Money-making schemes

can go to the public treasury and not to some “hao

WHAT will they think of next?

siao” outsourced eye examination clinics.

The funds collected here can be used for meaningful projects like free cataract surgery and free eyeglasses for the poor, as well as research and treatment on vision and blindness.

injecting a patient he took a bottle of wine and [drank] little by little until he got drunk… he started to go home; that on his way home he ‘was attracted by the light in his sister’s house’ and… he went up, to give his uncle an injection for heart ailment from which the old man was suffering” (G.R. L-288, August 29, 1946).

“This mitigating circumstance must be proved to the satisfaction of the court to be available as a means to lighten the penalty. The trial court has found the evidence insufficient to ‘conclusively show that the accused was drunk on the night of the incident’” (G.R. L-288, August 29, 1946).

“We [the Supreme Court] are in accord with this finding… the amount of liquor the accused had taken, if he had taken any, was not of sufficient quantity to affect his mental faculties… ‘if the accused was thoughtful enough not to neglect giving Don Vicente Noble his injection, the inference would be that his intoxication was not to such a degree as to affect his mental capacity to fully understand the consequences of his act’” law(G.R. L-288, August 29, 1946).

Intoxication is “intentional” when the offender drinks liquor fully knowing its effects, to find in the liquor a stimulant to commit a crime or a means to suffocate any remorse (Reyes, Revised Penal Code).

The question of “habit” should be proved as actual and confirmed; it is unnecessary that it is a matter of daily occurrence (Reyes, Revised Penal Code citing People v. Camano).

The liquor must “lessen individual resistance to evil thought and undermines (sic) the will-power making its victim a potential evildoer” (Reyes, Revised Penal Code citing People v. Camano).

It is important the offender’s use of his mental faculties and value judgment are affected by the intoxication.

We’re talking about the Land Transportation Office, an agency under the Department of Transportation, whose mission is to rationalize land transportation services and facilities and effectively implement various transportation laws, rules and regulations. Its mission is a noble one, emphasizing road safety and protecting lives. But how come, Sen. Raffy Tulfo asked, the LTO seems to be so busy coming up with various income-generating schemes whose proceeds end up only God knows where?

Here’s the lawmaker talking: “Billions of pesos are lost yearly from the LTO collections due to corruption and a rotten system. It’s time to correct this bad system in the LTO and let those behind these (wrongdoing) be made accountable.”

He cited at least three instances where the agency seems to give priority to incomegenerating projects rather than road safety and driver education.

One, there’s fly-by-night outsourced vision test centers situated near LTO offices. The agency, according to the senator, can offer the test instead so the billions collected from it

Two, the outsourced emission testing centers also earn billions from car owners who are required by LTO to get a compliance certificate, which costs P500 per car.

The LTO can likewise be the one issuing compliance certificates so the funds collected

Credible defense posture

AMID the territorial and maritime dispute with China in the South China Sea, the national government has realized, somewhat belatedly, that the country needs to develop a credible defense posture. That essentially means having adequate ground, air and naval forces that can at the very least deter any aggressive action or threat of attack by a hostile country.

But building up our military – among the weakest in Southeast Asia, according to analysts – involves huge resources that we can hardly afford at this time.

In another case, “drunkenness [was] considered as an aggravating circumstance [in robbery with multiple homicide] because it is habitual on the part of both Mabilangan defendants.

The defendants… admitted in open court that before they committed the crime, they drank for three hours in the house of defendant Adriano Gualba” (People v. Mabilangan, et al., G.R. L-48217, January 30, 1982).

However, in the case of People v. Moral, et al. for murder, the Supreme Court did not consider habitual drunkenness as an aggravating but a mitigating circumstance because the records “[do] not show excessive and habitual use of intoxicating drinks, or that the accused purposely got drunk in order to commit the crime” (G.R. L-31139 October 12, 1984).

“Luz Casa merely declared that the accused were drinking liquor on the night in question and were telling stories, and that they were singing, laughing, and shouting and were very jolly. While she further said that the accused used to drink liquor every Saturday night, her testimony is not competent proof that the accused are drunkards whose habit is to get drunk…”(G.R. L-31139 October 12, 1984).

However, in another case, in denying a claim of mitigating circumstance, the Supreme explained “[t]he record has no evidence that shows that the liquor taken by Jesus G. Ruiz (one of the accused) was of such quantity as to have blurred his reason and deprived him of self-control.

“Said circumstance must first be established before drunkenness may be considered as a mitigating circumstance” (People v. Ruiz, et al., G.R. L-33604-05 October 30, 1979).

In the case of People v. Noble, a claim of mitigating circumstance was denied by the Supreme Court after the accused said “after

While intoxication can impair the exercise of will power, intoxication is intentional if the offender resorted to it to bolster his courage to commit the crime. It is aggravating when intoxication is habitual and “undermines the will power making himself a potential evildoer” (Reyes, Revised Penal Code citing People v. Amenamen). The prosecution must prove the intoxication of the offender is habitual or intentional.

