Philippines Anti-Cybercrime Police Groupe MOST WANTED PEOPLE List!

 

 

 

#1 Mick Jerold Dela Cruz Present Address: 1989 C. Pavia St. Tondo, Manila If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491 Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083	#2 Gremelyn Nemuco Present Address; One Rockwell, Makati City If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491 Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083	#3 Vinna Vargas Address: Imus, Cavite  If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491 Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083	#4 Ivan Dela Cruz Present Address: Imus, Cavite If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491 Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083
#5 Elton Danao Permanent Address: 2026 Leveriza, Fourth Pasay, Manila  Present Address: Naic, Cavite If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491 Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083	#6 Virgelito Dada Present Address: Grass Residences, Quezon City  If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491 Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083	#7 John Christopher Salazar Permanent address: Rivergreen City Residences, Sta. Ana, Manila If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491 Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083	#8 Xanty Octavo  If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491 Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083
#9 Daniel Boco Address: Imus, Cavite   If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491 Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083	#10 James Gonzalo Tulabot Permanent Address: Blk. 4 Lot 30, Daisy St. Lancaster Residences, Alapaan II-A, Imus, Cavite  Present Address: Pasay City If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491 Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083	#11 Lea Jeanee Belleza If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491 Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083	#12 Juan Sonny Belleza If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491 Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

 

FXCL SCAM Company Details:

OUTSTRIVE SOLUTIONS PH CALL CENTER SERVICES

Diaz withdrew P82,554 without any separate letter of authorization or any communication with Solidbank that the money be converted into a manager’s check. In absolving Solidbank, the trial court applied the rules on savings account written on the passbook. The rules state that “possession of this book shall raise the presumption of ownership and any payment or payments made by the bank upon the production of the said book and entry therein of the withdrawal shall have the same effect as if made to the depositor personally.” Diaz filed a Complaint for Recovery of a Sum of Money against Solidbank with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8. After trial, the trial court rendered on 28 December 1994 a decision absolving Solidbank and dismissing the complaint. Diaz through its Chief Executive Officer, Luis C. Diaz (“Diaz”), called up Solidbank to stop any transaction using the same passbook until L.C.

The transfer of private land for use as residence to natural-born citizens who had lost their citizenship was also allowed. Then, in 1984, the membership of the Batasang Pambansa was reapportioned by provinces, cities, or districts in Metro Manila instead of by regions; the Office of the Vice-President was created while the executive committee was abolished; and, urban land reform and social housing programs were strengthened. These substantial changes were simply considered as mere amendments. To say the least, these alleged omissions are too weak a reason to throttle the right of the sovereign people to amend the Constitution through initiative. 6735 clearly expressed the legislative policy for the people to propose amendments to the Constitution by direct action. The fact that the legislature may have omitted certain details in implementing the people’s initiative in R.A. 6735, does not justify the conclusion that, ergo, the law is insufficient.

LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CEBU, YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCAITION OF CEBU, INC. ,

In that case, a “purported initiative amendment” to the State Constitution of California, then being proposed to be submitted to the electors for ratification, was sought to be enjoined. The proposed measure, denominated as “California Bill of Rights,” comprised a single new article with some 208 subsections which would repeal or substantially alter at least 15 of the 25 articles of the California State Constitution and add at least four new topics. Among the likely effects of the proposed measure were to curtail legislative and judicial functions, legalize gaming, completely revise the taxation system and reduce the powers of cities, counties and courts. The proposed measure also included diverse matters as ministers, mines, civic centers, liquor control and naturopaths. Indeed, it is vital that there be stability in the courts in adhering to decisions deliberately made after ample consideration. Parties should not be encouraged to seek re-examination of determined principles and speculate on fluctuation of the law with every change in the expounders of it. While the COMELEC was also the respondent in Santiago, the petitioners in that case and those in this case are different.

