quote Link to comment
tk421 Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) De Lima wouldn't be jailed if there wasn't sufficient evidence. First of all, drug trafficking is an unbailable offense so you are mistaken that they are holding De Lima without sufficient evidence. Say that again? Drug trafficking is an unbailable offense? Really? Well I see these guys walking out (and one is a self confessed drug trafficker already). Im not sure how much stronger that evidence could be compared to de Limas. Edited March 14, 2018 by tk421 Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) Say that again? Drug trafficking is an unbailable offense? Really? Well I see these guys walking out (and one is a self confessed drug trafficker already). Im not sure how much stronger that evidence could be compared to de Limas.Yes. You heard that right. Drug trafficking is an unbailable offense. With De Lima, there is hard evidence. I don't know which institution screwed up the case against Lim and Espinosa but there will be a review. So you'd rather believe a verbal confession than a case with slam-dunk evidence. Edited March 14, 2018 by will robie Quote Link to comment
tk421 Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Yes. You heard that right. Drug trafficking is an unbailable offense. With De Lima, there is hard evidence. I don't know which institution screwed up the case against Lim and Espinosa but there will be a review. So you'd rather believe a verbal confession than a case with slam-dunk evidence. I’m curious what these ‘hard evidences’ are. Maybe you can enlighten us? Ang FYI verbal, sworn confession IS slam dunk evidence. I’m not sure where you get the idea that says otherwise. Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) I’m curious what these ‘hard evidences’ are. Maybe you can enlighten us? Ang FYI verbal, sworn confession IS slam dunk evidence. I’m not sure where you get the idea that says otherwise.There is "Google". Use it. Haha! So if Kerwin Espinosa confessed he is superman, you'll believe him? Slam dunk evidence kamo ang sworn confession. Haha! Edited March 14, 2018 by will robie Quote Link to comment
tk421 Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Sorry, but the burden of proof to show these hard evidences falls on you, not me or google. As for espinosa, as I said... it was a sworn statement under oath. In an official investigation. So that is, as you say, a slam dunk move. Saying otherwise either shows your close-mindedness... or ignorance. There is "Google". Use it. Haha! So if Kerwin Espinosa confessed he is superman, you'll believe him? Slam dunk evidence kamo ang sworn confession. Haha! Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 A sworn statement is different from a verbal statement. You qouted my post and tried to contradict it so you have to convincingly contradict what I posted and not the other way around. Quote Link to comment
tk421 Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 No, I've said so before that it was a sworn statement (confession or kung ano man) or have you forgotten? It was conducted in a government hearing wherein one is required to swear that he is telling the truth. Eto pa ang jeopardy for you: kung sinasabi mong hindi totoo ang kanyang confession, eh paano na yun kaso ni de Lima eh sabi ni Espinosa sya daw ang nagbigay ng '8M through Robbie Dayan'. And the DOJ is using this statement as one of the "evidences" against de Lima. So is Espinosa a drug trafficker or not? Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 De Lima’s case has hard evidence. So if Espinosa confessed he is Batman, will you believe him? Yes or no. Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 I never said that Espinosa is not a drug pusher. Understand my post. Quote Link to comment
tk421 Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 (edited) I never said that Espinosa is not a drug pusher. Understand my post. You were impyling it. Let's not muddle the issue here with inconsequential things like if he's true to his words or not. Now: is Espinosa a drug trafficker or not? I'm already asking this question directly to you, hoping you can give an direct answer, also. De Lima’s case has hard evidence. So if Espinosa confessed he is Batman, will you believe him? Yes or no. Please define hard evidence muna, then we'll take it from there. Edited March 15, 2018 by tk421 Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 You were impyling it. Let's not muddle the issue here with inconsequential things like if he's true to his words or not.That is your opinion but if you understood what I said, you can't convict on mere hearsay alone. You need hard evidence. Are you scared of answering a simple question? Quote Link to comment
will robie Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 Now: is Espinosa a drug trafficker or not? I'm already asking this question directly to you, hoping you can give an direct answer, also. Answer my question first. Please define hard evidence muna, then we'll take it from there. Haha! You're arguing with me and you ask me to define "hard evidence". Learn what is "hard evidence" then get back to me. Quote Link to comment
darksoulriver Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 si "suspended" lawyer trixie angeles ba mini mean mo? ano kinalaman nun sa issue? as far as i know she is still an attorney... Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.