CORRUPTION:KORAPSYON

In broad terms, political corruption is when government officials use their
governmental powers for illegitimate private gain. Misuse of government power for other
purposes, like repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is not
considered political corruption. Illegal acts by private persons or corporations not
directly involved with the government is not considered political corruption either. Illegal
acts by officeholders constitute political corruption only if the acts are directly related to
their official duties. All forms of government are susceptible to political corruption. Forms
of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft,
and embezzlement. While corruption may facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug
trafficking, money laundering, and trafficking, it is not restricted to these organized crime
activities. I strongly agree that there is corruption in our current administration but I
cannot say that in the past administration, there's a corruption already or if there's any
already perhaps the corruption is not as worst than now. In some nations corruption is
so common that it is expected when ordinary businesses or citizens interact with
government officials. The end-point of political corruption is a kleptocracy, literally "rule
by thieves". It is indeed the nature of man to be unsatisfied of what he currently have.
What constitutes illegal corruption differs depending on the country or jurisdiction.
Certain political funding practices that are legal in one place may be illegal in another. In
some countries, government officials have broad or not well defined powers, and the
line between what is legal and illegal can be difficult to draw.
Corruption is both a major cause and result of poverty around the world. It occurs
at all levels of society, from governments, civil society, judiciary functions, military and
other services and so on. The impact of corruption in poor countries on the poorer
members of those societies is even more tragic. Ang Gobyernong Arroyo ay di titigil sa
paglaban ng korapsyon dito sa Pilipinas hanggat ito’y tuluyan ng mawala at mapuksa
ang problemang ito. Ang Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) at Bureau of Customs
(BOC) ay mas maganda ngayon ang koleksyon kung kayat papaano naging bumaba
ang rating ng Pilipinas. Makakakolekta ba ang dalawang ahensiyang ito ng mas mataas
kung lumala ang korapsyon sa Pilipinas? Bago mag Cabinet meeting, natutuwang
ipinahayag ni Presidente Arroyo ang mga sakripisyo at pagtrabaho ng husto n gating
Gobyerno para mapalakas ang programang anti-corruption campaign gaya ng lifestyle
checks, karagdagang pangangailangan para sa Office of the Ombudsman, at pagbaba
ng pagsuhol ng mga kompanyang kukuha ng mga permit at pagbayad ng mga
buwis. Halata naman na hustong pagkakurakot na ngayon ng ating bansa eh lalo na ng
ating kasalukuyang administrasyon. Kung sa mga pribadong opisina na lang ay may
korapsyong nagaganap eh, what more sa gobyerno ng Pilipinas diba? Sa totoo lang
hindi naman dapat ang gobyerno ang managot eh kundi ang administrasyon dapat.
Samantala, 10 ahensiya ang nirecognize at kinongratulate ni Presidente Arroyo sa
kanilang exemplary efforts at accomplishmentspara sa pag-implimenta ng programa
kontra korapsyon sa Pilipinas.Base sa report, nangunguna ang DOH, kasunod ang
DSWD, DOST, BIR at DTI. Ganon din sa Office of the President na pinangungunahan
ni Secretary Eduardo Ermita, DepEd, DPWH, PNP, at MMDA.
Hindi na natin maitatanggi pa ang katotohanan na walang kasing pait na ang
ating gobyerno ay pinalolooban ng mga kurakot na pulitiko na wala ng inisip pa kung
hindi magpayaman ng magpayaman. Ang MCC ay bahagi ng Development Assistance
Infrastructure ng Amerika na nagkakaloob ng tulong sa mga bansang nakikitaan ng
Political, Social at Economic reform. Bagay na pagsamasamahin ang mga korap na
opisyal ng pamahalaan at ikulong sila sa isang bahay at tawgin ang bahay ni kuya na
“Pinoy Big Briber.” Hindi ko nga alam kung bakit ang babaeng nasa palasyo ay nagiging
manhid sa mga nagaganap sa paligid at hindi ko maisip kung paano niya nasisikmura
ang mga nagaganap na kilos protesta laban sa kanya. Kung may mga korap man sa
ating bansa na mga pulitiko ay hindi ko na nais pang halukayin pa pero ibang usapan
na ang usapan dito sa kasalukuyang isyu ng pamahalaan o administrasyon eh. Iba na
kasi ang nais o hangarin ng administrasyon. Wala na akong makitang dahilan kung
bakit nila gagawin yan hindi na milyon ang isyu dito eh bilyon na. Husto na ang lahat at
karapat-dapat lamang na managot ang mga taong dapat managot. Sadyang sakim na
ang kanyang mga gawain at napapahamak na ang sanlibutan sa mga ito. Dapat lang
naman na kahit paano ay isipin niya ang mga maaaring idulot nito sa ating bansa at sa
kinabukasan ng mga kabataan.

