legal Free Legal Advice

[legalavatar]

Not that policemens or MMDAs are giving me any trouble but in regard of the absence of a prohibition, feel free to execute rule.

What about those traffic sign which is either intentionally or unintentionally place of area where a motorist has very least chance of visual contact?

Or traffic lights that is block by branches of trees? Is there law or laws that provide guidelines for placement of such signs?

By the way, does traffic violation makes you are criminal? How about driving without license or a expire license?

 

Sorry for so many traffic related questions.

And thank you in advance for the enlightenment.

 

driving without a license means that your are either driving with an expired license or that you do not actually have a license. pag nakalimutan mo sa bahay pero may license ka, it does not mean you are driving without a license. that should be clear.pag ayaw maniwala ng mmda, isama mo sa bahay mo para kunin yung license mo.

 

traffic violations are not criminal in nature, but merely misdemeanors. they are acts short of committing a crime, but are not by law considered as criminal acts. administrative lang sila and will subject you only to monetary fines or penalties, and no more.

 

it is very hard to prove that hiding a traffic sign was intentionally done by the mmda or the police officer. there is a presumption of regularity of official duties, which means that if they gave you a ticket, the law presumes that you violated traffic law. while there are guidelines as to the size and location of a traffic sign, if they are hidden from plain sight, the law presumes that you know the law. ignorantia elenchi neminem non excusat - ignorance of the law excuses no one.

 

hence, while it seems unfair, if you did not see the sign hidden by the trees (intentionally or otherwise), you violated a traffic law.

Edited May 28, 2008 by legalavatar

[legalavatar]

Hi, I was involved in a car crash resulting to damage to my car and the car that bumped me. We never got resolved since the other driver (na aminadong may kasalanan) only wants to pay a fixed amount while I'm pushing to him to pay more (to make things clear, the amount I was asking was only 60% of the repair costs while he wanted to pay only about 30% of the repair costs). Sinabi nia din na sia na lang daw magpapagawa pero sa mekaniko nia. I humored him and went to his mechanic. But the mechanic wanted me to just accept the amount the other driver was offering. He said "Kaya yan gawin (sa amount na offered)". So sabi ko, e di gawin mo. Gusto naman ng mekaniko na iwan ko yung buong kotse for a week! Ayaw nia kalasin yung bumper dahil lalaki daw labor! Sabi ko hindi pwede dahil ginagamit ko ang sasakyan. Bandang huli, sinabi sa kin ng mekaniko, kasuhan ko na lang. I asked the other driver ulit and he still wont budge. So I asked him to return with me sa police but he refused na sumama na. And said, kasuhan mo na lang ako. So I did. Pagdating ng hearing (hindi dumating yung other driver) the state prosecutor asked me to file a supplementary affidavit/statement kasi parang kulang daw yung nakalagay sa statement ko.

 

Question:

1. What will happen to this case if it goes on?

2. Bakit parang ang dating sa kin ng mga pulis at prosecutor eh parang gusto nilang kalimutan ko na lang angnangyari?

3. What will happen if no appearance pa din yung other driver sa mga susunod?

4. May pag-asa ba ko manalo knowing na parang gusto ng prosecutor na bitawan ko na lang?

5. Anong mangyayari pag nanalo ako upon resolution?

 

Request for help/advice:

1. Baka naman po mayroong may format ng supplementary affidavit/statement po jan na pwede kong masundan ang format...

2. Any other advice?

 

best case - resolution gets issued and case is filed in court. if he gets convicted, di siya makukulong dahil damage to property lang. treble damages lang yan. may pambayad ba siya?

 

if he does not appear and your affidavit completely outlines all the elements of reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property, the fiscal is bound to issue the resolution recommending the filing of the case. if your affidavit is insufficient, the fiscal will dismiss.

 

pards, i do suggest you hire a lawyer. do not toy with the law because it might bite you back. baka mapahiya ka lang sa nakabunggo sa iyo. if you do not want to get a lawyer, take the settlement offered. there is no format to the affidavit, and it takes years of law school and experience to draft one which will not get dismissed by the fiscal. give the public attorney's office a shot, pero pang indigents lang kasi. since you have a car, clearly you're not an indigent litigant.

 

therefore, you ony have to choices - take the settlement, or hire a lawyer. any other decision may lead to unfavorable outcomes.

 

best learn from this saying - he who has himself as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.

 

ikaw rin, you might end up with nothing.

 

cheers.

[legalavatar]

best case - resolution gets issued and case is filed in court. if he gets convicted, di siya makukulong dahil damage to property lang. treble damages lang yan. may pambayad ba siya?

 

if he does not appear and your affidavit completely outlines all the elements of reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property, the fiscal is bound to issue the resolution recommending the filing of the case. if your affidavit is insufficient, the fiscal will dismiss.

 

pards, i do suggest you hire a lawyer. do not toy with the law because it might bite you back. baka mapahiya ka lang sa nakabunggo sa iyo. if you do not want to get a lawyer, take the settlement offered. there is no format to the affidavit, and it takes years of law school and experience to draft one which will not get dismissed by the fiscal. give the public attorney's office a shot, pero pang indigents lang kasi. since you have a car, clearly you're not an indigent litigant.

 

therefore, you ony have to choices - take the settlement, or hire a lawyer. any other decision may lead to unfavorable outcomes.

 

best learn from this saying - he who has himself as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.

 

ikaw rin, you might end up with nothing.

 

cheers.

 

please disregard that last sentence about going to the pubic attorney's office. hindi pwede dahil ikaw pala yung nagdemanda.

 

there's really no choice except to get a lawyer of your own or accept the settlement. anything more would be dangerously foolish (pardon my bluntness)

[xwhiteshadowz]

good day legal advisers... just wanna ask regarding photography in public..is there any law that abides you to take pictures from the street? i know that there are certain places where you are prohibited to take pictures.. but in case in a very public place like in a busy street or the mall perhaps...if ever you shoot at a beggar for instance..or a vendor...is it illegal without their permission? what will be my liabilities? and if ever i was caught by security personnels or policemen..what would be my right? if the pictures is entirely for personal collection and just for hobby...just wanna know the rules i admit my ignorance regarding this...and i prefer to have legal knowledge to protect my film roll...TIA and have a great day ahead

[S-Syndrome]

best learn from this saying - he who has himself as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.

 

Except for former president Ferdinand Marcos perhaps.

 

Cheers

[bonito99]

good day legal advisers... just wanna ask regarding photography in public..is there any law that abides you to take pictures from the street? i know that there are certain places where you are prohibited to take pictures.. but in case in a very public place like in a busy street or the mall perhaps...if ever you shoot at a beggar for instance..or a vendor...is it illegal without their permission? what will be my liabilities? and if ever i was caught by security personnels or policemen..what would be my right? if the pictures is entirely for personal collection and just for hobby...just wanna know the rules i admit my ignorance regarding this...and i prefer to have legal knowledge to protect my film roll...TIA and have a great day ahead

 

 

From what you've mentioned, I see no problem. Inside the mall, would be an entirely different story.

[mlpf]

good day legal advisers... just wanna ask regarding photography in public..is there any law that abides you to take pictures from the street? i know that there are certain places where you are prohibited to take pictures.. but in case in a very public place like in a busy street or the mall perhaps...if ever you shoot at a beggar for instance..or a vendor...is it illegal without their permission? what will be my liabilities? and if ever i was caught by security personnels or policemen..what would be my right? if the pictures is entirely for personal collection and just for hobby...just wanna know the rules i admit my ignorance regarding this...and i prefer to have legal knowledge to protect my film roll...TIA and have a great day ahead

 

Well, some people may take offense if you photograph them without their permission. If you take their picture without their permission and they notice it and object, they may file a case for "Unjust Vexation" (Article 287, Revised Penal Code) which is a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment of 1 to 30 days or a fine from Php 5.00 to Php 200.00.

[xwhiteshadowz]

From what you've mentioned, I see no problem. Inside the mall, would be an entirely different story.

 

 

Well, some people may take offense if you photograph them without their permission. If you take their picture without their permission and they notice it and object, they may file a case for "Unjust Vexation" (Article 287, Revised Penal Code) which is a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment of 1 to 30 days or a fine from Php 5.00 to Php 200.00.

 

 

thank you for the replies sir. so it means that without their permission its will always be your fault? even if you dont intend to include them in the pictures? so its really different if youre press? that you can take pics of people without their permission?

[bonito99]

going "unjust vexation" is just a bit overboard, in your narration.

 

 

if you're paparazzi-type... it may be applicable.

 

if you'll use it to earn money (their images, without their consent) you can be civilly liable.

[shine0121]

Good Day! This is regarding Marriage.

 

1. My cousin got married here in PI but unfortunately her wife went to the US and filed a divorce. Since divorce is not valid here... is it easy for my cousin to file an annulment and how long will it take for him to be single again?

 

2. When my cousin got married his name in his marriage contract may "JOSE" but now sa mga identification cards nya ne's no longer using "Jose" and in his birth certificate wala na ring "Jose". His concern is, possible ba na mkakuha sya ulit ng marriage lic since iba naman ung name nya sa first marriage nya and names nya sa mga identification cards nya and even birth certificate?

 

3. How much is the annulment fee and how long is the processing of it?

 

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[azayco]

Well, some people may take offense if you photograph them without their permission. If you take their picture without their permission and they notice it and object, they may file a case for "Unjust Vexation" (Article 287, Revised Penal Code) which is a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment of 1 to 30 days or a fine from Php 5.00 to Php 200.00.

 

I can think of a civil action for damages for violation of privacy under Article 26 (?) of the Civil Code.

[legalavatar]

Good Day! This is regarding Marriage.

 

1. My cousin got married here in PI but unfortunately her wife went to the US and filed a divorce. Since divorce is not valid here... is it easy for my cousin to file an annulment and how long will it take for him to be single again?

 

2. When my cousin got married his name in his marriage contract may "JOSE" but now sa mga identification cards nya ne's no longer using "Jose" and in his birth certificate wala na ring "Jose". His concern is, possible ba na mkakuha sya ulit ng marriage lic since iba naman ung name nya sa first marriage nya and names nya sa mga identification cards nya and even birth certificate?

 

3. How much is the annulment fee and how long is the processing of it?

 

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Hi Shine

 

In reply to #1 - it depends. if your cousin married a foreign whose laws allow for divorce, the subsequent divorce in the US will permit your cousin to re-marry notwithstanding the invalidity of divorce in the Philippines.

 

if your cousin's wife is a Filipina, then i will have to be frank with you, getting a marriage annulled is not a simple task. the grounds under the law are very limited.

 

CAVEAT: if any lawyer tells you that the annulment will be over in six months, then be careful because NO ANNULMENT CASES can be completed in six months (unless the judge, the Prosecutor, the SolGen's representative and the lawyer are all in on it, which makes it illegal, and makes the parties liable for Falsification of Public Documents, Perjury, Graft at the very least, including your cousin.)

 

In reply to #2 - Bakit natanggal yung surname na "jose"? if he wants to get another marriage license using his surname in his birth cert., this is possible. i'd like to think that his birth certificate registered with the NSO takes precedence over any thing else.

my advice to you - tell your "cousin" to have his first marriage annulled first before getting married again. He may be liable for bigamy if he does so. better safe than sorry, right?

 

In reply to #3 -

 

Shine Honey , i'd love to take the case pro bono if it was your case i'd be handling... unfortunately it's your cousin's. just kidding.

 

some firms bill by the hour, some on one time package fees, some via acceptance and other fees -- it all depends on the caliber of the lawyer, his background, and of the law firm.

 

like all cases, it can take up to more than a year to have the marriage annulled. The reason for this is the court calendars are so clogged that on the average, a case is heard only ONCE a month. hence, the delay. just make sure you bear in mind the caveat i mentioned above.

 

cheers!

Edited June 1, 2008 by legalavatar

[legalavatar]

good day legal advisers... just wanna ask regarding photography in public..is there any law that abides you to take pictures from the street? i know that there are certain places where you are prohibited to take pictures.. but in case in a very public place like in a busy street or the mall perhaps...if ever you shoot at a beggar for instance..or a vendor...is it illegal without their permission? what will be my liabilities? and if ever i was caught by security personnels or policemen..what would be my right? if the pictures is entirely for personal collection and just for hobby...just wanna know the rules i admit my ignorance regarding this...and i prefer to have legal knowledge to protect my film roll...TIA and have a great day ahead

 

there's the constitutional right to privacy to contend with, the civil code action for damages if you do not respect their constitutional rights, and the criminal action for unjust vexation if you persist in taking their picture, despite their open and vocal objections. so the bottom line - if they complain, stop taking their pictures; if you continue despite their objections, then you may be liable for a crime in addition to damages.

 

if you get caught by the policemen or security personnel, tell them that your activities are perfectly legal (because they are). The presence of the police are only proper if somebody complains and you persist in taking their pictures (which means that you are causing some form of disturbance requiring police officers)

 

If you are in a mall and you did not see any posted or printed warnings which prohibit the taking of pictures, then you have all the right in the world to tell the security personnel to piss off because you are not doing anything wrong.

 

if you haven't done anything wrong and the security or police guys continue to prevent you from doing a lawful activity, this is called grave coercion, which is a crime under the law. sue them for grave coercion, and sue the mall for damages. file an admin case against the cop with the napolcom as well, and file a complaint against the mall admin, threatening to sue if they do not place corrective measures against the security who hassled you. ;-)

 

 

 

remember to hire a lawyer before you do any of the suggested courses of action.

 

have fun suing people

 

cheers!

Edited June 1, 2008 by legalavatar

[legalavatar]

thank you for the replies sir. so it means that without their permission its will always be your fault? even if you dont intend to include them in the pictures? so its really different if youre press? that you can take pics of people without their permission?

sorry to butt in.

 

here's the deal. the law did not make a distinction - press or not, they can be liable for a damage suit because by taking someone's pictures, the right to privacy is violated.

 

it is different if you are a politician or public figure because their right to privacy is much limited than private citizens. moreover, you are doing the public a service because your are enforcing everyone else's right to information, free press, and expression. hence, pictures taken by the press are to a very large extent sanctioned under the law.

 

but of course, they can always get sued, especially by private individuals whose pictures were taken and posted in the newspaper without their knowledge or consent. obviously, there's really no point complaining because why would any person in his right mind complain if his picture is posted in a national daily for free?

 

cheers!

[xwhiteshadowz]

wow very informative sir legalavatar....very nice.. at least i know what to think of hehehe...thank you for the infos sirs....appreciated it much..will be saving your advice..more power to you masters....

[bonito99]

Hi Shine

 

xxx

 

CAVEAT: if any lawyer tells you that the annulment will be over in six months, then be careful because NO ANNULMENT CASES can be completed in six months (unless the judge, the Prosecutor, the SolGen's representative and the lawyer are all in on it, which makes it illegal, and makes the parties liable for Falsification of Public Documents, Perjury, Graft at the very least, including your cousin.)

 

 

xxx

 

 

some firms bill by the hour, some on one time package fees, some via acceptance and other fees -- it all depends on the caliber of the lawyer, his background, and of the law firm.

 

like all cases, it can take up to more than a year to have the marriage annulled. The reason for this is the court calendars are so clogged that on the average, a case is heard only ONCE a month. hence, the delay. just make sure you bear in mind the caveat i mentioned above.

 

cheers!

 

 

 

I beg to disagree. Some cases do take six months to be legally completed. Seriously.

[complicated8]

Must be minor or exemptions. I personally know of some people whose annulment took more than 1 year.

[fauxhead]

legalavatar,

 

Do we have the right to privacy in public places? In the Philippines, this question has not been touched upon by law, even by jurisprudence. You may not know it, but every time you enter a mall, hotel, bank or some other facility, a picture/image of you is taken through the CCTV systems.

 

The problem is that the right to privacy has not been expounded here as much as it has been in other countries, particularly in Europe. The right to privacy, even in public places, is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and implemented in the different European countries through their respective Human Rights and Data Protection statutes. The right to privacy in Europe is closely related to the so-called "right to develop their personality freely", the latter includes the right of a person to his or her own image or picture. In Europe, ordinary citizens have as much right to their image or picture as their celebrities.

 

An interesting concept observed in Germany regarding this is the so-called "sphere or three-step theory" in the matter of right of privacy. According to this theory, every person has three levels of privacy. She or he has a right to privacy, but as a social being is also required to accept a certain limitation of this right. At the innermost level is what the Germans call intimate sphere (Intimsphäre) or the core area (Kernbereich) of his or her personality, which receives absolute protection. Beyond that, there is the basic private sphere (die schlichte Privatsphere) and the individual sphere (Individualsphäre). These spheres can be interfered with within bounds set by law. The test is to balance the interest of an individual or the general public's interest against a person's right to privacy.

 

 

sorry to butt in.

 

here's the deal. the law did not make a distinction - press or not, they can be liable for a damage suit because by taking someone's pictures, the right to privacy is violated.

 

it is different if you are a politician or public figure because their right to privacy is much limited than private citizens. moreover, you are doing the public a service because your are enforcing everyone else's right to information, free press, and expression. hence, pictures taken by the press are to a very large extent sanctioned under the law.

