When the law is sufficiently basic, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. What is funny about this ruling is that the Associate City Prosecutor acted with grave abuse of authority and discretion and in gross ignorance of the law in conducting an investigation as if it were a trial on erroneous application of the laws and facts, such as Art. 11 paragraph 5 of the Revised penal Code of the Philippines. What is interesting is that the Respondent (Legal Counsel and Compliance Office of HSBC Philippines) did not even invoke the Art 11 of the Revised Penal Code! Isn't this an obvious act of the City Prosecutor lawyering for Respondent? Is it proper? And again the funny thing is the application is even misplaced for Article 11 provides the justifying circumstances that do not incur criminal liability!
Isn't it that the function of the City Prosecutor is to conduct a preliminary investigation "in determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-rounded belief that a crime has been committed and that the private respondent is probably guilty of". In the evidence I submitted in my complaint, the Respondent admitted executing a document disclosing both my peso and dollar deposits without my consent in her counter-affidavit. In addition to this, I also submitted the sworn answer of the Joel B. Cruz, the Vice-President, denying that the signature of the certification bearing his name is his as he was on leave on the day certification was issue. Certainly, his signature was forged. Isn't this more than sufficient evidence in determining probable cause?
The nation has learned from the Corona impeachment trial a basic lesson on the absolute confidentiality of bank deposit, more so dollar deposits -- that even the Senate with all its might could not look into. And here comes a Prosecutor claiming otherwise. It is interesting to note that the Office of Special Investigation of Bangko Sentral Pilipinas has found probable cause to charge this counsel of HSBC Philippines for violation of RA. 6426 in a separate administrative case I filed against the Bank and its legal counsel.
Original Title
Gross Ignorance of the Law or Crass Stupidity? Memorandum of Associate City Prosecutor Maureen M. Dangwa
When the law is sufficiently basic, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. What is funny about this ruling is that the Associate City Prosecutor acted with grave abuse of authority and discretion and in gross ignorance of the law in conducting an investigation as if it were a trial on erroneous application of the laws and facts, such as Art. 11 paragraph 5 of the Revised penal Code of the Philippines. What is interesting is that the Respondent (Legal Counsel and Compliance Office of HSBC Philippines) did not even invoke the Art 11 of the Revised Penal Code! Isn't this an obvious act of the City Prosecutor lawyering for Respondent? Is it proper? And again the funny thing is the application is even misplaced for Article 11 provides the justifying circumstances that do not incur criminal liability!
Isn't it that the function of the City Prosecutor is to conduct a preliminary investigation "in determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-rounded belief that a crime has been committed and that the private respondent is probably guilty of". In the evidence I submitted in my complaint, the Respondent admitted executing a document disclosing both my peso and dollar deposits without my consent in her counter-affidavit. In addition to this, I also submitted the sworn answer of the Joel B. Cruz, the Vice-President, denying that the signature of the certification bearing his name is his as he was on leave on the day certification was issue. Certainly, his signature was forged. Isn't this more than sufficient evidence in determining probable cause?
The nation has learned from the Corona impeachment trial a basic lesson on the absolute confidentiality of bank deposit, more so dollar deposits -- that even the Senate with all its might could not look into. And here comes a Prosecutor claiming otherwise. It is interesting to note that the Office of Special Investigation of Bangko Sentral Pilipinas has found probable cause to charge this counsel of HSBC Philippines for violation of RA. 6426 in a separate administrative case I filed against the Bank and its legal counsel.
When the law is sufficiently basic, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. What is funny about this ruling is that the Associate City Prosecutor acted with grave abuse of authority and discretion and in gross ignorance of the law in conducting an investigation as if it were a trial on erroneous application of the laws and facts, such as Art. 11 paragraph 5 of the Revised penal Code of the Philippines. What is interesting is that the Respondent (Legal Counsel and Compliance Office of HSBC Philippines) did not even invoke the Art 11 of the Revised Penal Code! Isn't this an obvious act of the City Prosecutor lawyering for Respondent? Is it proper? And again the funny thing is the application is even misplaced for Article 11 provides the justifying circumstances that do not incur criminal liability!
Isn't it that the function of the City Prosecutor is to conduct a preliminary investigation "in determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-rounded belief that a crime has been committed and that the private respondent is probably guilty of". In the evidence I submitted in my complaint, the Respondent admitted executing a document disclosing both my peso and dollar deposits without my consent in her counter-affidavit. In addition to this, I also submitted the sworn answer of the Joel B. Cruz, the Vice-President, denying that the signature of the certification bearing his name is his as he was on leave on the day certification was issue. Certainly, his signature was forged. Isn't this more than sufficient evidence in determining probable cause?
The nation has learned from the Corona impeachment trial a basic lesson on the absolute confidentiality of bank deposit, more so dollar deposits -- that even the Senate with all its might could not look into. And here comes a Prosecutor claiming otherwise. It is interesting to note that the Office of Special Investigation of Bangko Sentral Pilipinas has found probable cause to charge this counsel of HSBC Philippines for violation of RA. 6426 in a separate administrative case I filed against the Bank and its legal counsel.
R.A. 6426, The Foreign Currency Deposit Law in The Philippines Which Raissa Katrina Marie G. Ballesteros Violated in Disclosing Khoo Boo Boon, HSBC Philippines Premier Client's US Dollar Deposit
Violation of Bank Secrecy Law (R.A. 1405) and Foreign Currency Deposit Law (R.A 6426), and violation of his right to privacy and the trust between a bank with its depositors - A simple case of "gross ignorance of the law" or "Crass Stupidity"? Letter of Reply of Atty. Raissa Katrina Marie G. Ballesteros to Khoo Boo Boon when HSBC and she, a Compliance and Legal Counsel of the Bank, goofed in disclosing details of Khoo Boo Boon's Peso and US Dollar Deposit without his consent.
"When an agent of the justice system mandated to protect you aided and abetted the perpetrator of the crime. Khoo Boo Boon vs Raissa Katrina Marie G. Ballesteros, Legal Counsel and Compliance Officer HSBC, Philippines.
Violation of Bank Secrecy Laws of The Philippines - One Extremely Thorough Investigation by The Central Bank of The Philippines (Bangko Sentral NG Pilipinas)
Light Travels Faster Than Sound - My Reaction to the Response of the Philippine Stock Exchange COO against the article, "The Dark Side", which appeared in Phil Equity Column in the Philippine Star of April 14, 2014.
Light Travels Faster Than Sound - My Reaction to the Response of the Philippine Stock Exchange COO against the article, "The Dark Side", which appeared in Phil Equity Column in the Philippine Star of April 14, 2014.