legal Free Legal Advice

[simplegurl]

simplegurl,

 

I am not aware of any law that specifically deals on stalking. Sorry.

ah ok.. tnx

[simplegurl]

Baka unjust vexation. O baka may little-known law dyan about it. Report mo na lang sa NTC.

k. tnx bro.

[Eraserheads]

hope some1 can help me wid this:

 

We have several clone pc's with intel celeron as processors. Bot it during the PII era. Dont know hu's d manufacturer of the motherboard. It uses SDRAM PC-100.

Some of the SDRAM's are malfunctiong and affecting the performance of the CPU. Really wnt to buy replacement but PC-100's are hard to find these days. Found a store that sells brand new SDRAM PC-133's but I'm not sure if its gonna be compatible wid d system/motherboard. How will I know if the motherboard supports SDRAM PC-133 or not?

I dont think so... It will work somehow but you will encounter problems later on... Better not to use PC 133 on your existing setup.

 

I believe at that time motherboard and processor are inevitable to each other... until the PC 133 came along... Dont want you to put in the risk on this one.

[Macy]

i would like to thank the lawyers who have replied to my request but if those concerned could PM me their email address that I can inform the member right away......

he has filed for a leave of absence from the site so will not be available to use the PM box.... thank you

[-=extreme=-]

hope some1 can help me wid this:

 

We have several clone pc's with intel celeron as processors. Bot it during the PII era. Dont know hu's d manufacturer of the motherboard. It uses SDRAM PC-100.

Some of the SDRAM's are malfunctiong and affecting the performance of the CPU. Really wnt to buy replacement but PC-100's are hard to find these days. Found a store that sells brand new SDRAM PC-133's but I'm not sure if its gonna be compatible wid d system/motherboard. How will I know if the motherboard supports SDRAM PC-133 or not?

Yes you can use PC-133 on a Pc-100 motherboard it will work the only drawback it will follow the speed of the motherboard which is PC 100, I tried it many times no issue what so ever, you can even mixed them, PC 100 + PC 133, it will just follow the slowest speed thats all.

[-=extreme=-]

Question ...

 

Meron akong modem sa pc ko na working naman sya on a windows 98. For some reason eh nag-install ng Windows 2000 yung pinsan ko and hindi na nagwork yung modem. I decided to switch back to windows 98 kasi wala akong makuhang driver, but the problem is kahit sa windows 98 eh hindi na madetect yung modem. What seems to be the problem ?

You need to remove from the device manager any exclamation mark on it, after that, you need restart windows 98, after rebooting windows 98 MUST find a new hardware if not even using add/remove program will not hell because its an internal modem its very difficult to detect. Next step is to remove the modem and put to another pci slot and detect it again, like I said windows 98 must detect it upon bootup. After windows detect it just put the driver inside and continue installation.

[bokam]

totoy bola

 

ya! :cool: dats y I culdnt respond to those queries in tagalog coz i'm not good at it. :boo:

[cruiser007]

i dont know if its too funny?

 

is there any law bout people who stalk.. specifically thru texting?

Sad to say, the bill specifically pertaining to stalking, has remained a House Bill.

 

HB #275 or "An Act Defining the Crime of Stalking, Providing Penalties Therefor and for other Purposes (Anti-Stalking)" was filed way back in 07/01/98 and was referred to the Committe on Public Order (07/28/98). So far, it appears that there has been no action on this matter. Maybe you can write your congressman to initiate any action on this matter.

[LAKAY210]

k. tnx bro.

tama unjust vexation ang proper offense. or it can be sexual harassment when the person texting you is your superior or a co-employee (if the elements of sexual harassment are present).

[bokam]

Extreme,

 

I tried combining PC100 and PC133 and it didnt work. Theres no monitor display. I think only sum motherboards can support both PC100 n PC133 and will run even if combined.

 

Thanks.

 

 

Eraserheads,

 

Thnx.

 

 

BTW, to both extreme n eraserheads,

 

How will I know if the motherboard supports PC133 SDRAM? Dont have the manual so I cant verfiy.

[Eraserheads]

I told you I would not take that risk.

