Jump to content

German nabbed for travelling with minor not related to him


Recommended Posts

smokey

i think the reason so many foreigners are said to be guilty is they often do the old trick of if you plead guilty and pay the fine we let you go and everyone wins

 

 

 

 

post-35-0-12582000-1432254898_thumb.jpg  

 

 

 

 

Edited by smokey
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 259
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Tullioz

    33

  • oztony

    26

  • contraman

    18

  • SkyMan

    16

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My wife, when reading this said, " Somebody that was jealous of the family just turned them in, because if there was no complaint, nobody would do anything, the same thing could happen to us"    And

i clicked on the article and to be fair, even if the family is meeting them at the pier the german wasn't riding the bike with the mother or father, he was riding it with the minor girl and showed up

I think you guys should all settle down and read this bit from Senior Supt. Noel Gillamac, Cebu provincial police director.   “There have been parents who, because of poverty, allowed their children

Posted Images

ozboy

Exactly Smokey and its a lucrative new business idea slowy catching up on by SOME locals....

Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyMan

 

 

Lagstrem was not able to show proper documents proving his relationship with the child, thus he was charged with child abuse...
You mention you're around kids a lot.  What proper documents do you carry proving your relationship with each of those children?

 

Then explain how myself and millions of others in this country are allowed to spend time with minors everyday that are in no way related without being arrested. 
Uh, well, the vast majority of those 'millions of others' are pinoy.  I would say the rest of you are living on borrowed time.
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Anyway, this guy was very close to getting arrested for being with 3 underage girls and you would have said it was suspicious because he was alone with them and going to get ice cream so this great law did its job.

No!

The case would have been thrown out of the prosecutors office.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
thebob

 

It really comes down to common sense. How in the world could a country enforce a law where it is illegal for an adult to be in the company of a minor who is not related to them? This is just a tool to immediately rescue a child from potentially dangerous situation without having to build a case first. It has never been used in any other way and it apparently works well.

 

 

Of course I would be detained if I attempted to leave the island with a child. However; if someone has a valid reason and it can be backed up with documentation or undisputable proof that they have no ill intent then they would in all likelihood be allowed to proceed. In that case many people would be covered under this exclusion:

 

...this provision shall not apply to any person who is related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond recognized by law local custom and tradition, or acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty,

 

 

I think what you are missing here is that the law "defines" being alone in a place private or public with a minor as abuse. It is a condition that is prejudicial to the child's development.

 

From this link.

 

http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1992/ra_7610_1992.html

 

"ARTICLE VI

Other Acts of Abuse

Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development. –

(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.

(b) Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years or under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000): Provided, That this provision shall not apply to any person who is related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty.

© Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor to any one prohibited by this Act to keep or have in his company a minor as provided in the preceding paragraph shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period and a fine of not less than Forty thousand pesos (P40,000); Provided, however, That should the perpetrator be an ascendant, stepparent or guardian of the minor, the penalty to be imposed shall be prision mayor in its maximum period, a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and the loss of parental authority over the minor.

(d) Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the operation of any public or private place of accommodation, whether for occupancy, food, drink or otherwise, including residential places, who allows any person to take along with him to such place or places any minor herein described shall be imposed a penalty of prision mayor in its medium period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and the loss of the license to operate such a place or establishment."

 

Article VI Section 10 (b)

 

It isn't dependant on any other form of physical or mental abuse. That is how the law is interpreted and how the police are instructed to enforce it.

 

Your claim that you often engage in such a practise, is ill-advised, not to mention possibly against the rules of this forum. Although I hope your posts aren't deleted as they may be educational for those who do not wish to fall prey to ignorance of local laws.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
A_Simple_Man

 

 

Still not a problem unless you are doing something to make someone think you are going to abuse the children.

 

Easy to prove your point. Put yourself at risk by being with an underage person.  Set up a camera.  Have someone you know drop a dime on you as an 'anonymous concerned citizen'.  Wait for the cops.  Show us the footage.  Prove there was no problem

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyMan

No!

The case would have been thrown out of the prosecutors office.

After how many years and/or thousands of pesos under the table?

 

Shadow mentioned the Berger case.  What about the guy arrested at the airport for kidnapping his girlfriend?  Apparently, even her stating she was going willingly and in no way under duress isn't good enough and the police have no say in whether to arrest or not since a complaint was filed and it is up to the courts to decide (very slowly) how high to hang him.

 

Another case:  A guy that used to live in Liloan had separated from his pinay wife on Camiguin.  He was a Brit so perhaps he divorced her in another country, I don't know.  But by court order she was to get the land and he was to get the car.  When he went to sell the car, she had Camiguin police come to arrest him.  He spent over 90 days in the Camiguin jail and paid a bunch of money to a lawyer including his trips back and forth to Camiguin before the court finally decided he couldn't be guilty of stealing his own car.  Does this sound like the type of legal system that would let a foreigner off for being with a minor because of "statutory construction?"  btw Do you have a link to the RP law regarding Statutory construction?