"Alonte VS. Savellano, Jr. (287 SCRA 245)"

Facts:

Pending before the court are two separate petitioners, one filed by petitioner Bayani M. Alonte, docketed G.r. No. 131652, and the other by petitioner Buenaventura Concepcion, docketed G.R. No. 131728, that assail the decision of the respondent Judge Maximo A. Savellano, Jr.., of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, of Manila finding both petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. The two petitioners were consolidated.
On December 5, 1996, an information for rape was filed against petitioners Bayani M. Alonte, an incumbent Mayor of Biñan Laguna and Buenaventura Concepcion predicated on a complaint filed by Juvie-Lyn Punongbayan.
The case was docketed Criminal Case No. 9619-B and as signed by raffle to Branch 25 of the RTC of Biñan Laguna presided over by Judge Pablo B. Francisco.
On December 13, 1996, Juvie-lyn Punongbayan, through her counsel Attorney Remedios C. Balbin, and Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Leonardo Guiab, Jr., filed with the Office of the Court Administrator a petitione for a change of venue (docketed Administrative Matter No. 97-1-12-RTC) to have the case transferred and tried by any of the Regional Trial Courts in Metro Manila.
On June 28, 1997, Atty. Ramon C.Casano on behalf of petitioners, moved to have the petition for change of venue dismissed on the ground that it had become moot in view of complainant’s affidavit of desistance. On August 22, 1997, ACSP Guiab filed his comment on the motion to dismiss. Guiab asserted that he was not aware of the desistance of private complainant and opined that the desistance, in any case, would not produce any legal effect since it was the public prosecutor who had direction and control of the prosecution of the criminal action. He prayed for the denial of the motion to dismiss.
On September 17, 1997, the case, now re-docketed Criminal case No. 97-159935 by the Clerk of Courts of Manila, was assigned by raffle to Branch 53, RTC Manila, with respondent Judge Maximo A. Savellano, Jr., presiding.
On October 7, 1997, Juvie-lyn Punongbayan, through Atty. Balbin, submitted to the Manila court, a compliance where she reiterated her decision to abide by her Affidavit of Desistance.
In an order, dated October 9, 1997, Judge Savellano found probable cause for the issuance of warrants for the arrest of petitioners Alonte and Concepcion without prejudice to, and independent of, this Court’s separate determination as the trier of facts, of the voluntariness and validity of the private complainant’s desistance in the lights of the opposition of the public prosecutor, Asst. Chief State Prosecutor Leonardo Guiab.

Issue/s:

*Whether or not there can be short-cut to the legal process, and there can be an excuse for not affording an accused his full day in court.
*Whether or not a case can be dismissed upon a mere affidavit of desistance of the complainant.
*Whether or not any pardon made by the private complainant, whether by sworn statement or on the witness stand, can extinguish criminal liability.
*Whether or not the death of the offended party can extinguish the case once it is filed in court.
*Whether or not the proceedings did conform with the procedure for trial as provided in the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
*Whether or not an opportunity to cross-examine was afforded petitioners and their counsels such that they can be deemed to have waived said right by inaction.
*Whether or not an evidence which a party desires to submits for the consideration of the court must formally be offered be offered by him.

Held/Ruling:

The Solicitor General has aptly discerned a few of the deviations from what otherwise should have been the regular course of trial: (1) Petitioners have not been directed to present evidence to prove their defenses nor have dates therefore been scheduled for the purpose; (2) the parties have not been given the opportunity to present rebutting evidence nor have dates been set by respondent Judge for the purpose; and (3) petitioners have not admitted the act charged in the information so as to justify any modification in the order of trial. There can be no short-cut to the legal process, and there can be no excuse for not affording an accused hiss full day in court. Due process, rightly occupying the first and foremost place of honor in our Bill of Rights, is an enshrined and invaluable right that cannot be denied even to the most undeserving.

In private crimes, an affidavit of desistance filed by a private complainant is also frowned upon by the courts. Although such affidavit may deserve a second look at the case, there is hardly an instance when this court upheld it in private crimes and dismissed the case on the sole basis thereof. Indeed, a case is not dismissed where there exist special circumstances that raise doubts as to the reliability of the affidavit.

Article 344 also provides for the extinction of criminal liability in private crimes. It mentions two modes: pardon and marriage, which when validly and timely made, result in the total extinction of criminal liability of the offender. The pardon in private crimes must be made before the institution of the criminal action. In adultery and concubinage, the pardon may be express or implied while in seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness, the pardon must be express. In all cases, the pardon must come prior to the institution of the criminal action. After the case has been filed in court, any pardon made by the private complainant, whether by sworn statement or on the witness stand, cannot extinguish criminal liability. The only act that extinguishes the penal action and the penalty that may have been imposed is the marriage between the offender and the offended party.

The death of the offended party cannot extinguish the case once it is filed in court. If the offended party dies immediately after filing the complaint but before the institution of the criminal action, his death is not a ground to dismiss the case. Clearly, the will and participation of the offended party is necessary only to determine whether to file the complaint or not. Thereafter, the will of the State prevails.

The proceedings did not conform with the procedure for trial as provided in the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Petitioners were never instructed to present evidence to prove their defenses. The parties were never given the opportunity to present their respective evidence rebutting the testimony of private complainant. There was no admission by petitioners of the charge in the information as to justify a change in the order of trial.

Following respondent judge’s finding and assuming that the November 7, 1997 hearing was already a trial on the merits, petitioners were never afforded their right to confront and cross-examine the witness. The court did not, at the very least, inquire as to whether the petitioners wanted to cross-examine private complainant with respect to her affidavit of October 21, 1996. No opportunity to cross-examine was afforded petitioners and their counsels such that they cannot be deemed to have waived said right by inaction.

The admission of private complainant’s affidavit of October 21, 1996 was made solely in response to respondent judge’s questioning. It was this affidavit which respondent judge used to convict the petitioners. This affidavit, however, was not marked nor was it formally offered before the court. The Revised Rules on Evidence clearly and expressly provide that “the court shall consider no evidence which has not formally offered.” Evidence not formally offered in court will not be taken into consideration by the court in disposing of the issues of the case. Any evidence which a party desires to submit for the consideration of the court must formally be offered by him, otherwise it is excluded and rejected.

The Court hereby RULES that-

(a) The submission of the “Affidavit of Desistance” executed by Juvie-lyn Y.Punongbayan on June 25, 1997, having been filed after the institution of Criminal Case No. 97-159935, does not warrant the dismissal of said criminal case;

(b) For failure of due process, the assailed judgement, dated December 12, 1997, convicting petitioners is declared NULL and VOID and thereby Set Aside; accordingly, the case is Remanded to the trial court for further proceedings; and

(c) Judge Maximo A. Savellano Jr., presiding judge of Branch 53 of RTC of Manila, is ENJOINED from further hearing Criminal Case No. 97-159935; instead, the case shall immediately be scheduled for raffle among the other branches of that court for proper disposition.

"Cruz Jr. VS. Court of Appeals (194 SCRA 145)"

Facts:

Petitioner Teodoro B Cruz, Jr. raises procedural issues in this petition to review the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals in C.A-G.R SP No. 11771 dated April 29, 1988, and its resolution of June 6, 1988, denying his motion for reconsideration. The petitioner was charged before the regional trial Court of Makati, along with several others, in four separate informations for estafa thru falsification of public documents. It was alleged that the petitioner, together with Melania Guerrero, who produced a special power of attorney clamied to have been executed by the late Clemente Guerrero, had conspired with their co-accused in selling some properties of the decedent to the widow’s sister, Luz Andico, through fictitious deeds of sale notarized by the petitioner sometime in November and December of 1980. Upon arraignment on June 1, 1984, the petitioner and his co-accused entered a plea of not guilty. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the four informations did not charge an offense. At the hearing on this motion, the petitioner submitted testimonial and documentary evidence which was not refuted by the prosecution. For its part, the prosecution submitted no evidence at all but later moved to deny the motion. The motion to dismiss was eventually denied by the trial court, as so was the subsequent motion for reconsideration. The petitioner questioned the denial of the motions before this court, which referred the case to the Court of Appeals.

Issue/s:

*Whether or not the complaint or information charges no offense.
*Whether or not there has been an abuse of discretion on the part of the Trial Judge.
*Whether or not the case against the accused must be dropped immediately if the information or complaint does not constitute an offense.
*Whether or not a motion to quash should have been filed before the petitioner and his co-accused were arraigned.

Held/Ruling:

It is axiomatic that a complaint or information must state every single fact necessary to constitute the offense charged; otherwise, a motion to dismiss/quash on the ground that it charges no offense may be properly sustained. Given the circumstances of this case, the court feels it would be unfair to shut off the prosecution at this stage of the proceedings and to dismiss the information on the basis only of the petitioner’s evidence, such as it is.

The Trial Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion when he denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that (a.) interest of substantial justice that the prosecution could adduce evidence during the trial, and (b.) to avoid technicalities that may arise later.

It is clear that the information does not really charge an offense, the case against the accused must be dropped immediately instead of subjecting him to the anxiety and inconvenience of a useless trial. The accused is entitled to such consideration. And indeed, even the prosecution will benefit from such dismissal because it can then file a corrected information provided the accused had not yet pleaded and jeopardy has not yet attached. There is no point in proceeding under a defective information that can never be the basis of a valid conviction.

By express provision of Sec. 8 of the same rule, failure to assert certain grounds in a motion to quash filed prior to the plea does not operate as a waiver of the right to invoke them later. Even after arraignment, a motion to dismiss the information may be filed if it is based on the ground that: (a.) the information charges no offenses; (b.) the trial court has no jurisdiction; (c.) the penalty or the offense has been extinguished; and (d.) that double jeopardy has attached.

The petition is Denied. Criminal Cases Nos. 7332, 7334 and 7335 are remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 145, for further proceedings.

"Emilio Aguinaldo, Isang Mamamatay Tao?"

Noon pa man ay may alitan ng nagaganap sa ating mga pinuno at bayani. Marahil ay isa na itong sakit nating mga Pilipino, ang maghatakan pababa sa halip na magtulungan tayo para sa asenso. Hindi sa lahat ng bagay at pagkakataon ay ganito ang sitwasyon, may mga pagkakataon kung saan ang isa ay nagmamalabis ng kanyang kapangyarihan upang mapunuan ang kanyang sariling interes at kagustuhan. Sadya bang sakim at ganid ang mga taong namumuno sa atin? Hindi na ba magaganap ang isang bukas kung saan hindi na darating ang araw kung saan maghahalo ang balat sa tinalupan? Nagmimistulang mga pipeng saksi ang mga kabataan na nakakulong sa apat na sulok ng silid na uhaw sa katotohanan, mabuti pa ang mga isdang nasa loob ng salaming kahon kung saan inaakala nilang nasa dagat pa din sila. Ang mga kabataan na nais malaman ang katotohanan upang hindi na masundan ng isa pang kamalian ang nakaraang kamalian. Ninanais naming maituwid ang mga bagay na liko-liko ngunit paano magbabago ang sistemang ginagalawan natin kung hindi masisilayan ng mga kabataang Pilipino ang tunay na kadiliman ng nakaraan. Naniniwala ako na mas liliwanag ang bukas kung malayang mailalahad ang mga katotohanan ng kasaysayan.

“Si Aguinaldo ay sumuko bilang isa sa mga kondisyon ng kanyang nilagdaan na Pact of Biak na Bato at tumanggap ng 400,000Php pagpunta niya ng Hongkong.” Talaga bang noon pa man ay may mga presyong katumbas ang ating mga pinuno? Noon pa man ay medyo talamak na ang korupsyon sa ating bansa. Katanggap-tanggap naman ang katotohanan na may mga tao talagang sakim at gahaman sa mga bagay kagaya ng pera, kapangyarihan, kasikatan o ano pa man nakakalungkot lang isipin na karamihan ng mga pinuno ng ating bansa ay hindi nagsisilbing modelo sa kabataan. Puro kaguluhan at korapsyon ang laman ng mga pahayagan noon at maging ngayon 'tila wala ng nagbago at paulit-ulit na lamang ang pagmamalabis ng mga kinauukulan. Kung sa bagay, sino ba naman ang hindi magnanais maging parte ng kasaysayan para mapag-aralan ng mga kabataan sa susunod na henerasyon.

“Nahanap na po ba ang mga putol-putol na labi ni Andres Bonifacio upang mailipat siya sa libingan ng mga bayani at mabigyan ng maayos na libingan?

Ayon sa batas, sobrang tagal na ng panahong lumipas at patay na din ang mga taong may sala sa krimen kay Bonifacio. Wala ng mapaparusahan, ang dapat maganap ngayon ay mailimbag sa mga aklat na ginagamit ng mga mag-aaral ng kasaysayan maging sa mga kabataan upang mamulat sila sa katotohanan. Isa din sa kanilang karapatang pantao na malaman ang katotohanan sa mga nangyari noong nakaraan. Nakakalungkot lang isipin na may mga taong napupuri ng sobra ngunit hindi nababatikos sapagkat natatabingan ng kasikatan ang kanilang maitim na persona. Mahalagang malaman ng mga Pilipino ang tunay na naganap noong nakaraan, ito na lamang ang natatanging paraan kung saan mabibigyang hustisya kahit paano ang pagkamatay ng magiting nating bayani na si Andres Bonifacio.

