Mr Lee Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 And yet another story and another photo, she is filling the news today. Mystery tipster in Cebu exposed Bella’s shopping trip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 So she was hiding and walking around a mall dressed like that and with her new tattoos on her legs, I guess she did not stand out too much. :) Link to updated news story Excuse me while I put a finger down my throat. "Hiding" with all that attention gettingtats? At least she should be charged with felony ugliness. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candyman Posted October 8, 2011 Author Posted October 8, 2011 The copper must have been pretty well on the ball, or he had an in depth description of her from the tip off, because to me, she looks nothing at all like the original photographs ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markham Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 The tipster said Santos was in Forever 21, a fashion store, buying assorted clothes.Depending which newspaper account you read she was in a clothing store, a magazine store or a health food shop. Three papers, one source (the NBI) and three locations. Brilliant! And Sun Star columnist and Attorney Frank Malilong, who has befriended the Pique family, couldn't even get Ellah Joy's father's name correct in his column today. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lee Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 Yet another story basically saying what I already wrote above, so IMHO in the Philippines few would be totally safe when it comes to large amounts of money, so it does not surprise me that someone turned her in. Anyone want to take bets that her family turned her in? I do find the one quote below strange, why would they allow her bail if she did not turn herself in, and thus had to be tracked down. I am sure the judge will figure she would likely run again. If Santos will be allowed to post bail for the kidnapping with homicide case she is facing she still has pornography charges due to the DVD covers of nude pictures of minors found in her house. After her arrest last Friday afternoon in a mall in Ortigas, Manila, the family of Santos suspected that she was betrayed by someone close to her.Her mother, Perla Erejano, admitted that she was downhearted upon hearing the voice of her daughter over the phone telling her not to worry because she was safe at the national headquarters of the National Bureau of Investigation where she was taken after her arrest.Someone close betrayed Santos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lee Posted October 8, 2011 Posted October 8, 2011 (edited) But but but Markham said somewhere in one or more of his post that there was no way she could get bail, so how can that be? :) I wonder who is right, her attorney or Mark? Either way, now I would doubt they would let her out on bail, even if it was possible before she ran, but since we are talking about the Philippines, anything is possible. :unsure: Also how can the trial start when Mark was so sure it could not without Ian? :unsure: I am sooooo confused now. :( Could it be that she could have turned herself in and then been released on bail? If they do not have a strong case as her attorney and Markham seem to imply, then they would have had to let her out on bail according to the quote below, but maybe the news or her lawyer got it wrong. :unsure: Wouldn't it be a kick in the arse if her lawyer is correct and she blew (pun intended) :devil: the chance to get out on bail by running? Under the 1987 Constitution, an accused has the right to bail unless he or she is charged with a capital offense where evidence of guilt is strong. “With her arrest, the trial can start. We leave it to the court to determine whether she is guilty or not.” BAIL BID FOR BELLA Edited October 8, 2011 by Mr. Lee add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markham Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Those the newspapers quote as saying that the trial can now start are overlooking the fact that one of the defendants is missing. I would suggest that the judge would not allow the trial to commence until there will be some resolution as to whether Griffiths will attend. The Philippines Constitution does not provide for trials to be held in absentia - the accused has the Constitutional right to be faced, in court, by his accuser(s) - but since Griffiths is not in the country and not a Philippines citizen, that may not apply. However, should they attempt to try him (along with Santos), that could cause diplomatic problems - especially if [a] no request for his extradition has been made, or, a request has been made and it is under consideration, or, [c] a request has been turned-down, or, [d] the Crown decides to prosecute him in England. Right now, no request has been made of the British Government. But if they do go ahead and try him in absentia and find him guilty - and given the nature of this case, that is very likely (it is similar to the case of Hubert Webb) - the Philippine Government could request his extradition to serve his sentence. That's a more dangerous scenario for Griffiths. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garpo Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Not sure about the Philippines but back in US of A. No need to wait for all charged parties to be arrested or in custody. Don't see why they can't go ahead and try her by herself and then him if and when the time comes. Why is it that they have to be tried together at the same time? Is it Philippine law? From what I gather you are saying is that in the Philippines as long as one defendant can stay at large then there will never be a trial. That just does not make any common sense to me. But then again there are a lot of people that would probably say I do not have any sense anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lee Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 Those the newspapers quote as saying that the trial can now start are overlooking the fact that one of the defendants is missing. I would suggest that the judge would not allow the trial to commence until there will be some resolution as to whether Griffiths will attend. The Philippines Constitution does not provide for trials to be held in absentia - the accused has the Constitutional right to be faced, in court, by his accuser(s) - but since Griffiths is not in the country and not a Philippines citizen, that may not apply. However, should they attempt to try him (along with Santos), that could cause diplomatic problems - especially if [a] no request for his extradition has been made, or, a request has been made and it is under consideration, or, [c] a request has been turned-down, or, [d] the Crown decides to prosecute him in England. Right now, no request has been made of the British Government. But if they do go ahead and try him in absentia and find him guilty - and given the nature of this case, that is very likely (it is similar to the case of Hubert Webb) - the Philippine Government could request his extradition to serve his sentence. That's a more dangerous scenario for Griffiths. Mark Mark could you please post the part of the constitution which say it is not allowed. In fact whenever you make statements such as what the law is, could you please also post the link to said law and a quote from it. Also I am not sure what you are saying, you say the accused has a constitutional right to be faced in court by his accuser(s), so it looks like you are you saying that Griffiths is one of the the accusers? Is that what you are saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markham Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 (edited) Mark could you please post the part of the constitution which say it is not allowed. In fact whenever you make statements such as what the law is, could you please also post the link to said law and a quote from it. Also I am not sure what you are saying, you say the accused has a constitutional right to be faced in court by his accuser(s), so it looks like you are you saying that Griffiths is one of the the accusers? Is that what you are saying?You've misunderstood me, I think Lee! What I said is that the accused (Griffiths) has the right to be faced by his accuser (Renante Pique) at his trial. That's not quite correct, what I should have said is that Griifiths has the right to meet the witnesses face to face - one of whom is Renante Pique, his accuser. The latest Philippine Constitution Section 14(2) is where you'll find:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. However, note Section 14(1):No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.Griffiths has not been served with any papers by the Philippine authorities. Note also Section 21: No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. which I think you will agree that if he is tried and acquitted in the UK, he can not be tried here for the same offence(s). All clear now? :unsure: Mark Edited October 9, 2011 by Markham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts