Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Willkommen bei Scribd!

  • Businesses Role in Climate Change

    Hochgeladen von

    Rom
    10 Ansichten15 Seiten
    3. Ladiana vs. People, 393 SCRA 419 FACTS: The accused, a public officer, being then a member of the Integrated National Police (INP now PNP) assigned at the Lumban Police Station, Lumban, Laguna, acting in relation to his duty which is primarily to enforce peace and order within his jurisdiction, taking advantage of his official position confronted Francisco San Juan why the latter was removing the steel pipes which were previously placed to serve as barricade to prevent the entry of vehicles along P. Jacinto Street, Barangay Salac, Lumban, Laguna, purposely to insure the safety of persons passing along the said street and when Francisco San Juan told the accused that the latter has no business in stopping him, said accused who was armed with a firearm, attacked and shot Francisco San Juan with the firearm hitting Francisco San Juan at his head and neck inflicting upon him fatal wounds thereby causing the death of Francisco San Juan. Petitioner admitted that he shot the victim while the latter was attacking him. “Kaya itong si Kapitan San Juan ay sumugod at hinawakan ako sa may leeg ng aking suot na T-shirt upang ako ay muling saksakin; sa dahilang hindi ako makatakbo o makaiwas sa kabila ng aking pananalag hanggang magpaputok ako ng pasumala sa kanya; sa bilis ng pangyayari ay hindi ko alam na siya ay tinamaan” ISSUE: whether he acted in self-defense is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Through the above statement, petitioner admits shooting the victim -- which eventually led to the latter’s death -- but denies having done it with any criminal intent. In fact, he claims he did it in self-defense. Nevertheless, whether categorized as a confession or as an admission, it is admissible in evidence against him. In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing their untruth or by showing they were made by mistake. The party may also establish that the response that formed the admission was made in a jocular, not a serious, manner; or that the admission was made in ignorance of the true state of facts. Yet, petitioner never offered any rationalization why such admissions had been made, thus, leaving them unrebutted. Having admitted that he had fatally shot the victim, petitioner had the duty of showing that the killing was justified, and that the latter incurred no criminal liability therefor. Petitioner should have relied on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that for the prosecution. Even if his evidence be weak, it cannot be disbelieved after the accused has admitted the killing. Petitioner argues that it was the prosecution that indirectly raised the issue of self-defense. Hence, he could not be bound by it. This argument deserves scant consideration. Therefore, petitioner can no longer invoke his constitutional right to be presumed innocent of the crime charged. As far as he is concerned, homicide has already been established. The fact of death and its cause were established by his admissions coupled with the other prosecution evidence including the Certificate of Death, the Certificate of Post-Mortem Examination and the Medico-Legal Findings. The intent to kill is likewise presumed from the fact of death. The only pieces of evidence in support of the plea of voluntary surrender made by petitioner are statements made by two (2) prosecution witnesses that they were allegedly told by other people that he had already gone to the police station. There is no showing that he was not actually arrested; or that when he went to the police station, he surrendered himself to a person in authority. Neither is there any finding that he has evinced a desire to own to any complicity in the killing. We have ruled in the past that the accused who had gone to the police headquarters merely to report the shooting incident did not evince any desire to admit responsibility for the killing. Thus, he could not be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered. In the absence of sufficient and

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Verfügbare Formate

    PPTX, PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

    Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

    Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

    Dieses Dokument melden
    3. Ladiana vs. People, 393 SCRA 419 FACTS: The accused, a public officer, being then a member of the Integrated National Police (INP now PNP) assigned at the Lumban Police Station, Lumban, Laguna, acting in relation to his duty which is primarily to enforce peace and order within his jurisdiction, taking advantage of his official position confronted Francisco San Juan why the latter was removing the steel pipes which were previously placed to serve as barricade to prevent the entry of vehicles along P. Jacinto Street, Barangay Salac, Lumban, Laguna, purposely to insure the safety of persons passing along the said street and when Francisco San Juan told the accused that the latter has no business in stopping him, said accused who was armed with a firearm, attacked and shot Francisco San Juan with the firearm hitting Francisco San Juan at his head and neck inflicting upon him fatal wounds thereby causing the death of Francisco San Juan. Petitioner admitted that he shot the victim while the latter was attacking him. “Kaya itong si Kapitan San Juan ay sumugod at hinawakan ako sa may leeg ng aking suot na T-shirt upang ako ay muling saksakin; sa dahilang hindi ako makatakbo o makaiwas sa kabila ng aking pananalag hanggang magpaputok ako ng pasumala sa kanya; sa bilis ng pangyayari ay hindi ko alam na siya ay tinamaan” ISSUE: whether he acted in self-defense is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Through the above statement, petitioner admits shooting the victim -- which eventually led to the latter’s death -- but denies having done it with any criminal intent. In fact, he claims he did it in self-defense. Nevertheless, whether categorized as a confession or as an admission, it is admissible in evidence against him. In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing their untruth or by showing they were made by mistake. The party may also establish that the response that formed the admission was made in a jocular, not a serious, manner; or that the admission was made in ignorance of the true state of facts. Yet, petitioner never offered any rationalization why such admissions had been made, thus, leaving them unrebutted. Having admitted that he had fatally shot the victim, petitioner had the duty of showing that the killing was justified, and that the latter incurred no criminal liability therefor. Petitioner should have relied on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that for the prosecution. Even if his evidence be weak, it cannot be disbelieved after the accused has admitted the killing. Petitioner argues that it was the prosecution that indirectly raised the issue of self-defense. Hence, he could not be bound by it. This argument deserves scant consideration. Therefore, petitioner can no longer invoke his constitutional right to be presumed innocent of the crime charged. As far as he is concerned, homicide has already been established. The fact of death and its cause were established by his admissions coupled with the other prosecution evidence including the Certificate of Death, the Certificate of Post-Mortem Examination and the Medico-Legal Findings. The intent to kill is likewise presumed from the fact of death. The only pieces of evidence in support of the plea of voluntary surrender made by petitioner are statements made by two (2) prosecution witnesses that they were allegedly told by other people that he had already gone to the police station. There is no showing that he was not actually arrested; or that when he went to the police station, he surrendered himself to a person in authority. Neither is there any finding that he has evinced a desire to own to any complicity in the killing. We have ruled in the past that the accused who had gone to the police headquarters merely to report the shooting incident did not evince any desire to admit responsibility for the killing. Thus, he could not be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered. In the absence of sufficient and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PPTX, PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    10 Ansichten15 Seiten

    Businesses Role in Climate Change

    Hochgeladen von

    Rom
    3. Ladiana vs. People, 393 SCRA 419 FACTS: The accused, a public officer, being then a member of the Integrated National Police (INP now PNP) assigned at the Lumban Police Station, Lumban, Laguna, acting in relation to his duty which is primarily to enforce peace and order within his jurisdiction, taking advantage of his official position confronted Francisco San Juan why the latter was removing the steel pipes which were previously placed to serve as barricade to prevent the entry of vehicles along P. Jacinto Street, Barangay Salac, Lumban, Laguna, purposely to insure the safety of persons passing along the said street and when Francisco San Juan told the accused that the latter has no business in stopping him, said accused who was armed with a firearm, attacked and shot Francisco San Juan with the firearm hitting Francisco San Juan at his head and neck inflicting upon him fatal wounds thereby causing the death of Francisco San Juan. Petitioner admitted that he shot the victim while the latter was attacking him. “Kaya itong si Kapitan San Juan ay sumugod at hinawakan ako sa may leeg ng aking suot na T-shirt upang ako ay muling saksakin; sa dahilang hindi ako makatakbo o makaiwas sa kabila ng aking pananalag hanggang magpaputok ako ng pasumala sa kanya; sa bilis ng pangyayari ay hindi ko alam na siya ay tinamaan” ISSUE: whether he acted in self-defense is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Through the above statement, petitioner admits shooting the victim -- which eventually led to the latter’s death -- but denies having done it with any criminal intent. In fact, he claims he did it in self-defense. Nevertheless, whether categorized as a confession or as an admission, it is admissible in evidence against him. In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing their untruth or by showing they were made by mistake. The party may also establish that the response that formed the admission was made in a jocular, not a serious, manner; or that the admission was made in ignorance of the true state of facts. Yet, petitioner never offered any rationalization why such admissions had been made, thus, leaving them unrebutted. Having admitted that he had fatally shot the victim, petitioner had the duty of showing that the killing was justified, and that the latter incurred no criminal liability therefor. Petitioner should have relied on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that for the prosecution. Even if his evidence be weak, it cannot be disbelieved after the accused has admitted the killing. Petitioner argues that it was the prosecution that indirectly raised the issue of self-defense. Hence, he could not be bound by it. This argument deserves scant consideration. Therefore, petitioner can no longer invoke his constitutional right to be presumed innocent of the crime charged. As far as he is concerned, homicide has already been established. The fact of death and its cause were established by his admissions coupled with the other prosecution evidence including the Certificate of Death, the Certificate of Post-Mortem Examination and the Medico-Legal Findings. The intent to kill is likewise presumed from the fact of death. The only pieces of evidence in support of the plea of voluntary surrender made by petitioner are statements made by two (2) prosecution witnesses that they were allegedly told by other people that he had already gone to the police station. There is no showing that he was not actually arrested; or that when he went to the police station, he surrendered himself to a person in authority. Neither is there any finding that he has evinced a desire to own to any complicity in the killing. We have ruled in the past that the accused who had gone to the police headquarters merely to report the shooting incident did not evince any desire to admit responsibility for the killing. Thus, he could not be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered. In the absence of sufficient and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Als PPTX, PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
    Markieren Sie unangemessene Inhalte
    von 15

