EVEN IF YOU'RE HANDSOME OR PRETTY? ISANG BALA KA LANG, SA NAIA!

EVEN IF YOU'RE HANDSOME OR PRETTY?

ISANG BALA KA LANG, SA NAIA!

This case of bullet planting is dead on arrival:
HOW COULD THE PROSECUTOR PROVE THAT
A BULLET WAS FOUND IN THE BAG
OF TRAVELING OFW GLORIA ORTINEZ
IF THE BULLET SUBMITTED TO THE PROSECUTOR
OF PASAY CITY IS DIFFERENT FROM THE BULLET
EARLIER PHOTOGRAPHED TO HAVE BEEN
FOUND IN THE BAG OF GLORIA?

As a lawyer, I see the inherent weakness of any case of a finding of one bullet in one of the bags of a traveler.

While the case is weak, the disturbance is enormous, entitling the victims almost sure victories if they will file a civil case for damages against the NAIA.

NAIA should answer because it is its responsibility to ensure that not one passenger is injured or harmed inside the airport.

In the case of criminal proceedings for the bullet, the prosecutor has the obligation to prove that the traveler had that intention to possess the bullet found in his or her bag.

After admitting or presenting all the facts that a passenger was all set to travel (like tickets showing destination, boarding passes, baggage tags) and the fact that it is too impossible to have a bullet without getting detected at a scanner, any case of illegal possession of bullet will be defeated.

The reasons are:

(1) The prosecution is obliged to prove that the accused had that intention to possess the bullet at the time when the bullet was found in his or her luggage;

(2) If the person concerned is established to be intending to travel because of the presentation of plane tickets, boarding pass, terminal fee receipt, checked-in baggage, then he is presumed to be intending to travel and with that it is presumed that it was improbable for that person to travel with the intention to possess a bullet;

(3) The person is always presumed to be innocent so that it is the duty or obligation of the prosecutor to prove that the person concerned had that intention to possess the bullet found in the luggage; and

(4) Any presumption to possess the bullet cannot overcome the presumption of innocence because only a proof beyond reasonable doubt is allowed to overcome that presumption of innocence.

The only problem with this situation is that the traveler will be disturbed enormously because he or she had to be submitted to the prosecutor for inquest proceedings and thereby losing his or her time for travel and losing his or her ticket that is not refundable.