In the absence of proof to the contrary, it will be presumed that intoxication is not habitual but accidental, and the fact that the accused was drunk at the time of the commission of the crime must then be considered as a mitigating circumstance (Reyes, Revised Penal Code citing U.S. v. Fitzgerald).

In the case of People v. Apduhan, “the accused merely alleged that when he committed the offense charged he was intoxicated although he was ‘not used to [being] drunk.’”

According to the Supreme Court, “[t]his self-serving statement stands uncorroborated. Obviously, it is devoid of any probative value”

(G.R. L-19491, August 30, 1968).

The confession of the accused that he was intoxicated when he stabbed the cab driver after continuously drinking sometime before the commission of the crime was not habitual nor intentional. The holdup was not the offspring of planning and deliberation. It was a fatal improvisation dictated by an impromptu impulse (People v. Abalos, et al., G.R. L-31726, May 31, 1974).

As a final word, [i]t is settled principle that drunkenness is not an excuse for a criminal act, committed while the intoxications lasts, and being its immediate result (A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, Volume 3, Wigmore and Greenleaf).

Nevertheless, its presence depending on the circumstances will affect the final penalty for the commission of the crime.

The acquisition of advanced jet fighter planes, fully equipped naval and coast guard vessels that can patrol our archipelago for weeks at a time, and battle tanks, missile and artillery systems will cost not only billions but tens of trillions of pesos.

Our air force simply cannot afford to buy state-of-the-art jet fighters developed by the US, nor sophisticated missile systems that can reach far-away targets.

The Javelin shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon we see on TV footage used by the Ukrainian army with devastating impact against Russian tanks costs $100,000 each, or P5 million for the gadget alone, not to mention the cost of the rockets used especially for that type of weapon system.

To prioritize the acquisition of expensive defense equipment over equally costly infrastructure projects for economic development appears morally indefensible given that about a third of all Filipinos now survive on less than $2 a day.

The rule of thumb is governments should spend no less than two percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for defense so that citizens can sleep soundly at night knowing they have the military to protect them from harm.

The Philippines obviously cannot allot two percent of its nearly P6 trillion budget for this year when we still have to pay our foreign debt for the acquisition of millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines.

And did you know that of our annual budget for our armed forces, roughly 80 percent goes to the salaries and pensions of both active and retired men and women in uniform?

What’s important at this point, according to our two main resource persons in our Saturday News Forum in Quezon City, is to build military alliances with other countries.

We already have the Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States signed back in 1951 that US President Joe Biden reiterated last year is an “ironclad guarantee” they will come to our defense if we’re attacked by a third country. from this can also be used for important projects like treatment of different kinds of cancer. country should be resolute in defending our claimed territory in the disputed sea lane, as weakness would only invite more bullying and intimidation by the vastly more superior Chinese military.

But even if the MDT is there, we cannot rely solely on the security umbrella the US provides even after more than seven decades.

As we do not have the luxury of setting aside two percent or more of our GDP for our defense requirements, we need to ramp up security alliances with other countries, such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, India and the other ASEAN countries, among others.

And three, the lawmaker wants to put a stop to what is an unjust requirement for car owners to get a Compulsory Third Party Liability amounting to more than P1,000 per car wanting to register, even though their vehicles already have the comprehensive insurance coverage.

Until public outrage forced the agency to scrap it altogether years ago, the agency also previously required applicants for driver’s licenses to undergo mandatory drug testing by private entities.

As a frontline government agency, the LTO is supposed to render fast and efficient public service for a progressive land transport sector.

It is tasked to register motor vehicles, issue driver’s/conductor’s licenses and permits, enforce transportation laws, rules and regulations and adjudicate apprehension cases.

We’re not saying the agency completely ignores public clamor for it to render better services.

It does listen to complaints from the public.

One, it has taken steps to keep fixers away from its offices.

And recently, it also did away with periodic medical exams for those given 5 to 10-year driver’s licenses.

But the unnecessary impositions seem to outweigh the positive reforms, and that’s what the current leadership ought to change—and soon.

The same sentiment has been expressed by De La Salle University International Studies Professor Renato Cruz de Castro.

The annual Balikatan military exercises with the US military and the establishment of four additional sites for the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement in addition to the already existing five sites, he said, should demonstrate to the outside world that we are determined to protect our national sovereignty and territorial integrity despite our limited military capabilities.

(Email: ernhil@yahoo.com)

More Opinion Online

(www.manilastandard.net)

It’s one thing to uphold national security against a homegrown armed rebellion armed only with handguns, rifles and land mines.

It’s quite another to deal with an adversary armed with nuclear warheads and advanced armaments capable of inflicting death and destruction on a massive scale.

It’s important, therefore, to strive for a credible defense posture that we can afford at this stage in our economic development.

