Philippines Anti-Cybercrime Police Groupe MOST WANTED PEOPLE List!
#1 Mick Jerold Dela CruzPresent Address: 1989 C. Pavia St. Tondo, Manila If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#2 Gremelyn NemucoPresent Address; One Rockwell, Makati City
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#3 Vinna VargasAddress: Imus, Cavite
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#4 Ivan Dela CruzPresent Address: Imus, Cavite
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#5 Elton DanaoPermanent Address: 2026 Leveriza, Fourth Pasay, Manila
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#6 Virgelito DadaPresent Address: Grass Residences, Quezon City
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#7 John Christopher SalazarPermanent address: Rivergreen City Residences, Sta. Ana, Manila
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#8 Xanty Octavo
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
|
#9 Daniel BocoAddress: Imus, Cavite
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
|
#10 James Gonzalo TulabotPermanent Address: Blk. 4 Lot 30, Daisy St. Lancaster Residences, Alapaan II-A, Imus, Cavite
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#11 Lea Jeanee Belleza
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#12 Juan Sonny Belleza
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
OUTSTRIVE SOLUTIONS PH CALL CENTER SERVICES
There was no drama, as Couples had said weeks earlier that Woods would be on the team. Woods announces that he has parted ways with longtime caddie Steve Williams, who says he is “shocked” by the decision. The parting had actually come two weeks earlier, but the news was kept quiet until after The Open. Woods won 72 times, including 13 major championships, over 12 years with Williams as his caddie. Part of the alleged reason for the split was Williams’ decision to work for Adam Scott on an interim basis while Woods was out. When a separation of property was agreed in the marriage settlements; or b. When there has been a judicial separation of property agreed upon between them. In which case, if the offeror does not perform his obligations under the perfected contract, he shall be liable for all consequences arising from the breach thereof based on any of the available remedies such as specific performance, or rescission with damages in both cases. The basis for the auditor’s verification of inventory pricing and compilation is the client’s inventory listing. Which of the following is an internal control weakness for a company whose inventory of supplies consists of a large number of individual items?
What petitioner Citibank actually did was to exercise its rights to the proceeds of respondent’s money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance by virtue of the Deeds of Assignment executed by respondent in its favor. While the Court of Appeals can take judicial notice of the Decision of its Third Division in the Dy case, it should not have given the said case much weight when it rendered the assailed Decision, since the former does not constitute a precedent. The Court of Appeals, in the challenged Decision, did not apply any legal argument or principle established in the Dy case but, rather, adopted the findings therein of wrongdoing or misconduct on the part of herein petitioner Citibank and Mr. Tan. Any finding of wrongdoing or misconduct as against herein petitioners should be made based on the factual background and pieces of evidence submitted in this case, not those in another case. In the Dy case, Severino Chua Caedo managed to obtain loans from herein petitioner Citibank amounting to ₱7,000,000.00, secured to the extent of ₱5,000,000.00 by a Third Party Real Estate Mortgage of the properties of Caedo’s aunt, Rosalind Dy. It turned out that Rosalind Dy and her husband were unaware of the said loans and the mortgage of their properties. The transactions were carried out exclusively between Caedo and Mr. Tan of petitioner Citibank. The RTC found Mr. Tan guilty of fraud for his participation in the questionable transactions, essentially because he allowed Caedo to take out the signature cards, when these should have been signed by the Dy spouses personally before him. Although the Dy spouses’ signatures in the PNs and Third Party Real Estate Mortgage were forged, they were approved by the signature verifier since the signature cards against which they were compared to were also forged. Neither the RTC nor the Court of Appeals, however, categorically declared Mr. Tan personally responsible for the forgeries, which, in the narration of the facts, were more likely committed by Caedo.
RODOLFO ALBANO, JOAQUIN CHIPECO, JR., AND RUY ELIAS LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS,
Jurisprudence teaches that an act of a court or tribunal may only be considered as committed in grave abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the members of Parliament which shall be synchronized and held simultaneously with the election of all local government officials. The duty elected Prime Minister shall continue to exercise and perform the powers, duties and responsibilities of the interim Prime Minister until the expiration of the term of the incumbent President and Vice President. It has repeatedly been emphasized that ours is a democraticand republican state. Even as we affirm, however, that aspect of direct democracy, we should not forget that, first and foremost, we are a constitutional democracy. To uphold direct democracy at the expense of the fundamental law is to sanction, not a constitutional, but an extra-constitutional recourse. This is clearly beyond the powers of the Court who, by sovereign mandate, is the guardian and keeper of the Constitution.
- The petition herein would propose at the very least two subjects – a unicameral legislature and a parliamentary form of government.
- In other words, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction.This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature.
- Mr. Speaker, I think this Congress, particularly this House, cannot ignore or cannot be insensitive to the call for initiative and referendum.
The President was also informed that for the present year 350 hectares had been planted by the FACOMA and 100 hectares by NDC tenants. The President was accompanied by Defense Undersecretary Jose M. Crisol; Col. Osmundo Mondoñedo, ACCFA administrator; Assistant Press Secretary Guillermo V. Sison; and Maj. Pat Garcia, presidential aide. The result of the election shall be announced by the board of election inspectors publicly at the polling place immediately upon the termination of the counting of the votes, furnishing certified copies of the result of the election, each to the Municipal Council through the municipal councilor, to the barrio treasurer, and to the poll clerk. Requisite number of voters.—At least one third of all qualified voters in the barrio must be present during the election. Members of the delegation asked the President for artesian wells, pre-fab schoolhouses, and the immediate appointment of commissioners of the Agricultural Tenancy Commission. The President approved all the requests, endorsing them in writing to NWSA General Manager Susano Negado and Col. Antonio Chanco of the AFP engineer corps. He assured the delegation, headed by Antonio Buag, that he would appoint the commissioners soon. President Magsaysay directed Health Secretary Garcia to establish a socio-medical service unit in each government hospital all over the country to process and give aid to indigent patients after seeing and talking to indigent patients at the San Lazaro Hospital. The patients and the parents of the many infant patients told the President about their poor financial condition.
TEODORO, IN REPRESENTATION OF THE 86 SIGNATORIES OF THE ARTICLES OF
Certainly, Lambino and Aumentado, as among the proponents of the petition for initiative dismissed by the COMELEC, have the standing to file the petition at bar. Whether the exercise of an initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is a political question to be determined solely by the sovereign people. The exercise of the initiative to propose amendments is a political question which shall be determined solely by the sovereign people. On August 31, 2006, the COMELEC denied due course to the Petition for Initiative. It cited this Court’s ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC permanently enjoining the Commission from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system. Now, almost a decade later, another group, Sigaw ng Bayan, seeks to utilize anew the system of initiative to amend the Constitution, this time to change the form of government from bicameral-presidential to unicameral-parliamentary system. This petition must then be granted, and the COMELEC should be permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system. The Americans in turn copied the concept of initiatives from the Swiss beginning in 1898 when South Dakota adopted the initiative in its constitution. In 1891, the Swiss incorporated the initiative as a mode of amending their national constitution. Initiatives promote “direct democracy” by allowing the people to directly propose amendments to the constitution.
The COMELEC dismissed the PIRMA Petition in view of the permanent restraining order issued by the Court in Santiago v. COMELEC. The COMELEC, Delfin and the Pedrosas filed separate motions for reconsideration of the Court’s decision. Presidential Proclamation No. 58 dated February 11, 1987, entitled “Proclaiming the Ratification of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines Adopted by the Constitutional Commission of 1986, including the Ordinance Appended thereto.” Under the proposed Section 1, Article VI of the Constitution, members of Parliament shall be elected for a term of five years “without limitation as to the number thereof.” We agree with the Petitioners that this Commission has the solemn Constitutional duty to enforce stole my money and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of, as in this case, initiative. He shall initially convene the interim Parliament and shall preside over its sessions for the election of the interim Prime Minister and until the Speaker shall have been elected by a majority vote of all the members of the interim Parliament from among themselves. This Court, whose members are sworn to defend and protect the Constitution, cannot shirk from its solemn oath and duty to insure compliance with the clear command of the Constitution that a people’s initiative may only amend, never revise, the Constitution. Admitted that they printed only 100,000 copies of the draft petition they filed more than six months later with the COMELEC.
The duly elected Prime Minister shall continue to exercise and perform the powers, duties and responsibilities of the interim Prime Minister until the expiration of the term of incumbent President and Vice President. No amount of signatures, not even the 6,327,952 million signatures gathered by the Lambino Group, can change our Constitution contrary to the specific modes that the people, in their sovereign capacity, prescribed when they ratified the Constitution. The alternative is an extra-constitutional change, which means subverting the people’s sovereign will and discarding the Constitution. As the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, this Court is sworn to perform its solemn duty to defend and protect the Constitution, which embodies the real sovereign will of the people. To allow such change in the fundamental law is to set adrift the Constitution in unchartered waters, to be tossed and turned by every dominant political group of the day.
Moreover, “an initiative signer must be informed at the time of signing of the nature and effect of that which is proposed” and failure to do so is “deceptive and misleading” which renders the initiative void. Further, and more importantly, loose interpretation of the subscription requirement can pose a significant potential for fraud. A person permitted to describe orally the contents of an initiative petition to a potential signer, without the signer having actually examined the petition, could easily mislead the signer by, for example, omitting, downplaying, or even flatly misrepresenting, portions of the petition that might not be to the signer’s liking. This danger seems particularly acute when, in this case, the person giving the description is the drafter of the petition, who obviously has a vested interest in seeing that it gets the requisite signatures to qualify for the ballot. The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting a people’s initiative. Thus, there is even no need to revisit Santiago, as the present petition warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino Group’s glaring failure to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution.
We uphold the finding of the trial and appellate courts that a certain Noel Tamayo withdrew the P300,000. We find no justifiable reason to reverse the factual finding of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. The tellers who processed the deposit of the P90,000 check and the withdrawal of the P300,000 were not presented during trial to substantiate Solidbank’s claim that Ilagan deposited the check and made the questioned withdrawal. Moreover, the entry quoted by Solidbank does not categorically state that Ilagan presented the withdrawal slip and the passbook. Teller No. 5 who processed the withdrawal could not have been put on guard to verify the withdrawal.
Please listen to the live hearing on the Bangladesh Bank Forex scam in the Philippines Senate. https://t.co/HyfBSYmMrL
— Dr. Mizanur Rahman (@mizanrsharif) March 15, 2016
The President was also told that some persons identifying themselves as representatives of the Tenants and Farmers Association were collecting money from them ranging from P2.50 to P50 as deposits for “buying lands.” These collectors allegedly promised that the hacienda would be expropriated. The President told the laborers he did not have the facts regarding the burning of cane and was not in a position to say who was responsible. He pointed out, however, that in this situation it was easy for all the parties involved in the strike to try to place the blame on each other so as to expose their enemies to public indignation and perhaps punitive action by the authorities. The President said this situation was thus fraught with danger and did not contribute to peace and order in the strike area. This step was taken in order to give priority to the Administration’s public works program, especially in its rural development projects such as the construction of irrigation systems, roads, school houses, and other public buildings. The President sent for the father and, after personally hearing the complaints, ordered the necessary directive to be issued.
DE VENECIA, THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DRILON,
In McFadden v. Jordan, the California Supreme Court laid down the groundwork for the combination of quantitative and qualitative assessment of proposed constitutional changes, in order to determine whether the same is revisory or merely amendatory. In that case, the McFadden court found the proposed changes extensive since at least 15 of the 25 articles contained in the California Constitution would either be repealed in their entirety or substantially altered, and four new topics would be introduced. However, it went on to consider the qualitative effects that the proposed initiative measure would have on California’s basic plan of government. It observed that the proposal would alter the checks and balances inherent in such plan, by delegating far-reaching and mixed powers to an independent commission created under the proposed measure. Consequently, the proposal in McFadden was not only deemed as broad and numerous in physical scope, but was also held as having a substantive effect on the fundamental governmental plan of the State of California. I am therefore in favor of letting the sovereign people speak on their choice of the form of government as a political question soonest. (This I say without fear of media opinion that our judicial independence has been tainted or imperiled, for it is not.) Thus I vote for the remand of the petition. Thereafter, as prayed for, COMELEC should forthwith certify the Petition as sufficient in form and substance and call for the holding of a plebiscite within the period mandated by the basic law, not earlier than sixty nor later than ninety days from said certification. Only a credible plebiscite itself, conducted peacefully and honestly, can bring closure to the instant political controversy. X x x x I think this is just the correct time in history when we should introduce an innovative mode of proposing amendments to the Constitution, vesting in the people and their organizations the right to formulate and propose their own amendments and revisions of the Constitution in a manner that will be binding upon the government.
But even with respect to documentary evidence, the best evidence rule applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible (5 Moran, op. cit., pp. 76-66; 4 Martin, op. cit., p. 78). Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need for accounting for the original. In the case at bar, the issuance of an official receipt by petitioner Citibank would have been dependent on whether the checks delivered by respondent were actually cleared and paid for by the drawee banks. Exhibits “III” and “III-1,” the front and bank pages of a handwritten note of Mr. Bobby Mendoza of petitioner FNCB Finance,98 also did not deserve much evidentiary weight, and this Court cannot rely on the truth and accuracy of the computations presented therein. Mr. Mendoza was not presented as a witness during the trial before the RTC, so that the document was not properly authenticated nor its contents sufficiently explained.
MANDAUE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, [MANLAW], REPRESENTED BY FELIPE VELASQUEZ,
This opinion is further strengthened by the fact that said petitioners have raised other grounds in support of their petition which would not be adversely affected by the Court’s ruling. Briefly stated, courts of justice determine the limits of power of the agencies and offices of the government as well as those of its officers. In other words, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature. In other words, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction.This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature. Giving due course and taking cognizance of the petition would not necessarily mean that the same would be found sufficient and set for plebiscite. The COMELEC still faces the task of reviewing the petition to determine whether it complies with the requirements for a valid exercise of the right to initiative. Questions raised by the oppositors to the petition, such as those on the authenticity of the registered voters’ signatures or compliance with the requisite number of registered voters for every legislative district, are already factual in nature and require the reception and evaluation of evidence of the parties. Such questions are best presented and resolved before the COMELEC since this Court is not a trier of facts. Neither can it be argued that the initiative petitions embrace more than one subject since the proposed amendments seek to affect two separate branches of government.
#Forex #scam #fraud #Binary #investments #investors
8 Israelis arrested in Philippines for multi-million dollar Forex, Bitcoin and shares scam https://t.co/62vcryMbo7— onestopbrokers (@onestopbrokers) June 8, 2018
If a statutory provision is essential to guard against fraud, corruption or deception in the initiative and referendum process, such provision must be viewed as an indispensable requirement and failure to substantially comply therewith is fatal. The failure of petitioners in this case to comply with the full text requirement resultantly rendered their petition for initiative fatally defective. It may thus be logically assumed that even without Section 5 of R.A. 6735, the full text of the proposed changes must necessarily be stated in or attached to the initiative petition. The signatories to the petition must be given an opportunity to fully comprehend the meaning and effect of the proposed changes to enable them to make a free, intelligent and well-informed choice on the matter. During the oral arguments, petitioner Lambino admitted that they printed a mere 100,000 copies of the text of the proposed changes to the Constitution. According to him, these were subsequently distributed to their agents all over the country, for attachment to the sheets of paper on which the signatures were to be affixed. Upon being asked, however, if he in fact knew whether the text was actually attached to the signature sheets which were distributed for signing, he said that he merely assumed that they were. In other words, he could not tell the Court for certain whether their representatives complied with this requirement.
