Lest the “A” in VACC (Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption) be taken to mean as “Abetting," it should defer the filing before the Ombudsman, as reported in the news, of any case against the Binays relative to the matters subject of the on-going Senate investigations, since this may just justify them from continuing to clam up on the ground that with the criminal case/s filed the matters are now sub judice and invoke the right against self-incrimination. It will certainly be more practical if the filing be done after the Senate investigation because in the meantime new evidences would show up or, more importantly, the Binays might still show up and satisfactorily explain their side. Unfair din naman sa kanila kung bigla na lang ipa-file ang kaso sa Ombudsman.
In one case involving the filing of murder and arson charges against a couple, a lawyer entered an appearance for the complainant in behalf of the VACC. After the initial hearing, this lawyer demanded from the respondents the sum of twenty million pesos in exchange for the withdrawal of the complaint. After this was denied, he did not anymore participate in the proceedings. Lest the VACC hit me back, I am not saying that the demand was also in behalf of the VACC, but that such a demand was made was made on record in that case.
In another case filed against a doctor relative to a beauty procedure which turned ugly, complainant’s lawyer, reputed to be an advocate for human rights and other rightful issues, demanded thirteen million (which he considered to be, in his words, a conservative amount) as settlement even as explanations were given that the same doctor was the one who performed remedial surgeries, hence, should not be liable. The doctor dismissed the financial charges. The fiscal later dismissed the criminal charges. The point is sometimes, the filing of cases is tainted with bad intentions. Note the use of the word tainted because there might be accompanying good intentions.
In one case involving the filing of murder and arson charges against a couple, a lawyer entered an appearance for the complainant in behalf of the VACC. After the initial hearing, this lawyer demanded from the respondents the sum of twenty million pesos in exchange for the withdrawal of the complaint. After this was denied, he did not anymore participate in the proceedings. Lest the VACC hit me back, I am not saying that the demand was also in behalf of the VACC, but that such a demand was made was made on record in that case.
In another case filed against a doctor relative to a beauty procedure which turned ugly, complainant’s lawyer, reputed to be an advocate for human rights and other rightful issues, demanded thirteen million (which he considered to be, in his words, a conservative amount) as settlement even as explanations were given that the same doctor was the one who performed remedial surgeries, hence, should not be liable. The doctor dismissed the financial charges. The fiscal later dismissed the criminal charges. The point is sometimes, the filing of cases is tainted with bad intentions. Note the use of the word tainted because there might be accompanying good intentions.