In denying due course below to Messrs. Lambino and Aumentado’s petition, I could not hold the COMELEC liable for grave abuse of discretion when they merely relied on this Court’s unequivocal rulings. Of course, the Santiago and the PIRMA decisions could be reviewed and reversed by this Court, as J. But until the Court does so, the COMELEC was duty bound to respect and obey this Court’s mandate, for the rule of law to prevail. The principle of separation of powers operates at the core of a presidential form of government. Thus, legislative power is given to the legislature; executive power, to a separate executive ; and judicial power, to an independent judiciary.

DECISION

Thus, constitutions normally authorize deliberative bodies like constituent assemblies or constitutional conventions to undertake revisions. On the other hand, constitutions allow people’s initiatives, which do not have fixed and identifiable deliberative bodies or recorded proceedings, to undertake only amendments and not revisions. We can visualize amendments and revisions as a spectrum, at one end green for amendments and at the other end red for revisions. Towards the middle of the spectrum, colors fuse and difficulties arise in determining whether there is an amendment or revision. The present initiative is indisputably located at the far end of the red spectrum where revision begins. The present initiative seeks a radical overhaul of the existing separation of powers among the three co-equal departments of government, requiring far-reaching amendments in several sections and articles of the Constitution. Similarly, in this jurisdiction there can be no dispute that a people’s initiative can only propose amendments to the Constitution since the Constitution itself limits initiatives to amendments. There can be no deviation from the constitutionally prescribed modes of revising the Constitution. A popular clamor, even one backed by 6.3 million signatures, cannot justify a deviation from the specific modes prescribed in the Constitution itself. Lambino stated that he and his group assured the people during the signature-gathering that the elections for the regular Parliament would be held during the 2007 local elections if the proposed changes were ratified before the 2007 local elections.

The main inquiry is whether the change will “accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision.” Whether there is an alteration in the structure of government is a proper subject of inquiry. Thus, “a change in the nature of basic governmental plan” includes “change in its fundamental framework or the fundamental powers of its Branches.” A change in the nature of the basic governmental plan also includes changes that “jeopardize the traditional form of government and the system of check and balances.” In any event, the Lambino Group’s signature sheets do not contain the full text of the proposed changes, either on the face of the signature sheets, or as attachment with an indication in the signature sheet of such attachment. Lambino admitted this during the oral arguments, and this admission binds the Lambino Group. This fact is also obvious from a mere reading of the signature sheet. The failure to so include the text of the proposed changes in the signature sheets renders the initiative void for non-compliance with the constitutional requirement that the amendment must be “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition.” The signature sheet is not the “petition” envisioned in the initiative clause of the Constitution. The liquidation of respondent’s outstanding loans were valid in so far as petitioner Citibank used respondent’s savings account with the bank and her money market placements with petitioner FNCB Finance; but illegal and void in so far as petitioner Citibank used respondent’s dollar accounts with Citibank-Geneva. Although Section 2 of Article XI of the Constitution enumerates six grounds for impeachment, two of these, namely, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust, elude a precise definition.

RESTRIVERA, MAX VILLAESTER, AND EDILBERTO GALLOR, PETITIONERS, WORLD WAR II

At the very least, it proposes more than one subject, in violation of Republic Act 6735. Six months after, in my Separate Opinion in People’s Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action v. Comelec, I joined the rest of the members of the Court in ruling “by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of discretion could be attributed to the Comelec in dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein,” since the Commission had “only complied” with the Santiago Decision. In my Separate Opinion in Santiago v. Comelec, I opined “that taken together and interpreted properly and liberally, the Constitution (particularly Art. XVII, Sec. 2), Republic Act 6735 and Comelec Resolution 2300 provide more than sufficient authority to implement, effectuate and realize our people’s power to amend the Constitution.” The Supreme Court of Michigan likewise ruled that the doctrine of stare decisis does not apply to plurality decisions in which no majority of the justices participating agree to the reasoning and as such are not authoritative interpretations binding on the Supreme Court. Petitioners, on the other hand, maintain that the verification conducted by the election officers sufficiently complied with the requirements of the Constitution and the law on initiative. Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., among others, further clarified that although Atty. Casquejo and Reynne Joy B. Bullecer, Acting Election Officer IV, First District, Davao City, later issued certifications stating that the Office of the City Election Officer has examined the list of individuals appearing in the signature sheets, the certifications reveal that the office had verified only the names of the signatories, but not their signatures. Oppositors-intervenors submit that not only the names of the signatories should be verified, but also their signatures to ensure the identities of the persons affixing their signatures on the signature sheets. However, the committee felt that in view of the introduction of the aspects of direct democracy such as initiative, referendum or recall, it was necessary to emphasize the democratic portion of republicanism, of representative democracy as well.

