Lawyer naICU aftr gibunalan ug baseball bat sa ulo....

[rey04]

---

ang asawa maoy hanggaw...respetoe ang bana....u have no right to inflict harm on others kung wala naka sa lugar...kapoy anang batasana oi, bwesit au

[danver2099]

guapo siguro ni si vice mayor, artistahon ug panagway kay ilogan man ug babaye..

[wykette]

@The_JACKAL

You should have seen her Vios.
Gi himo ug bump car ang iyang sakyanan on a busy road.

Kung naka banat ug bulhot ang sakyanan ni Ungab and naka bangga sa sakto na angle, ipit gyud to siya sa sulod.
Kung ni gawas pa siya sa sakyanan, bulls eye gyud iyang ulo. That's why you only see bruises on her left side.

Now the Fiscal has downgraded the case, dli daw murder kay dli pusil gi dala.
1. Gi dumbolan ug maayo ang sakyanan over and over
2. Tistingan nato ang ulo ni Fiscal ug metal na bat gawas sa sakyanan na maka tarong ug swing.

I love our country, but mismo maka confirm nagyud ko na we can never get true justice here unless you are a person of means.

Lets get our facts straight first, I've somewhat read the complaint and here was how it went.
After the wife saw Atty. Tiu's Red Vios, she then used her car to block her path. Then and there, she went to confront her by knocking on her window. Atty. Tiu did not oblige but instead insulted her. That was the time the wife went back to her car and got her baseball bat and broke Atty. Tiu's back window to open the door, having unable to do so just damaged the car somewhat.

Now on a legal standpoint, you cannot charge the wife with frustrated murder because in the first place there was no intent to kill nor evident pre-mediatation ( gi plano unsaon pag patay ) because as we can see in the facts stated, she attempted to talk to her first but after being insulted, she took out her baseball bat; in here we can see that there was no intent to kill because if it were the case, she would have brought out the baseball bat immediately without trying to confront her and hit the necessary angles to cause sufficient damage to the car to leave her defenseless. There was also no evident premeditation, because had it been planned, don't you think it would have been easier for a frail woman to bring a gun rather than a baseball bat if she truly intended to kill the victim? Dli sad pwede frustrated stage, because for that to happen the accused had to perform all acts of execution necessary to produce the felony but the crime is not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused ( gi bunalbunalan unta siya sufficient to almost cause her death, but na nabuhi by reason of medical attendance) if naa untay intent and premeditation, the correct stage would have been attempted murder based on the injury.

The victim suffered minor scratches and bruises which were not enough to prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical assistance. Thus, the proper charge given by the Prosecutor was slight physical injury. Had the bat hit the lawyer which led to fatal injuries, then I'm pretty sure the latter would not apply and the charge would have been different. Thus, the wife is now facing charges for slight physical injury aswell as pay for damages done to the car.

I totally understand where you are coming from, I too am somewhat disappointed on how things are within our system, but then again as officers of the court they are charged with finding the legal truth and not the real truth. By legal truth, one can only act based on the evidence presented and not mere speculations; it may seem unfair, but unless we can show by competent evidence that the wife did plan and try to kill the alleged lover of her husband then they have their hands tied. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth, as people have different opinion on what really transpired between the parties, but sila ra gyuy makatubag ana, unless naay witnesses or evidence that would point to that fact in inquiry... mau ng gitawag only God knows what really happened, only he knows the real truth. They will pay for their sins in the after life

Hope I enlightened you on the matter, and to add, a couple of rotten apples does not make the entire basket rotten, there are still fellow lawyers and judges who are morally upright and competent.

Have a nice day, fellow istoryan. Keep the faith.

[cmac2]

Lets get our facts straight first, I've somewhat read the complaint and here was how it went.
After the wife saw Atty. Tiu's Red Vios, she then used her car to block her path. Then and there, she went to confront her by knocking on her window. Atty. Tiu did not oblige but instead insulted her. That was the time the wife went back to her car and got her baseball bat and broke Atty. Tiu's back window to open the door, having unable to do so just damaged the car somewhat.

