legal Free Legal Advice

[homesek]

Mga Sir, pede ba pakilinaw or some legal inputs po sana, Dito kasi sa mideast nag karon ng recession so marami natangal sa work ang problema marami rin utang personal bank loan, credit card and even personal loan sa kaibigan. Ito ngayon ang scenario, so tumakbo na nga ang tao, e ang loan dito may security cheque na incase nga ganito mangyari d makabayad ang banko at papatalbugin then mag file ng case, so definitely un tao na tumakbo di na makakabalik ng matino otherwise sa airport immigration entry pa lang dampot na.

 

Naging paksa ito sa kwentong disyerto, at sinsabi nga na kung may kaso ka sa ibang bansa (financial obligation nga) e wala pa tayo batas na may kaso ka rin sa pinas unless thru interpol pero sa mga high profile case na cguro ito. totoo po ba ito na wala naman tayo existing treaty.

kasi un isang kaibigan ko at ako ginwa na contact person dito un mga agent twag ng twag at hinhanap sa akin un tao na pinaliwanag ko wala na ko contact dun sa tao. Itong mga agent na ito prang collectign agency sila na kontrata ng mga local banks dito sa mid east pra mahabol un mga taong tumakbo at sinsabi an may mga treaty at interpol may police case na rin sa pinas. grabe harassment gingawa nila.

 

gusto lang po maliwanagan kung may mag reciprocality po ba twag dun na kung may kaso sinampa sa ibang bansa may kaso ka na rin sa pinas? saka sinabi ko nga s aagent kung talagang may kaso ilabas mo balck and white kung ano case number, saka sabi ko dyan nga sa pinas dami may utang at di nakakbayad sa credit card local bank na sa pinas d nyo mapakulong.

 

pkiliwanag naman po at salamat

[bonito99]

Sir,

 

I would like to ask if text messages can be used as evidence in court?

 

thank you po...

if you can prove the owner of that number.

[Pinoymale]

Sir,

 

I would like to ask if text messages can be used as evidence in court?

 

thank you po...

 

Among other limitations, text messages (electronic evidence) cannot be used in criminal cases.

[dominoneedsu]

Among other limitations, text messages (electronic evidence) cannot be used in criminal cases.

 

thank you sir..the girl is telling me that she will file charges of slander yata over my text messages.

my son is a lawyer..i just cant tell him about it...thank you

[moridins79]

Among other limitations, text messages (electronic evidence) cannot be used in criminal cases.

 

Basis? While the Rules of Electronic Evidence initially applied to civil, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings pending after that date, it was amended on 24 September 2002 to include in its coverage criminal cases effective 24 October 2002.

[curian]

Basis? While the Rules of Electronic Evidence initially applied to civil, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings pending after that date, it was amended on 24 September 2002 to include in its coverage criminal cases effective 24 October 2002.

 

 

agree on this one.

according to the rules on electronic evidence rule 2, an electronic evidence is:

(h) “Electronic document” refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, the term “electronic document” may be used interchangeably with electronic data message”.

 

a sms message is within contemplation of the rule.

 

then sa rule 3

SEC. 2. Admissibility. – An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by these Rules

[curian]

it'll be difficult to prove ownership of the number though.. especially if its your sin number. hehehe

[draxxm]

there might be a problem kung prepaid..... tapos yung sms eh jejemon

[kuliti]

hello.. baka may kilala kayo na atty na does probono? a friend of a friend needs help.. to make the long story short..

 

1. his dad ex. brgy kagawad. nakaaway hepe ng area nila.. now hinuli sya sa bahay nila and planted evidence(shabu) they bought it daw kuno for 300 pesos.. they charged him section 5 which i think is drug pushing? the amount of drugs is only 0.01. is that enough to charge you as a pusher? 3 yrs na nakakulong..

 

2. they filed a case at napolcom regarding his dads incident. that was 2009 pa till now no action..

 

3.sept 2011 his brother and his friend was gunned down by cops.. allegedly(as per police report dated sept 9. it happened on sept 6) didnt stop at checkpoint when the police chased them they pulled out a gun and fired at the officers.(i am just reading the police report). when the family went sa funeral parlor naka autopsy na agad and there were marks ng hand cuffs sa wrists nila. so they asked NBI to do a autopsy and NBI's report stated NO Gun powder residue both hands etc..

 

naaawa lang ako sa guy.. i told him i pa media na nya eh para wala nang mamatay sa family nya.. his cousin was also gunned down cant remember when..

[bonito99]

May PAO lawyers available sa Manila City Hall.

[Pinoymale]

Basis? While the Rules of Electronic Evidence initially applied to civil, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings pending after that date, it was amended on 24 September 2002 to include in its coverage criminal cases effective 24 October 2002.

 

Hi, do you have the citation for the amendment you mentioned? I've seen one reference to it but I can't seem to find the actual amendment. My basis for my statement is Pascua v. Sagud (G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010) which states at the end of the decision that "Besides, the rules he [petitioner] cites do not apply to the present criminal action. The Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings."

[curian]

Hello,

 

I hope you don't mind me butting in. I tried to look for the amendment, its supposed to be a resolution issued on Sept. 24, 2002 but i really can't find it. And thank you for the case you cited, i read it and it seems that as of that date, which is much later than the amendment, the rules on electronic evidence does not apply to criminal proceedings. Thank you.

 

I did find a copy of that resolution but its not within the Supreme Court site, so you have to take it with a grain of salt. Here it is: http://www.disini.ph/res_sc_am_1-7-01.html

[curian]

I'll try to go to the SC to verify this. will inform you Pinoymale.

[Pinoymale]

Hello,

 

I hope you don't mind me butting in. I tried to look for the amendment, its supposed to be a resolution issued on Sept. 24, 2002 but i really can't find it. And thank you for the case you cited, i read it and it seems that as of that date, which is much later than the amendment, the rules on electronic evidence does not apply to criminal proceedings. Thank you.

 

I did find a copy of that resolution but its not within the Supreme Court site, so you have to take it with a grain of salt. Here it is: http://www.disini.ph/res_sc_am_1-7-01.html

 

Thanks for the info, that's the second (and more direct) reference I've seen regarding the amendment. Hmm, since the amendment and the case both originated with the SC, then I suppose the more recent one would be controlling.

[moridins79]

Hello,

 

I hope you don't mind me butting in. I tried to look for the amendment, its supposed to be a resolution issued on Sept. 24, 2002 but i really can't find it. And thank you for the case you cited, i read it and it seems that as of that date, which is much later than the amendment, the rules on electronic evidence does not apply to criminal proceedings. Thank you.

 

I did find a copy of that resolution but its not within the Supreme Court site, so you have to take it with a grain of salt. Here it is: http://www.disini.ph/res_sc_am_1-7-01.html

 

 

i read that case as well but parang obiter yung statement.