Arrest warrant vs Lozada now in the hands of police

[giddyboy]

---

So where is the contradicting statements there?

when Lozada was questioned in the Senate, (i can't exactly recall the whole conversation) he did not say exactly that he was kidnapped, he just said that he was afraid because the ride was 4 hrs without exactly knowing where they are going.

that's the contradicting statement as alleged by Defensor. even if JLo didn't categorically say he was kidnapped, but he is implying he was.

what he said to him was he was "enjoying" the company of the welcoming committee for 4 hrs but when JLo came to the senate, he changed it. He said then that he was "afraid" of the 4-hr ride.

ako ganing tanaw ani, mas dehado c Defensor ani. He has no clear evidence that shows JLo said he was "enjoying", while JLo on the other hand has all to do was deny he said that and instead insist he was "not enjoying" or "afraid".

[FKtemp]

that's the contradicting statement as alleged by Defensor. even if JLo didn't categorically say he was kidnapped, but he is implying he was.

what he said to him was he was "enjoying" the company of the welcoming committee for 4 hrs but when JLo came to the senate, he changed it. He said then that he was "afraid" of the 4-hr ride.

ako ganing tanaw ani, mas dehado c Defensor ani. He has no clear evidence that shows JLo said he was "enjoying", while JLo on the other hand has all to do was deny he said that and instead insist he was "not enjoying" or "afraid".

the case is so weak... it's a case of your word against mine. Yet still the case pass through the prosecutor. To me this is a perfect example of having a weak case pass thru prosecution because the person who filed it is in power. Like my neighbor who filed a falsification of public documents against my fellow neighbor when he has no sample signature that proves the document was falsified, but guess what, the case did prosper, warrants were issued, just because he has a brother who has a judge.

[colossus]

^^ It's a case to case basis, as my criminal procedure professor once said. We cannot always assume that it is a weak or strong case unless we have seen the evidence at hand.

We have watched Lozada too many times when he appeared on TV. We have heard what he said when he issued those statements. I'd like to think that is fair enough to say that he issued contradicting statements which constitutes perjury. For all intents and purposes, the warrant of arrest is validly issued.

[giddyboy]

Like my neighbor who filed a falsification of public documents against my fellow neighbor when he has no sample signature that proves the document was falsified, but guess what, the case did prosper, warrants were issued, just because he has a brother who has a judge.

OT:
it depends on the case and evidences at hand. even though ur fellow neighbor didn't have a sample signature, still a person can be tried and prosecuted for falsification of public docu. Falsification of public docu doesn't only mean falsifying a signature u know...the better term for that is forgery.

[FKtemp]

^^ It's a case to case basis, as my criminal procedure professor once said. We cannot always assume that it is a weak or strong case unless we have seen the evidence at hand.

We have watched Lozada too many times when he appeared on TV. We have heard what he said when he issued those statements. I'd like to think that is fair enough to say that he issued contradicting statements which constitutes perjury. For all intents and purposes, the warrant of arrest is validly issued.

well i'm just stating my personal opinion, because perjury cases are always ignored maybe because of the difficulty of prosecuting such case. Yes, i have also watched Lozada during the Senate hearing, but can't clearly see the contradicting statements that were made in the Senate. We can't charge what he says on TV interviews since it is not perjury.

O.T.

it depends on the case and evidences at hand. even though ur fellow neighbor didn't have a sample signature, still a person can be tried and prosecuted for falsification of public docu. Falsification of public docu doesn't only mean falsifying a signature u know...the better term for that is forgery.

i know that... but that was the basis of the complaint. I didn't study LAW, but how can you prove that the signature was forge? hand writing expert opinion comparing with sample specimen perhaps?

It's so common daw in our judiciary to just say to the prosecutor, "Pre, pa-issuehi lng og warrant kami lng bahala". BTW, the case was dismissed caused my other neighbor didn't have any evidence to present and it was the complainant that ask the court that it will be dismissed, see how ironic? Such a waste of time to the judge.