The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. THE House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the yeas amd nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal. Now, who is to do such examination and who is to do such changes and how should the changes be worded? The consequence of this special character of the enactment, insofar as it relates to proposing amendments to the Constitution, is that the requirements for statutory enactments, such as sufficiency of standards and the like, do not and should not strictly apply. As long as there is a sufficient and clear intent to provide for the implementation of the exercise of the right, it should be sustained, as it is simply a compliance of the mandate placed on Congress by the Constitution. As a result, the powers therein provided are called constituent powers. So when Congress acts under this provision, it acts not as a legislature exercising legislative powers. Article 8, New Civil Code provides that “udicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.” The very term Constitution implies an instrument of a permanent and abiding nature, and the provisions contained therein for its revision indicated the will of the people that the underlying principles upon which it rests, as well as the substantial entirety of the instrument, shall be of a like permanent and abiding nature.

The certificate of acknowledgement in the notarized Deeds of Assignment constituted prima facie evidence of the execution thereof. And, she assailed the Deeds of Assignment, dated 25 August 1978, with nothing more than her bare denial of execution thereof, hardly the clear and convincing evidence required to trounce the presumption stole my deposit of due execution of a notarized document. The Court of Appeals did not consider these Deeds of Assignment because of petitioners’ failure to produce the original copies thereof in violation of the best evidence rule. This Court again finds itself in disagreement in the application of the best evidence rule by the appellate court.

The President told Engineer Ople to request immediately the Department of Public Works to send a party to start the survey work. He also granted the request for three pre-fabricated school houses and three Liberty wells for the barrios of Catimon, Tabing Ilog, and Nagpandayan. He was accompanied on the plane by Reps. Jose Corpuz and Celestino Juan of Nueva Ecija and a presidential aide, Maj. Jose Estrella. Rodriguez and Pangasinan Gov. Conrado Estrella rode on another Cessna plane.

ROBERTO P. NAZARENO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE HOUSE OF

Oppositors to the people’s initiative point out that this Court ruled in Santiago that RA 6735 was inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution and, thus, no law existed to enable the people to directly propose changes to the Constitution. Although, at first glance, petitioners’ proposed changes appear to cover isolated and specific provisions only, however, upon careful scrutiny, it becomes clear that the proposed changes will alter the very structure of our government and create multifarious ramifications. In other words, the proposed changes will have a “domino effect” or, more appropriately, “ripple effect” on other provisions of the Constitution. The proposed Section 4 of Article XVIII of the Constitution states that Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be members of parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010.

• Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 6735 is a reflection of the long-enshrined constitutional principle that the laws passed by Congress “shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof”.
• This fiduciary relationship means that the bank’s obligation to observe “high standards of integrity and performance” is deemed written into every deposit agreement between a bank and its depositor.
• The COMELEC had indeed committed grave abuse of discretion when it summarily dismissed Lambino and Aumentado’s petition for initiative entirely on the basis of the Santiago case which, allegedly, permanently enjoined it from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative to amend the Constitution in the absence of a sufficient law.
• On being assured by the Japanese Government that Burma was an alternative party to the transaction, the Cabinet approved this alternative plan provided that the NARIC gave assurance that it would sell the rice at the lowest possible cost.