    CLIMATE

    CHANGE ACT
    And a little about climate change.
    WHAT IS
    CLIMATE
    CHANGE?
    CLIMATE CHANGE
    ➤ Nagdudulot ng pagbabago sa klima ang maraming mga salik na
    kadalasa’y kinabibilangan ng mga pang araw-araw na gawain ng
    mga tao.
    Halimbawa:
    Greenhouse Effect - isang terminong teknikal na ginagamit
    sa agham na tumutukoy sa pangyayari na kung saan ang init na
    nagmumula sa araw ay naiiwan sa ating himpapawid dala ng pag-
    gamit ng mga greenhouse gases
    Exits the Atmosphere

    Heat

    Enters the
    Atmosphere
    WHAT IS THE
    IMPORTANCE
    OF CLIMATE
    CHANGE
    ACT?
    NOT JUST A LAW
    IT IS NOT JUST A
    LAW
    IT’S ONE OF THE
    POLICIES
    DESIGNED TO
    SAVE A LOT MORE
    THAN ‘JUST’
    TREES
    WHAT IS THE ROLE
    OF THE LOCAL
    GOVERNMENT IN
    IMPLEMENTING
    THE CLIMATE
    CHANGE ACT?
    HOW ABOUT THE
    ESTABLISHMENTS
    AROUND THE AREA?
    FACTORS AFFECTING NATURE IN THE B

    BUSINESSES

    CUSTOMERS EMPLOYEES
    SAMPLE IDEAS - TRIPARTITE SAMPLE IDEAS -
    ROLES IN DEDUCTION
    SUZUKI FOUNDATION
    What you can do for your business?
    . Get involved
    1. Get an energy audit.

    2. Recycle everything you can.


    . Be energy efficient
    3. Reuse whatever you can. Reduce what you can.

    4. Go digital. . Choose renewable power


    5. Get rid of Styrofoam, Thick Plastics, Plastic containers, least-

    degradable materials. . Eat wisely


    6. Eliminate disposables in the break room*

    7. Reduce energy use in the restrooms. . Trim your waste


    8. Switch to eco-friendly cleaning products.

    9. Adjust your thermostat.


    . Let polluters pay
    10. Insulate the building(s)

    11. Use natural lighting when possible, and switch to compact


    . Fly less
    fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs or LEDs

    12. Use Green Packaging.


    . Get informed with Green
    How to get employees involved:
    Options
    13. Give recognition to employees who use green practices.
    . Green your commute
    14. Offer incentives for walking, biking, bus riding or carpooling to
    QUESTION OF EFFICIENCY
    LIGHT EFFICIENCY; BY TYPE
    FACTORS
    Incandescent CFL LED

    Life Span 1,000 hours 6,00050,000 hours

    Watts 40W 9W 6W

    Lumens 400 320 300

    Heat Emitted 56.6 BTUs per hour 20.3 BTUs per hour 2.3 BTUs per hour

    CO2 Emissions 3000 pounds per year 701 pounds per year 301 pounds per year

    Contains Mercury No Yes No

    RoHS Compliant Yes No Yes

    Kilowatts of Electricity Used* 2190 KWh per year 531 KWh per year 228 KWh per year

    Annual Operating Cost* $219.06 per year $53.06 per year $22.76 per year

    Cost of Bulb $0.84 $2.49 (average) $24.99

    Months to Recover Initial Expense N/A Vs. Incandescent: <1 month Vs. Incandescent:

    1.5 months

    Vs. CFL: 9 months


    “ We all know there is never a wrong time to do or say the right thing, but often it’s not
    easy, though. As professionals, we pick many battles; some we win, some we lose.
    A battle against the establishment — power suppliers, producers, systems,
    processes and procedures — brings mixed blessings. If we don't celebrate these
    little wins, we will go down deep in frustration.

    Believing in something with conviction does produce results in the long term. Our
    battles, small or large, define who we are and what we believe in. And a little win like
    this will give me the energy to fight many more battles they are worth the cause.

    SOHAIL HASNIE,
    Principal Energy Specialist, Central and West Asia Regional Department, ADB
    “My battle with incandescent light bulbs (which use about 10% of the electricity they consume to produce light and waste most of

    ANECDOTES
    the rest on generating unnecessary heat) in the Philippines started at the 2008 Philippines Energy Summit, where experts met to

    discuss energy security issues in the country when the price of oil had surpassed $100 a barrel”

    OF A HERO Replacing 1 million incandescent bulbs with CFLs for about $1 million, I pointed out, would

    save up
    The project had many implementation to 50 megawatts
    challenges, (MW) Ioffeltpower,
    but last week insideor
    mythe equivalent
    heart of building
    that all the a $50
    effort was million
    worth power it
    it because

    station (not including maintenance, land acquisition, fuel and emissions).


    contributed to bringing down the number of incandescent bulbs from 180 million units a year
    in 2007 to almost zero in just 8 years. Now, most countries have followed the
    example of the Philippines, not through complicated laws as we thought would be the only way back then but because the

    market simply doesn’t buy inefficient incandescent bulbs anymore.


    TIME AND COOPERATION IS OF THE
    ESSENCE IN THIS ADVOCACY

    Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen