Do you agree with the dismissal of "*** inside Car" complaint?

[omad]

---

I hope this won't become a precedent...
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Tint saves ***-in-car lovers

What happens inside a private vehicle is a private matter.

A 36-year-old Filipino-American and a 25-year-old woman would have kept it that way, if not for a roving security guard who caught them having *** inside the car at a mall’s basement parking area.

They were arrested, but the complaint for grave scandal against them did not prosper.

The Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the complaint, saying the act cannot be considered “offensive and scandalous.”

Assistant Cebu City Prosecutor Liceria Lofranco-Rabillas explained that a case for grave scandal “consists of acts that are offensive to decency and good customs, which, having been committed publicly, have given rise to public scandal to persons who have accidentally witnessed the same.”

“The alleged acts done by respondents cannot be considered committed in a public place, as well as cannot be considered offensive and highly scandalous,” Rabillas stated in her single-page resolution.

full story
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

[Metz]

aw di man ko lawyer so di ko kadispute. pero murag pde mani makiha, basin na "influence" lng ang prosecutor

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

I agree with the ruling . Its done in private and its done without compromising the public . Ngano man diay ug ga uyog ? Pwede pa gani makiha ang sikyo sa gi buhat niya for invasion of privacy . If the security thinks other than *** ang nahitabo like ga away , he has to wait for the occupants to come out , dili niya silipon ang TINTED na bintana .

[pnoize]

The prosecutor actually has a point. It cannot be called a public scandal since it was hidden via tinted car, plus the fact that people do not actually stay in parking lots. Now if the car was lightly or did not have any tint at all it would'v e been a different story since it would've been in public view.

[iloveyou4ever]

Dapat ikiha jud katong mga GUARDS nga nagdakop nila. It was a private matter and here we go, the security guard invaded their rights of privacy. Kung ako pa sa duha, ikiha jud nako ang mga GUARDS!!

[cebutech]

yes. i agree.

[lestat1116]

so this means basta tinted lang kaayo imo auto pwede na magsex did2?

[rey04]

yup, pwede kaayo! nganong manghilabot man sila sa privacy sa tao? we live in a democratic country and freedom should be observed on all aspects of life. kaning ayala management magpakalimpyo as in wa pud silay gibuhat nga ingon ana! sauna pana sila hilabtanon magpark gani sa dalan ila dayon pahawaon! dont know y they do it.....

so this means basta tinted lang kaayo imo auto pwede na magsex did2?

[iloveyou4ever]

so this means basta tinted lang kaayo imo auto pwede na magsex did2?

Sus kanang mga guard, mapaka kita gani na sila sa ilang private parts sa sulod sa male toilet. Specially kung gwapa kaayo ang bayot nga musulod diha. Ay nalang.

[talsik]

get a room oi!!! ug mag *** man gani pahiluna that is something not to be done in a car for God sake! that's preposterous...

With regards to the guard, he's just doing his job, that is to inspection the basement and to secure the cars in the parking lot. An to peep inside the tinted window is not an intrusion to one's privacy. because the guard has a reasonable ground to believe that there is something unusual in the car. It is part of his duty to check what's going on ,basically, within the bounds of his duty.

Peace of advice....GET A ROOM!!!! :mrgreen: