soundnin714

Members
  • Content count

    179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About soundnin714

  • Rank
    Chuunin Level

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5871 profile views
  1. @felixocta Marerebate naman yan. May katagalan lang. Laking abala. Debit card ko before compromised din pero nabalik naman.

  2. "Hindi nadadaan sa hashtags ang pagyaman" - Randell Tiongson

  3. @maicaliboon Alam mo naman pala eh hahaha

  4. Depends on who you ask. But, considering the Canon Law of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churces, they will refuse exorcism at first instance. The alleged “possession” must be first have some scientific explanation, among others, schizoprenia or other mental illnesses. If all scientific and medical remedies are already exhausted, only then will these churches consider exorcism, still to be approved by their respective councils.
  5. Mag-invest na kayo. Economista na ang Speaker ng House of Representatives.

  6. Trending thread about off the menu beverages in Starbucks. But I've been strictly drinking black coffee for more than a year now.

  7. Study tips for Bar Candidates: a monthly study plan outperforms a daily study plan. (c) Harford, Tim (2016), Messy… https://t.co/4373PxCu0a

  8. Pero kung mag PAO ka, pero previously may counsel ka, baka irefuse ng PAO na irepresent ka. You have to prove your indigency. And relax ka lang, mabigat na paratang na ginagatasan ka lang ng abogado mo. May process sa pagpapadismiss ng criminal case, may rules na sinusunod, hindi pwedeng kung kailan mo lang gusto. Baka yang 4 years na yan, eh actively participating pa ang prosecution, and its not even your turn to present your case, baka madami lang resetting of hearing due to various factors. Kapag naarraign ka na, your lawyer may ask for dismissal only if: 1. The prosecution has lost interest in proceeding with the case, i.e., sunod sunod na di umaattend ng hearing ang prosecution, or 2. The prosecution has already rested its case, then your lawyer may file demurrer to evidence.
  9. Judges would require your handling counsel to file his Withdrawal of Appearance, then the new lawyer has to file an Entry of Apperance. Though may judges na pumapayag na new lawyer would just file his Entry of Appearance without requiring the old one to Withdraw his appearance, but uubra lang siya if the old one has been absent for three consecutive hearings. So sabihin mo lang sa lawyer mo, palitan na kita. Papayag naman ang lawyers diyan, wala naman magagawa if ayaw mo na sa services niya. But in doing so, lawyers have this right called “retaining lien.” Hanggang di siya bayad sa mga agreed upon fees, he has the right not to turn over your case files to the new lawyer.
  10. Lawyer
  11. @PLDT_Cares Hello. This is not the first time I reported an issue and if you have the time to check your inbox, you… https://t.co/NObjd4UCWN

  12. Millennial now, Millionaire later.

  13. This is actually based from crimes of passion observed in other countries. It is not weird, but is an expected response by an enraged busband. But if you think this is weird, I will give you a “weirder”perspective of this case by giving you actual cases. There was a case decided by the SC in 1939, People vs. Gonzales. What happened in this case was the husband caught his wife with another man, doing acts preparatory to sexual intercourse, in short, “foreplay.” To make the long story short, the enraged husband ran after the man, but was unable to catch him. So he went back to the house, attacked her wife without intending to kill her, but her wife died anyway. The Supreme Court convicted the husband of parricide, and did not exculpate him from killing, applying strictly the aforementioned provision. They said that for the provision to apply, the husband should have caught them in the act of sexual intercourse. Although there is one justice who dissented, finding it unfair that the killing was not justified because the act would definitely lead into sexual intercourse, and it is contrary to natural response for the husband to wait for the actual carnal act for him to act accordingly. However, in 1987, the Supreme Court, in People vs. Abarca, made another ruling. So in this case, the husband did not actually catch his wife having sex with another man, but only learned of it an hour after. He killed the man an hour after the sexual act. The Supreme Court, surprisingly, applied this case, justifying the act of killing, although it happened an hour after, because the law “only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity.”
  14. Anyare sa Tambo-NAIA area? Intense ang traffic ⚠

  15. Opinions of “overnight experts” regarding political events are part of Democracy. Deal with it.