Rodante Marcoleta charged with Plunder, Bribery at Ombudsman

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

 

[KingSemreh]

Kung ayaw mo magresearch sa SOCE issue ni Marcoleta, desisyon mo 'yan. Pero gaya ng sabi ko, hindi mo rin masisisi kung mag mago-oppose sa pananaw mo, lalo pinapahayag mo sa public forum

Alam ko, hindi lang ikaw nakakaalam. Kailangan ba perfect? Feeling perfect ba?

 

[KingSemreh]

Ilang beses mo na ren minention na di spaat SOCE kahit inagreehan na kita. Di paulit ulit yon?

Alamin mo kung bakit may kaso si Marcoleta, kasi parang di mo gets yung motion na ifinile e. Ikaw mismo nagsabi kanina, di ka aware sa SOCE niya, while yung SOCE niya ang isa sa key evidences na inilabas laban sa kaniya.

Kalmahan ko na lang, baka mas makinig ka.

Ang problema kay Marcoleta, niregaluhan at inamin niya na niregaluhan siya ng total of 75 Million para supposedly pang-kampanya, nangyari 'yon noong Congressman siya at before siya ma-consider na kandidato under ruling ng COMELEC, kasi hindi pa nagsimula ang campaign period

Kapag tumakbo bilang public official ang isang tao, kailangan nila ilista LAHAT ng pera na nagamit during kampanya, kasi may limit yun. Inilalagay sa SOCE lahat, ultimo isang tarheta na ipinamigay. Nakalagay sa SOCE ni Marcoleta na wala siyang campaign donations, take note, dito sana papasok yung pardon kung inilagay niya dito yun. Ngayon, ang 75 Million ay mas malaki sa Zero, easy to understand naman siguro yun di ba? Ang sabi niya, confidential daw ang donors niya, pero under OEC SECTION 99. Report of contributions. – Every person giving contributions to any candidate, treasurer of the party, or authorized representative of such candidate or treasurer shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, file with the Commission a report under oath stating the amount of each contribution, the name of the candidate, agent of the candidate or political party receiving the contribution, and the date of the contribution. (Sec. 68, 1978 EC)., Basically, bawal ang gano'n, lalo na't walang nakalagay nga sa SOCE na donations, ata wala ring oath ang mga donor.

Naging bribery kasi hindi nga nasunod ang OEC, hindi rin nalista sa SOCE, kaya by law, yung ibinigay sa kanya na pera ay "gift" to a public official, under PD 46, bawal yun at considered as bribe

Dahil nga labag sa batas under bribery, maco-consider na ill-gotten wealth yung buong 75M, more than the 50M threshold ng plunder, kaya siya humaharap sa plunder.

Dahil wala sa SOCE na sinabing donation, hahanapin sa SALN, kasi baka nga naman on hand pa rin, 'di ba? Pero wala rin. At galing mismo kay Marcoleta na tumanggap at ginastos niya sa kampanya yung 75M. Malayong mas malakas na ebidensya yun sa SOCE, lalo kasi Public TV niya sinabi.

Nagyon, bakit ko gusto ilabas yung relevance ng SOCE? Kasi nga sobrang laking ebidensya no'n, at higit sa lahat, accessible sa mga normal na Pilipino. Intindihin sana yung implikasyon no'n, kasi kahit ano'ng baliktad natin, especially given yung current na counterarguments ni Marcoleta, pasok na pasok sa Bribery and Plunder yung 75M.

Ayan, kinalmahan ko na. Basahin mo rin nang kalmado. Di mo kailangang magbago ng opinion, sa'yo pa rin ang desisyon, pero kung ayaw mo ngang i-consider ang mga ebidensya na suportado ng batas, ang ilabas mo ay ebidensya rin na valid, hindi misinformation. Gano'n lang kasimple ang problema

Wag mo ipilit kung anong pagkaka intindi mo sa batas na taliwas sa pagkakaintindi ng iba. Kaya may mga abogado para mabawasan ang mahabang pagtatalo na hanggang walang katapusan. At hayaan na ang korte para sa panghuling desisyon.

Karapatan ng bawat isa na panindigan ang sariling pagka intindi ng tama. Kung tama ka sa pananaw mo, ituloy mo. Wag mong pilitin na paniwalain ang iba sa gusto mo.

 

[rin_227]

Alam ko, hindi lang ikaw nakakaalam. Kailangan ba perfect? Feeling perfect ba?

Alam ko na alam mo, kaya inaasahan ko, at ng kung sinumang makaka-debate mo sa buong buhay mo na mkikinig ka. Hindi kailangang perpekto, sabi nga nothing is perfect, 'di ba? Pero ang mga forum ay ginawa sa diskusyon, yun ang pairalin natin. Huwag ad hominem, lalo kung hindi naman relevant

Wag mo ipilit kung anong pagkaka intindi mo sa batas na taliwas sa pagkakaintindi ng iba. Kaya may mga abogado para mabawasan ang mahabang pagtatalo na hanggang walang katapusan. At hayaan na ang korte para sa panghuling desisyon.

Karapatan ng bawat isa na panindigan ang sariling pagka intindi ng tama. Kung tama ka sa pananaw mo, ituloy mo. Wag mong pilitin na paniwalain ang iba sa gusto mo.

Same goes for you. Hindi por que hindi pa napapatunayan ng korte ay hindi na valid. Korte pa rin naman ang may huling desisyon, we all acknowledge that. Pero isipin mo, hindi kailan man magiging in-between ang korte, hindi puwede ang gano'n, lalo sa ganitong mga kaso.

Kung ang pananaw mo sa mga sinasabi ko ay pagsasabi na tama ako at mali ka, puwede ko ring sabihin sa'yo at ulitin itong buong reply mo na ito, kasi may panig ka rin at ipinaglalaban mo rin. Yet, hindi ko sasabihin 'yan, kasi ang batas ay nasulat nang may tiyak na kahulugan

Paalala ko lang, nagsimula ito dahil ini-clarify ko na pasok pa rin sa bribery at plunder kahit walang tangible or visible result ang suhol under PD 46. Hindi interpretation ng batas 'yon, kasi eksakto ang nakasulat. Kung may iba kang interpretation causing you to dislike mine, why not present it to support your side too? Para maintindihan ko at ng mga bumabasa rito kung ano'ng pinaglalaban mo? Kasi hindi naman impartiality ang umiiral sa mga argument mo, it sticks as pro-Marcoleta, so you must have things to say too, right?

 

[rin_227]

Karapatan ng bawat isa na panindigan ang sariling pagka intindi ng tama. Kung tama ka sa pananaw mo, ituloy mo. Wag mong pilitin na paniwalain ang iba sa gusto mo.

Also, for this specific one. Karapatan man natin maniwala sa bersyon natin ng tama, hindi ibig sabihin no'n na hindi na tayo makikinig sa sasabihin at pananaw ng iba. Kasama sa pagpapahayag ng opinion ang pagtanggap ng kritisismo, ng ibang panig. Naghayag ka rin ng panig, at kung gagamitin natin ang logic na 'to, ang pagpapahayag at pagkontra mo sa akin ay pagpilit rin na maniwala ako, 'di ba? Kasi kung sa legal na usapan, may isang panig lang dapat na mas tama, pero hindi dapat gano'n, and it's easy to agree on that. Hindi pamimilit ang pagsalungat, lalo kung may batayan naman.

 

[KingSemreh]

Also, for this specific one. Karapatan man natin maniwala sa bersyon natin ng tama, hindi ibig sabihin no'n na hindi na tayo makikinig sa sasabihin at pananaw ng iba. Kasama sa pagpapahayag ng opinion ang pagtanggap ng kritisismo, ng ibang panig. Naghayag ka rin ng panig, at kung gagamitin natin ang logic na 'to, ang pagpapahayag at pagkontra mo sa akin ay pagpilit rin na maniwala ako, 'di ba? Kasi kung sa legal na usapan, may isang panig lang dapat na mas tama, pero hindi dapat gano'n, and it's easy to agree on that. Hindi pamimilit ang pagsalungat, lalo kung may batayan naman.

Wala sayo o sa akin ang tama. Korte ang magdesisyon. Kung pabor sayo, e di ikaw ang tama.

 

[KingSemreh]

Alam ko na alam mo, kaya inaasahan ko, at ng kung sinumang makaka-debate mo sa buong buhay mo na mkikinig ka. Hindi kailangang perpekto, sabi nga nothing is perfect, 'di ba? Pero ang mga forum ay ginawa sa diskusyon, yun ang pairalin natin. Huwag ad hominem, lalo kung hindi naman relevant


Same goes for you. Hindi por que hindi pa napapatunayan ng korte ay hindi na valid. Korte pa rin naman ang may huling desisyon, we all acknowledge that. Pero isipin mo, hindi kailan man magiging in-between ang korte, hindi puwede ang gano'n, lalo sa ganitong mga kaso.

Kung ang pananaw mo sa mga sinasabi ko ay pagsasabi na tama ako at mali ka, puwede ko ring sabihin sa'yo at ulitin itong buong reply mo na ito, kasi may panig ka rin at ipinaglalaban mo rin. Yet, hindi ko sasabihin 'yan, kasi ang batas ay nasulat nang may tiyak na kahulugan

Paalala ko lang, nagsimula ito dahil ini-clarify ko na pasok pa rin sa bribery at plunder kahit walang tangible or visible result ang suhol under PD 46. Hindi interpretation ng batas 'yon, kasi eksakto ang nakasulat. Kung may iba kang interpretation causing you to dislike mine, why not present it to support your side too? Para maintindihan ko at ng mga bumabasa rito kung ano'ng pinaglalaban mo? Kasi hindi naman impartiality ang umiiral sa mga argument mo, it sticks as pro-Marcoleta, so you must have things to say too, right?

Wag feeling ikaw lang nagreresearch.

Under Presidential Decree No. 46, accepting a donation or gift is not automatically classified as either bribery or plunder. It depends on the circumstances and the applicable law.

• PD No. 46 prohibits public officials and employees from receiving gifts, presents, or other valuable things, and prohibits private persons from giving them, even on occasions such as holidays or anniversaries, when the gift is connected to the recipient's official position or duties.
• A violation of PD No. 46 is a separate offense. The mere acceptance of a prohibited gift under this decree is not, by itself, bribery or plunder.

However:

• If the donation or gift is given in exchange for an official act or favor, it may constitute offenses such as Direct Bribery or Indirect Bribery, depending on the facts.
• If a public official amasses ill-gotten wealth totaling at least ₱50 million through a combination or series of overt criminal acts specified by law, it may constitute Plunder.

In short:

• Violation of PD No. 46: Accepting a prohibited gift or donation because of one's public office.
• Bribery: Accepting something of value in return for performing or refraining from an official act.
• Plunder: Accumulating ₱50 million or more in ill-gotten wealth through specified criminal acts.

Ill-gotten wealth means assets, money, property, or benefits that a public official acquires through unlawful means by abusing public office.

Under Republic Act No. 7080, specified criminal acts refer to acts such as:

1. Misappropriation or malversation of public funds or property.
2. Receiving commissions, kickbacks, gifts, shares, percentages, or other benefits in connection with government contracts or projects.
3. îllégâl conveyance or disposition of government assets for personal gain.
4. Fraudulent acquisition of government property or funds.
5. Receiving bribes or other unlawful benefits by taking advantage of one's public office.
6. Establishing monopolies or combinations in restraint of trade for personal enrichment.
7. Taking advantage of official position to unjustly enrich oneself through other criminal means specified by law.

 

[rin_227]

Wala sayo o sa akin ang tama. Korte ang magdesisyon. Kung pabor sayo, e di ikaw ang tama.

Nakasulat sa reply ko 'yan, don't worry. I'm not assuming that either of us holds the absolute truth, but arguments and opinions on legal cases hold legal weights. Tandaan, ang batas ay ginawa para sa mga mamamayan, hindi para sa mga abogado at politiko lamang. Laws are for the most part absolute, as we, as citizens, mouth be able to recognize what they are about to their very core. Ang batas na hindi maiintindihan at naipapaintindi sa taumbayan ay hindi epektibo. We can't say fir certain that we'll know what outcome the court will come up to, but we are inclined to know laws just as much as they do, because those laws are for us, the Filipino people.

 

[KingSemreh]

Nakasulat sa reply ko 'yan, don't worry. I'm not assuming that either of us holds the absolute truth, but arguments and opinions on legal cases hold legal weights. Tandaan, ang batas ay ginawa para sa mga mamamayan, hindi para sa mga abogado at politiko lamang. Laws are for the most part absolute, as we, as citizens, mouth be able to recognize what they are about to their very core. Ang batas na hindi maiintindihan at naipapaintindi sa taumbayan ay hindi epektibo. We can't say fir certain that we'll know what outcome the court will come up to, but we are inclined to know laws just as much as they do, because those laws are for us, the Filipino people.

It is not my concern whether Marcoleta goes to jail or not. What matters is that the proper evidence is presented and the law is applied fairly

 

[KingSemreh]

IKAW, ano bang concern mo?

 

[rin_227]

Wag feeling ikaw lang nagreresearch.

Under Presidential Decree No. 46, accepting a donation or gift is not automatically classified as either bribery or plunder. It depends on the circumstances and the applicable law.

• PD No. 46 prohibits public officials and employees from receiving gifts, presents, or other valuable things, and prohibits private persons from giving them, even on occasions such as holidays or anniversaries, when the gift is connected to the recipient's official position or duties.
• A violation of PD No. 46 is a separate offense. The mere acceptance of a prohibited gift under this decree is not, by itself, bribery or plunder.

However:

• If the donation or gift is given in exchange for an official act or favor, it may constitute offenses such as Direct Bribery or Indirect Bribery, depending on the facts.
• If a public official amasses ill-gotten wealth totaling at least ₱50 million through a combination or series of overt criminal acts specified by law, it may constitute Plunder.