[-=extreme=-]

Extreme,

 

I tried combining PC100 and PC133 and it didnt work. Theres no monitor display. I think only sum motherboards can support both PC100 n PC133 and will run even if combined.

 

Thanks.

 

 

Eraserheads,

 

Thnx.

 

 

BTW, to both extreme n eraserheads,

 

How will I know if the motherboard supports PC133 SDRAM? Dont have the manual so I cant verfiy.

that's why troubleshooting will come in to place, you need to do "trial and Error" testing, di naman puputok yan o masisira ang yung board as long as same type of memory ang pinasok mo dyan. Baka nga di supported ng board mo.

[Eraserheads]

Considered that also.

[kanto-terrorist]

ask ko lang guys kung may alam kayong nabibilhan ng PCI-bus graphics cards atleast 16mb?hirap maghanap eh,

[SideWinderX]

*howlers bro meron ako na s3trio 64v+. trip mo ba? txt me, 09*********

 

 

please do not post phone numbers on the board. you may ask them to PM you instead. - DarkAngel

Edited August 2, 2004 by DarkAngel

[hsmeilop]

where can i buy usb ports that can be attached to the front of the casing. When I bought my case wala kasi eh.

 

thanks.

[Eraserheads]

where can i buy usb ports that can be attached to the front of the casing. When I bought my case wala kasi eh.

 

thanks.

Go to your nearest computer store...

[bokam]

Extreme n Eraserheads,

 

Tnx agen. :cool:

[Eraserheads]

Extreme n Eraserheads,

 

Tnx agen. :cool:

No problem. Glad to help.

[Guest kittychan8]

sana nay makatulong sa kin dito kasi po yung passport ko e nasa promotion namin e balak ko wag muna magjapan uli then gusto ko makuha yung passport ko kasi akin yun d naman sila ang nag-ayos nun bata pa ko passtport ko na yun kaso ayaw nila isoli sa kin sa kanila daw yun paano [po ba gagagin ko sana may makatulong sa kin kasi kinatatakot ko e baka ipagamit sa iba yung arb ok lang gamitin nila wag lang yung passport ko akin talaga yun e legal po yun ala daya kahit isa dun

[totoybola]

Barbie,

 

I can help you by drafting a letter to your agency demanding the return of your passport. Baka matakot sa sulat.Just pm me.

[totoybola]

oks?

Edited July 27, 2004 by totoybola

[roxysnonie]

Logout from XP, then press CTRL - ALT - DEL twice to shift to another window (just like win2k) so you can enter Administrator.

have done this, still didnt work.

 

wanna try the asafe mode approach, but i'm not so familiar with it...help!

 

a step by step on how to do it would be much appreciated!

 

thanks y'all!

[Eraserheads]

have done this, still didnt work.

 

wanna try the asafe mode approach, but i'm not so familiar with it...help!

 

a step by step on how to do it would be much appreciated!

 

thanks y'all!

I just dont know what is your problem why you cant do it... It seems that there is no problem with the solutions that the guys gave it to you. Maybe you should repair your Registry Editor (Regedit). Use Tweak UI to solve this problem.

 

1) Start Tweak UI (read the tips in MalekTips for downloading / installation information)

2) Click the "Repair" link.

3) In the right-pane, click the pull-down and choose "Repair Regedit".

4) Click the "Repair Now" button.

5) Click "OK" to close Tweak UI.

 

Hope this will help.

[joesix2nine]

TeeUp,

 

I intentionally worded my answer in order to evade this question. :cry: No such luck! Hahahahahaha

 

Anyway, I will answer the second question first.

 

An accused who was convicted for reckless imprudence, the highest penalty being prision correctional which is 6months and 1 day to 6 years (I think, correct me if I’m wrong), by the trial court and, instead of availing probation, filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the ruling of the lower court in convicting and sentencing the accused for reckless imprudence can no longer apply for probation.

 

In the case of Francisco vs. CA, GR 108747, April 6, 1995, the accused was convicted and sentenced by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) to a prison term of 1 year and 1 day to 1 year and eight months. Not satisfied with the ruling, the accused appealed the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC affirmed the judgment of the MeTC but appreciated a mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused. (note that the accused was qualified for probation before he appealed to the RTC)

 

The accused then applied for probation. RTC and Court of Appeals (CA) both denied the application. Hence, the case elevated to the Supreme Court (SC).

 

The SC, in denying the application for probation, held that:

 

Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to a penitent qualified offender, it essentially rejects appeals and encourages an otherwise eligible convict to immediately admit his liability and save the state of time, effort and expenses to jettison an appeal. The law requires that an accused must not have appealed his conviction before he can avail of probation. This outlaws the element of speculation on the part of the accused - - to wager on the result of his appeal - - that when his conviction is finally affirmed on appeal, the moment of truth well-nigh at hand, and the service of his sentence inevitable, he now applies for probation as an “escape hatch” thus rendering nugatory the appellate court’s affirmance of his conviction. Consequently, probation should be availed by convicts who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated, who manifests spontaneity, contrition and remorse.

x x x

Probation is a mere privilege, not a right.

 

Back to your sample question, the accused was then qualified for probation when the RTC convicted him for reckless imprudence. But instead of availing for the privilege of probation (first available opportunity), he opted to appeal. Now that the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, the accused now wants to apply for probation. Sadly he already forfeited his chance to do so.

 

The argument of the accused therefore, in the light of the above ruling, would be untenable. (It would be a Win-Win situation for any convict if the Supreme Court ruled otherwise) My short answer therefore would be “NO”.

 

:sick:

 

As for the first question, the matter has already been somewhat dealt with by the Supreme Court in Francisco vs. CA, GR 108747, April 6, 1995 and Lagrosa vs. People, GR. 152044, July 3, 2003.

 

One of the arguments raised by the accused in the Francisco case (facts already given) was that “he has not yet lost his right to avail of probation notwithstanding his appeal from the MeTC and RTC since the reason for his appeal was precisely to enable him to avail of probation.

 

The majority of the Justices of the SC En Banc, in dismissing petitioner’s argument, held that: (Mendoza and Vitug dissenting)

 

That an appeal should not bar the accused from applying for probation if the appeal is taken solely to reduce the penalty is simply contrary to the clear and express mandate of Sec.4 of the Probation Law, as amended, which opens with a negative clause.

 

Sec.4 provides:

“NO application for probation SHALL be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.”

 

Under the rule of statutory construction, negative words and phrases are to be regarded as mandatory while those in the affirmative are merely directory…. the term “shall” further emphasizes its mandatory character and means that it is imperative, operating to impose a duty which may be enforced.

 

 

:boo:

Also, in a 2003 case of Lagrosa vs. People, GR. 152044, July 3, 2003, in where a decision was rendered against the accused when the RTC sentenced him to imprisonment of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 8 years. (He therefore was not qualified for probation). He appealed his case to the CA arguing that a) he was innocent and even if he's not innocent, the penalty imposed was improper. CA affirmed the decision but reduced the penalty to 6 months and 1 day to 1 year, 8 months and 21 days (well within the probation requirement). Accused then applied for probation in the RTC. RTC, CA and even the SC denied the application.

 

Accused argued before the SC (first division) that he should be allowed to apply for probation even if he had already appealed the decision of the trial court because he only became eligible for probation after the CA modified the judgment of the trial court.

 

The SC, in denying the application for probation, held that:

 

There is no question that petitioner appealed from the decision of the trial court. This fact alone merits the denial of petitioners’ Application for Probation. Having appealed from the judgment of the trial court and having applied for probation only after the Court of Appeals had affirmed their conviction, petitioner were clearly precluded from the benefits of probation.

x x x

(The SC further said that)

 

Although it has been suggested (by Mendoza and Vitug in the Francisco case) that an appeal should not bar the accused from applying for probation if the appeal is solely to reduce the penalty to within the probationable limit may be equitable, we are not yet prepared to accept this proposition, specially given the factual circumstances of this case. Had the petitioners’ appeal from the decision of the trial court raised the impropriety of the penalty imposed upon them as the sole issue, perhaps this Court would have been more sympathetic to their plight. Unfortunately, their misrepresentation has led to their own undoing.