Now on a legal standpoint, you cannot charge the wife with frustrated murder because in the first place there was no intent to kill nor evident pre-mediatation ( gi plano unsaon pag patay ) because as we can see in the facts stated, she attempted to talk to her first but after being insulted, she took out her baseball bat; in here we can see that there was no intent to kill because if it were the case, she would have brought out the baseball bat immediately without trying to confront her and hit the necessary angles to cause sufficient damage to the car to leave her defenseless. There was also no evident premeditation, because had it been planned, don't you think it would have been easier for a frail woman to bring a gun rather than a baseball bat if she truly intended to kill the victim? Dli sad pwede frustrated stage, because for that to happen the accused had to perform all acts of execution necessary to produce the felony but the crime is not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused ( gi bunalbunalan unta siya sufficient to almost cause her death, but na nabuhi by reason of medical attendance) if naa untay intent and premeditation, the correct stage would have been attempted murder based on the injury.

The victim suffered minor scratches and bruises which were not enough to prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical assistance. Thus, the proper charge given by the Prosecutor was slight physical injury. Had the bat hit the lawyer which led to fatal injuries, then I'm pretty sure the latter would not apply and the charge would have been different. Thus, the wife is now facing charges for slight physical injury aswell as pay for damages done to the car.

I totally understand where you are coming from, I too am somewhat disappointed on how things are within our system, but then again as officers of the court they are charged with finding the legal truth and not the real truth. By legal truth, one can only act based on the evidence presented and not mere speculations; it may seem unfair, but unless we can show by competent evidence that the wife did plan and try to kill the alleged lover of her husband then they have their hands tied. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth, as people have different opinion on what really transpired between the parties, but sila ra gyuy makatubag ana, unless naay witnesses or evidence that would point to that fact in inquiry... mau ng gitawag only God knows what really happened, only he knows the real truth. They will pay for their sins in the after life

Hope I enlightened you on the matter, and to add, a couple of rotten apples does not make the entire basket rotten, there are still fellow lawyers and judges who are morally upright and competent.

Have a nice day, fellow istoryan. Keep the faith.

FYI. All the "facts" you mentioned are the ones reported on the media by the family of the wife. Surprise!
Did the fiscal really decide based on all the evidence at hand? I greatly doubt. the incident started and ended on a busy road. Was due diligence given to state that it was not premeditated? Does the party need to have a gun to be considered for frustrated murder? how many minutes, hours or days does the incident needed to be planned to be labeled as frustrated murder?

Again, our justice system is corrupt. It may not be all the people but the 'system' is as there is no balance and check or the people assigned are either too negligent or just plain corrupt.

Though on your case, I would understand why you wrote what you posted since you do not know all the facts (evidence) at hand which I am 100% certain there is.

Just an advice, look at both sides, dont believe everything you read and seek truth from facts. Peace!

[wykette]

FYI. All the "facts" you mentioned are the ones reported on the media by the family of the wife. Surprise!
Did the fiscal really decide based on all the evidence at hand? I greatly doubt. the incident started and ended on a busy road. Was due diligence given to state that it was not premeditated? Does the party need to have a gun to be considered for frustrated murder? how many minutes, hours or days does the incident needed to be planned to be labeled as frustrated murder?




Again, our justice system is corrupt. It may not be all the people but the 'system' is as there is no balance and check or the people assigned are either too negligent or just plain corrupt.




Though on your case, I would understand why you wrote what you posted since you do not know all the facts (evidence) at hand which I am 100% certain there is.*




Just an advice, look at both sides, dont believe everything you read and seek truth from facts. Peace!

Good morning, kind sir. First and foremost, while my comment may seem biased, but truthfully, I am looking at both sides without favor.*


Now, going back to the case at hand. First, Lets tackle evident premeditation. As stated by the victim herself, she encountered the wife just after she left for work and as you said, the incident happened and ended on a busy street... Now lets ask any reasonable man, if you planned to kill someone where would you do it? would it not be better to do it with the lease possibilty of witnesses? You do it on a secluded area and not on a busy street that happened to be in broad daylight. Pwede sad hire masked men to do the dirty work for you. *Again this is not conclusive, but what does the law say about criminal charges? you have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, so dapat mag present og concrete evidence ang alleged kabit na dugay na siya gi planohan og patay sa wife and not merely speculations. As they say, it is better for a guilty man to be set freed, rather than have an innocent man imprisoned.