In short:

• Violation of PD No. 46: Accepting a prohibited gift or donation because of one's public office.
• Bribery: Accepting something of value in return for performing or refraining from an official act.
• Plunder: Accumulating ₱50 million or more in ill-gotten wealth through specified criminal acts.

Ill-gotten wealth means assets, money, property, or benefits that a public official acquires through unlawful means by abusing public office.

Under Republic Act No. 7080, specified criminal acts refer to acts such as:

1. Misappropriation or malversation of public funds or property.
2. Receiving commissions, kickbacks, gifts, shares, percentages, or other benefits in connection with government contracts or projects.
3. îllégâl conveyance or disposition of government assets for personal gain.
4. Fraudulent acquisition of government property or funds.
5. Receiving bribes or other unlawful benefits by taking advantage of one's public office.
6. Establishing monopolies or combinations in restraint of trade for personal enrichment.
7. Taking advantage of official position to unjustly enrich oneself through other criminal means specified by law.

This is correct, now let's apply it to Marcoleta's case.

First, to address, mali ang sinulat ko, it's supposed to be Article 211 of the RPC. Sorry for that mistake

PD 46 criminalizes receiving gifts, that's why this was on the filed complaint and why his donors were also arrested. This ties to Article 211, indirect bribery. As the case at hand states, that amount of money seems to be too much for just the sake of friendship.

Now, PD 46 is already supported by his statement of receiving the gift, and as this is still a criminal offense ("A violation of PD No. 46 is a separate offense. The mere acceptance of a prohibited gift under this decree is not, by itself, bribery or plunder.") , it's argued to fit under #2 of your specified RA 7080 case, so still, plunder.

Lastly, point still stands that Bribery does not always require tangible results, in that case it would be classified into indirect bribery.

I have lapses too, especially interchange PD 46 and RPC Article 211, but point still stands, doesn't it?

 

[rin_227]

It is not my concern whether Marcoleta goes to jail or not. What matters is that the proper evidence is presented and the law is applied fairly

Well, look around and evaluate the evidences present.

 

[KingSemreh]

This is correct, now let's apply it to Marcoleta's case.

First, to address, mali ang sinulat ko, it's supposed to be Article 211 of the RPC. Sorry for that mistake

PD 46 criminalizes receiving gifts, that's why this was on the filed complaint and why his donors were also arrested. This ties to Article 211, indirect bribery. As the case at hand states, that amount of money seems to be too much for just the sake of friendship.

Now, PD 46 is already supported by his statement of receiving the gift, and as this is still a criminal offense ("A violation of PD No. 46 is a separate offense. The mere acceptance of a prohibited gift under this decree is not, by itself, bribery or plunder.") , it's argued to fit under #2 of your specified RA 7080 case, so still, plunder.

Lastly, point still stands that Bribery does not always require tangible results, in that case it would be classified into indirect bribery.

I have lapses too, especially interchange PD 46 and RPC Article 211, but point still stands, doesn't it?

Here's the distinction under Philippine law:

• Direct Bribery generally involves a quid pro quo—the public officer agrees to perform, refrain from performing, or has performed an official act in exchange for a gift, promise, or consideration. The offense does not necessarily require that the intended benefit to the giver be successfully achieved; the corrupt agreement itself is central.
• Indirect Bribery occurs when a public officer accepts gifts offered by reason of his or her office, even if there is no evidence of an agreement to perform a particular official act.

So, your statement:

"Bribery does not always require tangible results, in that case it would be classified into indirect bribery."

is not always correct because:

1. The absence of "tangible results" does not automatically make the offense indirect bribery.
2. The key distinction is why the gift was given and accepted, not whether the giver obtained the desired result.

 

[rin_227]

Here's the distinction under Philippine law:

• Direct Bribery generally involves a quid pro quo—the public officer agrees to perform, refrain from performing, or has performed an official act in exchange for a gift, promise, or consideration. The offense does not necessarily require that the intended benefit to the giver be successfully achieved; the corrupt agreement itself is central.
• Indirect Bribery occurs when a public officer accepts gifts offered by reason of his or her office, even if there is no evidence of an agreement to perform a particular official act.

So, your statement:


is not always correct because:

1. The absence of "tangible results" does not automatically make the offense indirect bribery.
2. The key distinction is why the gift was given and accepted, not whether the giver obtained the desired result.

It does not automatically do so, but it doesn't mean it has no chance to be a case of one.. Check the AIs response, "not always correct". We do not know Marcoleta's intent in accepting the money, thats why he and his donors are being investigated for bribery. Also, the PD 46 case remains in question alongside this case, that one requires no intent.