(Personally, I don’t like this ruling)

 

 

To answer your first question, in lieu of this 2003 case my answer would be in the negative.

 

:upside:

Whew! P.S. Don’t have the time to edit this in layman’s terms so bear with me. Dnt even have the time to edit period. :cool:

Many Thanks for your legal opinion. Just to give you more specifics about the case.

 

The convicted couple sometime in 1990 opened up a corporation and deposited the minimum paid-up in a bank and consequently was issued a Certificate of Deposit. It was the first time for them to put up a corporation. Unfortuanlety, the bank manager suggested that the passbook to be used should be the dormant joint account passbook of the couple and promised that she would just erased the names of the couple and turn it into "in-trust". The incorporation papers were given to a messenger to file the said papers with the SEC. The couple due to an immediate need of the funds asked the bank manager if they could withdraw the money and the manager who was young and ignorant about SEC rules thought that it was possible since the papers have been filed anyway. In short the money was withdrawn partially before the papers was filed (because the messenger lied that it was promptly filed. This was not brought up in the trial) and completely before the actual certificate of Registration was issued. The SEC found out later and sent two attorneys to make the appropriate legal action. Instead of filing the case with the prosecutor"s office, they tried to extort money from the accused and even asked the womany treasurer to go to bed with him. In disgust, the accused decided instead to fight them in court. The attorneys then filed Perjury on the treasurer and falsification and conspiracy on all board of directors. The MTC acquitted the cor. treasurer for perjury. the RTC, however, convicted the cor. treasurer including his husband, who is one of the directors, but acquitted the other director. Two other directors are still at large. The whole case relied upon the testimony of the bank manager, who has testified that she found out about the mistake the next day and informed the depositor that she is cancelling the Cert. of Deposit over the phone. The husband on the other hand was convicted because the court assumed that he knows about the transaction. Take note that the husband did not testify because no evidence of conspiracy was brought out against him except the ledger that still bore the name of the couple. Despite this, the court leaned on the presumption of guilt rather than innocence, explaining that (speculative) he should have known about the transaction of his wife being his wife. Despite the uncontested Bank Certificate of deposit, the ledger showing the deposit and the testimony of the manager that she did not cancel the BCD officially at anytime, the court found the couple guilty as charge for falsification and conspiracy. The sentence was 4 months prison correcional and 2 years and 6 months prison mayor. The court of appeals upheld this decision and the SC just gave minute decision for the appeal and the MR. No explanation whatsoever on their decision.

 

The defense lawyer convinced the couple that the lower court was in error in the decision and there was a big chance of it being acquitted, thus the appeal.

 

I got hold of a decision by the second division (G.R. No. L-55130. January 17, 1983. PEDRO SANTOS petitioner, vs. HON ERNANI CRUZ-PANO, Presiding judge,, Court of first Instance of Rizal, QC Branch XVIII

 

In this decision, the SC reversed the denial of the lower court to grant probation in the light of the appeal by the convicted to the CA. However, the difference between this case, which is estafa and the above is that he appealed to reduce his sentence to be able to qualify for the probation while the above firmly believed in their innocence and the offense has not harmed anyone but themselves. How can the SC apply different rulings for different persons? IN his decision, Judges Makasiar, Conception jr., and Abad Santos, JJ were compassionate and admonished the lower court for denying the petitioner to avail of probation as contrary to the purpose from which the probation Law was created--reformation. In their words, how can you reform persons with the such light offenses to be mingled with hardned criminals? How can our justice system incarcerate the whole head of the family for such a simple mistake as withdrawing their own miney from the bank against SEC rules. The Corporation that was registered, by the way, was cancelled subsequently which was enough punishment as it is. Then they cited the case of Balleta Jr. vs Hon. Leviste, G.R. No. L-49907, august 21, 1979, 92 SCRA 719.

 

Is there any other legal, political, extra-judicial or whatever that they can get out of this nightmare?

 

Appreciate your kindness, God bless.