[giddyboy]

Yes, i have also watched Lozada during the Senate hearing, but can't clearly see the contradicting statements that were made in the Senate. We can't charge what he says on TV interviews since it is not perjury.

im not a lawyer but if it's a tv interview while the senate hearings are still ongoing, murag pwede. if it is an official press con, pwede pud kaau. AFAIK, a person can even be held in contempt even if what he said is outside the courtroom or senate investigation.

O.T.
i know that... but that was the basis of the complaint. I didn't study LAW, but how can you prove that the signature was forge? hand writing expert opinion comparing with sample specimen perhaps?

OT:
yup, from hand writing experts' opinion. naa ang NBI ana. i think naa man pud gani experts ang banko ana...

now back to the topic,

do u think these police are dumb enough to hatch a kidnapping to Lozada when clearly their prints will be all over the place from the airport security cam to the airport logbook and the senate waiting for him to appear in the hearing? i don't think so.

[FKtemp]

im not a lawyer but if it's a tv interview while the senate hearings are still ongoing, murag pwede. if it is an official press con, pwede pud kaau. AFAIK, a person can even be held in contempt even if what he said is outside the courtroom or senate investigation.

you can be held for contempt siguro... but not perjury.

do u think these police are dumb enough to hatch a kidnapping to Lozada when clearly their prints will be all over the place from the airport security cam to the airport logbook and the senate waiting for him to appear in the hearing? i don't think so.

when the authorities are in your side, anybody can be so dumb enough. but my take on this is that Lozada was taken away secretly to avoid Senate arrest and possible testimony, but na-unay sila, 'nakuryente'. It was not a classic case of kidnapping.

But their intentions were not noble, the process that the Lozada was taken where outisde what we call STANDARD OPERATION PROCEDURES. now the interpretation of Lozada on his safe-keeping is now a free for all.

[giddyboy]

you can be held for contempt siguro... but not perjury.

actually you can. if indeed there were contradicting statements from the tv interviews and from the senate hearing, u can charge one w/ perjury. coz contempt is another matter. Contempt is not following legal procedures.

when the authorities are in your side, anybody can be so dumb enough. but my take on this is that Lozada was taken away secretly to avoid Senate arrest and possible testimony, but na-unay sila, 'nakuryente'. It was not a classic case of kidnapping.

But their intentions were not noble, the process that the Lozada was taken where outisde what we call STANDARD OPERATION PROCEDURES. now the interpretation of Lozada on his safe-keeping is now a free for all.

my take on this is that, yes, it is to avoid immediate Senate arrest but only to give Lozada more time per his request. But to avoid senate testimony is not coz it is already unavoidable.

that's why i believe Lozada (w/ the help of Ping academy) hatched the plan of crying kidnapping to which the police did not expect at all...

and i agree w/ u: "the interpretation of Lozada on his safe-keeping is now a free for all."

[FKtemp]

actually you can. if indeed there were contradicting statements from the tv interviews and from the senate hearing, u can charge one w/ perjury. coz contempt is another matter. Contempt is not following legal procedures.

i guess you are right... but to me it's very hard to prove.

my take on this is that, yes, it is to avoid immediate Senate arrest but only to give Lozada more time per his request. But to avoid senate testimony is not coz it is already unavoidable.

That's what made the request so questionable... why would a police give a person protection against a Senate investigation? The Senate is not an enemy of the state or give Lozada threat to his life.

that's why i believe Lozada (w/ the help of Ping academy) hatched the plan of crying kidnapping to which the police did not expect at all...

and i agree w/ u: "the interpretation of Lozada on his safe-keeping is now a free for all."

if indeed Lozada was briefed by Lacson... the police operation at that time is still so questionable. If indeed they are giving Lozada some help to avoid Senate arrest. The police is supposed to help implement an arrest warrant, not protect a person evade an arrest warrant. Even Mang Tado from the street corner knows that an arrest warrant was to be serve to Lozada, are the police that dumb?

[Raikage1]

propaganda ra gihapon ni! Go Lozada!