This refers to the seemingly unchecked urban legend that the charges against P-Noy have been downgraded.
Critics say on his supposed criminal liability on Mamasapano that the charge should be reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Huh! Such recklessness.
Reckless imprudence— which assumes “without malice”—resulting in homicide, even if multiple, is punishable by a maximum term of six years.
I am not aware if the penalty has been amended upward.
The fact that an offense is eminently bailable and probationable indicates its being light. Truly serious heinous
offenses are not bailable.
And why Mamasapano 44? Why not 45? Or 46? Etc.
In Mamasapano, why not include innocent Sara, the five-year-old Muslim girl killed in the operation, or the Muslim farmer whose eyes were even gouged out? Civilians are not combatants.
Justice for the 44, justice for all. Muslim lives also matter.
If I were P-Noy, I’d welcome the downgrading to an offense (recklessness) not carrying moral turpitude, which graft (not probationable) and possibly usurpation (probationable) carry. To me, the ombudsman is anti-P-Noy for not simply charging him with reckless imprudence, a bailable lightweight offense whose penalty is so low.
On whose side is she anyway? If the Supreme Court upholds the watchdog’s perplexing petition and downgrades the charge to recklessness, it may court the indictment of being pro-P-Noy.
I have some familiarity with Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code as I lost my wife on Nov. 8, 2007, due to reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (in her case) and physical injuries (driver’s and mine). It may have further loosened my head from being properly and tightly screwed on.
On Mamasapano, I believe
P-Noy answers to his conscience and history, not to any court or complainants, filing a charge with reckless imprudence.
R.A.V. SAGUISAG, Palanan, Makati City