Second, in order to charge someone with murder, in its consummated stage, you must present the dead body of the victim and the instrument used to kill. in its frustrated stage, the fatal wound of the victim, which would have been enough to kill her. thus, we look at the wounds of the victim because unlike statements of people, wounds don't have the opportunity to lie... As seen in the pictures, she is very well alive and kicking and as found in her medical examination, she suffered minor bruises and scratches, which did not leave her incapacitated for work or seek medical attendance. Thus, the requisites of frustrated murder are not met, because it requires the perpetrator to do all acts of execution which would have produced the felony, but does not do so by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. If we try to visualize, in order for the *above stated law to apply you look at 2 parts, 1.) you do all acts of execution to produce the murder... so kung bat ang gigamit sa asawa, gi bunalbunalan niya ang alleged kabit causing a fatal wound that is enough to kill her. 2.) does not do so by causes independent of the will of the perpetrator... after gibunalbunal sa asawa gi byaan niya ang alleged kabit thinking she she was dead, pero nabuhi diay kay natabang sa mga tao or nadala sa hospital. As you can see, dli pwede frustrated murder in absence of a fatal wound that would support such claim.


Third, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, because as a seasoned lawyer, as stated by my professor, which incidentally was her former partner in the law firm, she should know know that filling frustrated murder was unwarranted as it does not fall within that which is required for by law. thus, the action of the prosecutor was proper to downgrade the said charges because of the wounds suffered by the victim was minimal, and there was still doubt on whether the wife really planned the attempted killing, as a ground for attempted murder, which must be proved by the victim as the burden of proof in criminal cases rest on the prosecution, and must do so beyond reasonable doubt.

This is why criminal charges are so hard to prove, kay eventhough as a person, you know he's guilty, but unless you can provide evidence that proves it beyond reasonable doubt, ma acquit gyud ang suspect. Thus, leaving the impression na gibayran ang judge or bakakon ang mga lawyer...*


I hope I have enlightened you in the said issue. Enjoy your weekend! Keep the faith.

[The_JACKAL]

OT: Popcorn mode - keep it going =)

[cmac2]

Good morning, kind sir. First and foremost, while my comment may seem biased, but truthfully, I am looking at both sides without favor.*


Now, going back to the case at hand. First, Lets tackle evident premeditation. As stated by the victim herself, she encountered the wife just after she left for work and as you said, the incident happened and ended on a busy street... Now lets ask any reasonable man, if you planned to kill someone where would you do it? would it not be better to do it with the lease possibilty of witnesses? You do it on a secluded area and not on a busy street that happened to be in broad daylight. Pwede sad hire masked men to do the dirty work for you. *Again this is not conclusive, but what does the law say about criminal charges? you have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, so dapat mag present og concrete evidence ang alleged kabit na dugay na siya gi planohan og patay sa wife and not merely speculations. As they say, it is better for a guilty man to be set freed, rather than have an innocent man imprisoned.



Second, in order to charge someone with murder, in its consummated stage, you must present the dead body of the victim and the instrument used to kill. in its frustrated stage, the fatal wound of the victim, which would have been enough to kill her. thus, we look at the wounds of the victim because unlike statements of people, wounds don't have the opportunity to lie... As seen in the pictures, she is very well alive and kicking and as found in her medical examination, she suffered minor bruises and scratches, which did not leave her incapacitated for work or seek medical attendance. Thus, the requisites of frustrated murder are not met, because it requires the perpetrator to do all acts of execution which would have produced the felony, but does not do so by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. If we try to visualize, in order for the *above stated law to apply you look at 2 parts, 1.) you do all acts of execution to produce the murder... so kung bat ang gigamit sa asawa, gi bunalbunalan niya ang alleged kabit causing a fatal wound that is enough to kill her. 2.) does not do so by causes independent of the will of the perpetrator... after gibunalbunal sa asawa gi byaan niya ang alleged kabit thinking she she was dead, pero nabuhi diay kay natabang sa mga tao or nadala sa hospital. As you can see, dli pwede frustrated murder in absence of a fatal wound that would support such claim.