 

but of course, they can always get sued, especially by private individuals whose pictures were taken and posted in the newspaper without their knowledge or consent. obviously, there's really no point complaining because why would any person in his right mind complain if his picture is posted in a national daily for free?

 

cheers!

[legalavatar]

legalavatar,

 

Do we have the right to privacy in public places? In the Philippines, this question has not been touched upon by law, even by jurisprudence. You may not know it, but every time you enter a mall, hotel, bank or some other facility, a picture/image of you is taken through the CCTV systems.

 

The problem is that the right to privacy has not been expounded here as much as it has been in other countries, particularly in Europe. The right to privacy, even in public places, is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and implemented in the different European countries through their respective Human Rights and Data Protection statutes. The right to privacy in Europe is closely related to the so-called "right to develop their personality freely", the latter includes the right of a person to his or her own image or picture. In Europe, ordinary citizens have as much right to their image or picture as their celebrities.

 

An interesting concept observed in Germany regarding this is the so-called "sphere or three-step theory" in the matter of right of privacy. According to this theory, every person has three levels of privacy. She or he has a right to privacy, but as a social being is also required to accept a certain limitation of this right. At the innermost level is what the Germans call intimate sphere (Intimsphäre) or the core area (Kernbereich) of his or her personality, which receives absolute protection. Beyond that, there is the basic private sphere (die schlichte Privatsphere) and the individual sphere (Individualsphäre). These spheres can be interfered with within bounds set by law. The test is to balance the interest of an individual or the general public's interest against a person's right to privacy.

 

Let me give you the most rudimentary principle - the right to privacy is a constitutional right. It is every available every where we go. We do not shed it away by merely entering into a mall or private place. By entering in a mall which restricts your right to privacy, you are deemed to have consented to it.

 

Otherwise, you always have the option of not entering, and they always have the option of not letting you in. It's just a matter of permissible intrusion, i.e., who you choose to enforce your rights.

 

But the bottom line is, you have a right to privacy which is enshrined in no less than the constitution, and you may choose to exercise or not to exercise that constitutional right where ever you are -- even when your eyes are closed.

 

Cheers

[legalavatar]

Sorry but my reply appears to be poorly written. Must be the beer... hehe... anyway, allow me to address the errors of form which I committed above...

 

=====================

 

Let me give you a very rudimentary principle - the right to privacy is a constitutional right. It is available every where we go. We do not shed it away by merely entering into a mall or any private place. By entering in a mall which restricts your right to privacy, you are deemed to have consented to it.

 

Otherwise, you always have the option of not entering, and they always have the option of not letting you in. It's just a matter of permissible intrusion, i.e., against whom you choose to enforce your rights.

 

But the bottom line is, you have a constitutional right to privacy, and you may choose to exercise or not to exercise that constitutional right where ever you are -- even when your eyes are closed.

 

If you choose to enter a bank with security cams on and you feel that your right to privacy is violated, by all means step out. Surely, you are not forced to remain there. But by remaining in the bank premises with a security cam, you knowingly waive your right to privacy in exchange for veritable concerns such as your safety and the safety of those around

 

Cheers.

[legalavatar]

I beg to disagree. Some cases do take six months to be legally completed. Seriously.

 

Well frankly, the SolGen will be very interested in the six month annulment case your referring to. Care to give the case number and venue?

 

 

Cheers!

[complicated8]

inquiry with training contracts..... meron na yata mga co-maker for these? is that really enforceable?

[bonito99]

Well frankly, the SolGen will be very interested in the six month annulment case your referring to. Care to give the case number and venue?

 

 

Cheers!

 

 

You work there?

 

Give my regards to Agnes.

[Butsoy]

and to Asst. Solicitor General dith Dizon she is a classmate in San Beda

 

Butsoy

 

 

 

You work there?

 

Give my regards to Agnes.

[taurenwarrior]

good day maesters!

 

i have a gurl friend who has a lesbian ex. during their rel, pinagbgyan ng friend ko ung ex nya na kunan sya ng nude sa cam fone. everytime na ngaaway cla ung pic ang gingwang panakot nung lesbian sa knya. ngayon na gus2 ng mkipagbreak ng friend ko, gnon na nman.. tnatakot sya na ikakalat ung nga pics nya.

 

pde bang kasuhan ung ex nya?