PGMA- the lady to blame..

The problem of corruption today. Who is to blame? The system or the leader?
Corruption has been our problem ever since. We have seen different kinds of leaders and yet nothing change. Even if we start the change within us, we still encounter poverty and over-inflation of our currency against foreign denominations. When are we going to have absolute stress-free and worry-free news? We are just here to watch our leaders satisfy their pockets. They do not even moderate their greed and they do not really care about our future. In nature, our system was once clean and accessible not until the day wherein they saw the dark-light behind the clean government of our fatherland. I would like to give emphasize to the major difference of the government to the administration. Basically, our country's government is a democratic-presidential state. We are known to be a democratic-republican state wherein our leader is the president and we directly elect our president. Now, the administration is the one changing. From a certain transition to another. From Marcos, to Aquino, to Ramos, to Estrada and now the worse president of the Philippines (on my own point of view) Macapagal-Arroyo. The current administration is like a cancer that destroys our system. The bad effect is not yet been fully revealed to us but I am dead sure that sooner or later we Filipinos would be experiencing a catastrophe and poverty. For sure, all of us would like to have a state that is almost Utopian or a perfect state. It would be hard for us to have absolute freedom and relief because our future grandchildren though not yet born are already part of our country's problem because they are going to be part of paying our fatherland's debts to the World Bank and as well with the other countries. Basically, in words and in title through the Philippine Constitution all of the Filipinos are sovereign in nature. Are we really sovereign? Our leader is not exempted with our laws. While all of us are under extreme poverty and dying to survive the trials that we are undergoing the present administration is busy getting richer through stealing our money. I do believe that we can change the system and there's nothing much to change with our system but we need a good leader that has a big concern for us and for the country. Imagine the corruption that they are doing, we can say that the political voice at present is none but corrupt. Promises are just words that they say during campaign period and after that they just become a miserable little pile of dirty secrets. We do not need to woe and suffer because of the fault and abuse of power of our current president. We should not let her take all the opportunities because she do not fight fair and just. She is very much abusive. Imagine the ZTE deal, her administration is very greedy that the total amount corrupted is more than the total amount of the project or in short is more than 100%. I still believe that a good leader is soon to rise and every corrupt official shall be under the 7 circles of hell. We should be free from any abuse especially to those who pay their taxes properly. I really cannot see now the essence of quality education, after graduating we would be working in return the taxes that we are paying would be used for deposit at the account of the corrupt president.

husto na at lubusan na ang edukasyon..

sapat pa ba ang mga

tinuturo ng mga guro

sa mga pamantasan?


di ba't husto-husto na
ang lahat-lahat?
madami na din masyadong

iniisip ang mga

makabagong kabataan nga
ang aming mga utak at kalooban..

pagsusulit maya't-maya

'tila bang walang kapaguran

bugbog na sa lahat ng
pangaalipusta at pagmamalabis
ng mga guro ang aming
utak at maging ang aming
sistemang sinusundan ay basag na..

napupuno din ang mga marmol
at maging ang mga porselana..
papaano magagampanan ng
mga makabagong kabataan
ang kanilang magiging tungkulin
kung baon na baon sa poot
at panibugho ang mga kabataan ngayon..

para sa mga gurong nakakabasa nito
minsan din po kayo naging mag-aaral
kagaya namin..
konting konsiderasyon at wala naman
sanang personalan..

sapagkat maaaring nakalalagpas
kayo sa aming pananahimik
ngunit sa mata ni Bathala
at sa patnubay ng inyong Gabay-Diwa
ay matagal na kayong may lagda
sa inyong magiging papel at lugar
sa paraisong walang humpay..

rizal? our national hero?

For me, Rizal shouldn't be our national hero. In the first place, he is not a good model/representative of a true typical Filipino. We all know that majority of our countrymen fall under the blue-collar job or the skilled workers. I'm not saying that majority of our countrymen are illiterate but it just so happened that most of our fellowmen did not finish their studies due for some reasons such as poverty. I have nothing against Rizal personality nor I'm not judging his individuality, it just so happened that if we would look deeply in his principles, it's not much of absolute freedom and independence. He wants a change in the treatment of the Spaniards, in fact he wants our country to be a province of Spain. He wants us to be under the rule of the Spaniards, he sees the Spaniards as good people that can help us progress. At first, he was blinded by the twilight that the Spaniards are showing our countrymen. Besides, his written novels are somehow self-centered and it talks about more of what he wants and more of what he wants to happened.