Third, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, because as a seasoned lawyer, as stated by my professor, which incidentally was her former partner in the law firm, she should know know that filling frustrated murder was unwarranted as it does not fall within that which is required for by law. thus, the action of the prosecutor was proper to downgrade the said charges because of the wounds suffered by the victim was minimal, and there was still doubt on whether the wife really planned the attempted killing, as a ground for attempted murder, which must be proved by the victim as the burden of proof in criminal cases rest on the prosecution, and must do so beyond reasonable doubt.

This is why criminal charges are so hard to prove, kay eventhough as a person, you know he's guilty, but unless you can provide evidence that proves it beyond reasonable doubt, ma acquit gyud ang suspect. Thus, leaving the impression na gibayran ang judge or bakakon ang mga lawyer...*


I hope I have enlightened you in the said issue. Enjoy your weekend! Keep the faith.

Ummm... proven within reasonable doubt in the fiscal level? I thought that was suppose to happen on the court?!?

I dont believe that you arr looking it fairly and squarely. Who do you think made the bat hitting stop? It was a CITOM official and the only way why Atty. Tiu was only able to sustain bruises is because she never got out of the car (And Pearl's swings sucks).

Let me refresh or enlighten you on the incident:
-nag atang si Pearl Ungab sa route ni Atty. Tiu
-upon sighting, gi sugdan na ug dumbol2x
-did it stop there? No!
-na abot pa ug Zapatera with bump car mode along the way
-well Im glad it was just the car that was initially hit by the bumps, physical injuries pa gihapon?
-while the bumpcar mode was happening, did Pearl even thought of her 4yo daughter that was riding with her?
-or was she more focused on the sinister plot?
-at first no brave bystander dared to approach Pearl after some time that the CITOM stepped in
-what if wala gyuy ni pugong?
-then we can concluded that Atty. Tiu would probably have far greater injury or even maube dead

Doing a root cause analysis on the situation, I could not fathom your or the fiscals words that the incident was not intended to cause serious harm that could have even lead to death.

But if you want to it put to a test, I can give you a whack or two m from a metal bat that I have and hope the fiscal or you can conclude after that it is still physical injury.

Remember that we are just having a friendly debate and I have no bad intentions for you nor wish you dead but I cannot guarantee anything since I have a knack for using a bat unlike Pearl Ungab.

FREE POPCORN!
I just do hope more victims of both Atty. Ungab and his wife's scandalous acts would not be afraid and step forward. The people deserve to know what type of man and family have voted and would vote for.

[Alramzz]

buntis may ni strike ani dba,. na ICU jud diay ni bayhana, classmate bya diay ni sa among batch,. ngano didto man ka sa may bakal ng tudlo day,.

[Devian]

need gyud diay to magpa-igo para dako ug kaso.

[wykette]

need gyud diay to magpa-igo para dako ug kaso.

not necessarily migo, mere attempt will already incriminate you, this is what we call attempted stage, so if kursonada gyud nimo ang pagpatay sa tao pero pag tira nimo wa naigo... kana ma preso na ka ana.

ang problema lang dri kay ang gi file man gyud sa fiscal kay murder on its frustrated stage. ang requirement man gyud ana kay dapat naigo ka sa bat nya fatal ang pagkaigo nimo ( as in enough to kill you )... mao na among gi lalisan dri kay naigo ra man sa bukton ang biktima og dli ra kailangan og medical attendance.

problema sad kay murder ang gi charge dapat makita na tuod gi planohan sa asawa ang pagpatay sa alleged kabit. importante ang pagplano sa pagpatay, kay kung walay plano dli ni xa mahulog og murder.. pero dli ra na limited sa pagplano para mahimo og murder, pwede sa likoron nimo ang biktima na dli xa ka depensa sa iyang kaugalingon... naa say kung sunogon nimo imong biktima while buhi pa... pwede sad kung ikaw nagdawat og kwarta para patyon nimo ang biktima or kana sang before nimo patyon imo sang torturon maayo ang tao.. mau na siyay mga example na mahulog og murder

ang kataw.anan lang dli kamao mu bat ang asawa kay bulay.og daw kaayo...murag lisod kaayo katuohan na plano ka mupatay og tao pero imo dala bat na halos d ka kadaog og kaigo. mau na ang reason sa fiscal maung gipaubos ang charge, kay kung kursonada gyud ang pagpatay gi pusil ra unta to drtso while ni board sa sakyanan... wala na anang gukod2 og bunal2 hahaha.