Former Deputy of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Edilberto Adan, who also used to head the Presidential Commission on Visiting Forces and is an active member of the Association of Generals and Flag Officers (AGFO), stood as one of our two resource persons in our April 15 Saturday News Forum in Quezon City.

He emphasized the need for us to strengthen our defense capabilities even if we cannot hope to match our neighbor China in deploying Coast Guard vessels and maritime militia as part of our response to our neighbor’s seizure of islets we claim as part of our Exclusive Economic Zone in the South China Sea.

The former military official believes the

Violent pro-Nemenzo UP radicals can’t accept defeat

LAST April 3, the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines elected Edgardo Carlo Vistan the new Chancellor of UP Diliman. That makes Vistan the 12th Chancellor of the flagship UP campus. Vistan bested re-electionist UP Diliman Chancellor Fidel Nemenzo and a certain Victor Paz, an Archaeology professor. Nemenzo was first installed as chancellor in 2020. His election back then was applauded by radical elements of UP. Nemenzo’s threeyear term expired last March 1.

At present, Vistan is the Dean of the UP College of Law. He is also the head of the UP Law Center and the Executive Director of the UP campus at Bonifacio Global City in Taguig City. Vistan obtained his undergraduate and law degrees from UP Diliman back in 1998 and 2003, respectively. In both instances, he graduated cum laude.

Vistan also has a master’s degree in law from Yale University and, I understand, did preparatory doctoral studies also in law.

Days before the April 3 election, UP radicals were confident that Nemenzo would get re-elected.

They claimed at least three members of the UP BOR are pro-Nemenzo, namely, faculty regent Carl Marc Ramota, student regent Siegfred Severino, and administrative personnel regent Victoria Canape Belegal. The radicals also announced that a fourth regent was also on Nemenzo’s side, and that with four votes already in their favor, Nemenzo’s re-election was an almost certainty.

That’s because since there are 11 members of the BOR, a candidate for chancellor wins if he gets the nod of at least six regents.

From the way the UP radicals confidently peddled their pro-Nemenzo propaganda, it seemed like Nemenzo was the frontrunner among the three contenders for UP Diliman chancellor.

However, as I stated above, and to the surprise and chagrin of the radicals, Nemenzo lost to Vistan.

Last December, the ambitious Nemenzo, who hardly warmed his seat as chancellor, sought the UP presidency for the 2023-2029 term.

As expected, the radicals supported his run. Some faculty members known for their dislike for President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and ex-President Rodrigo Duterte also supported Nemenzo. To Nemenzo’s and his supporters’ big disappointment, the BOR elected somebody else as UP President. The radicals protested as usual, but the Yuletide diluted their protests. They protested anew on April 3 when the BOR met to elect the UP Diliman chancellor for the 2023-2025 term.

Right after the radicals learned that Nemenzo lost his re-election bid for chancellor, dozens of their lawless and violent kind immediately trooped to Quezon Hall in UP Diliman, where the BOR meeting was held, to create trouble and havoc.

At first, the radicals tried to force their way inside the meeting room, the doors of which

Pathetic recount: How Filipino war vets were treated were locked, by pounding and kicking on them. Then they tried to use metal ladders to force the doors open.

When all that didn’t work, they defaced government property by painting “shame on BOR” on the doors, oblivious that what they did was shameful in itself.

The radicals reportedly confronted UP’s assistant vice president for student affairs and demanded to know how the BOR voted.

Why they didn’t just ask the pro-Nemenzo regents for that information is a mystery.

Newspaper reports indicate that a certain Professor Mon Sy, who appears to be the mouthpiece of a nondescript group which calls itself Contend-UP, denounced the BOR for being undemocratic. He claimed the BOR should have elected Nemenzo since the latter is the choice of the UP community.

Sy haughtily claimed 86 percent of the UP community supports Nemenzo, but he did not provide proof of his claim.

Sy also didn’t explain how he obtained his suspicious, sweeping and self-serving statistics.

Online, the radically infested UP Diliman Student Council likewise protested Nemenzo’s defeat, and cited the same questionable reasons claimed by Sy. claimed by Sy.

Obviously, Nemenzo’s radical supporters can’t accept defeat. Their misplaced sense of entitlement is an insult to UP and its alumni.

The uncivilized behavior of the UP radicals can be likened to the abhorrent practices of the Mafia and the Ku Klux Klan.

UP authorities should identify the radicals who defaced UP’s Quezon Hall, and file disciplinary and criminal charges against them.

That is the only way to deal with these abusive UP radicals who were spoiled and tolerated during the incumbency of both Chancellor Nemenzo and ex-UP President Danilo Concepcion.

Surprisingly, I have not heard any statement from Nemenzo which condemns the shameful behavior displayed in public by the UP radicals who profess to be his supporters.

Absent that statement, Nemenzo is suspected of having acquiesced in the shameful incident. If the UP radicals embody all that Nemenzo stands for, then the UP BOR did right in not re-electing him chancellor.