Edited by SkyMan
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
oztony

It is not against the law to be in the company of minors in the Philippines.

 

Wrong , it is

 

 I explained how that clause works.

 

Credentials please...........

 

 

This law is pretty cut and dry in its interpretation 

 

Yes , it is illegal to be with an unrelated minor , so why are you saying that it is not ?

 

 Are you suggesting the police would allow me to break the law right under their noses?

 

You have God on your side , a lot of us don't.

 

It is a well written law

 

Why , because it encompasses the entire foreign population in the Philippines ?

 

 If you do not do anything that would raise suspicion, you will never be detained for being in the presence of children in the Philippines because that act alone is not illegal.

 

But it is illegal , and you keep saying it is not.......

 

I have tried to explain how this clause works the best that I can, but apparently it is not making sense

 

On this one you are correct.

 

The law is well written and it works.

 

Is that because an arrest can be made , regardless of innocence ?

 

 I would not get on a public forum and spout out a bunch of false information about laws in this country.

 

But that's exactly what you have done.....

 

That is why he was arrested, not for simply being alone with a minor.

 

So if the minor was not there he would have still been arrested ?

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
oztony

The reason I trust this law is because it is well written in my opinion 

 

Key word is highlighted

 

In the context of the article that is not referring to his blood or legal relationship to the child, but rather his reason for being with the child at that time.

relationship: noun 1. a connection, association, or involvement.

 

He was a family friend , therefore still guilty because the law makes sure of that.....

 

That's about as close as you are going to get when it comes to the law in any country. 

 

I disagree with that comment

 

How in the world could a country enforce a law where it is illegal for an adult to be in the company of a minor who is not related to them? 

It has never been used in any other way and it apparently works well.

 

The Philippines does it , we are talking about the Philippines aren't we ?

How do you know that it has never been used in any other way , enlighten us

 

If the children are related to your wife you have nothing to worry about.

 

I doubt that very much , ask the Swede that was taking his Fiancè's neice to the doctors if this rings true.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
shadow

After how many years and/or pesos under the table?

Depends on whether or not you have the pesos on hand to pay the first request. The amount will go up each time you don't pay up!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
spydoo
 

I think what you are missing here is that the law "defines" being alone in a place private or public with a minor as abuse. It is a condition that is prejudicial to the child's development.

Guessing that you meant to write, "It is a condition that *it* is..." (Sorry to be pedantic but it does change the meaning),

 

Unfortunately that is not a condition. It is not required that each point be met. In other words, read the law as though it has an "OR" between each paragraph.

 

To prove my point, if each condition had to be met, the person would also need to be the owner of a place of public accommodation as in (d), which is obviously not the case.

So if the minor was not there he would have still been arrested ?

To be fair, he didn't say that. The word, "simply" means that he was saying there needed to be other conditions met as well. I'm not saying Tullioz is right, just that this part of your argument was wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyMan

 

 

Below is what he said his relationship to the child was.    Jonny Lagstrem told Maritime police he had brought the girl to a hospital in Cebu City for medical treatment.   Apparently he was unable to prove this. Had he indeed taken the child to the doctor their would have been receipts  and records of this would there not? 
We don't know if he did or he didn't.  No mention was ever made as to whether this was ever investigated and since he was already guilty just by being with her, why would they bother to investigate? 

 

Here's something to mull about this case though.  Put yourself in the shoes of a pedo for a moment and assume that other than being a pedo he had at least half a brain.  He has his sights on this 9yo girl in Masbate.  Why would he take her on a long ferry ride r/t to Cebu just for his heinous crime?  Wouldn't it be so much easier to just rent a scooter and take her to some out of the way location on that island without drawing a bunch of attention to himself?  What would be the big idea of going all the way to Cebu which I believe was just for one night.  Ok, so maybe it was all an elaborate scheme to give him an excuse for being with her.  You could be right but if that were the case, that he spent all this time and money for an alibi, then why wouldn't get to the doctor too?  p300 for an office visit with a regular doctor, maybe p500 at a hospital, certainly a specialist would be no more than p1K.  Maybe Harry can find out if any investigation was done or not but I suspect not.  They got their bail money and whatever other payoffs he had to make and the case faded away.  

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
KennyF

 

 

When he went to sell the car, she had Camiguin police come to arrest him.

 

 

If we're talking about the same guy.....

He was charged with and convicted of faking documents regarding the car. I believe he got 6 months.

 

Since then he has abandoned the daughter by his ex wife and the kid he had with the girlfriend.

 

KonC

Link to post
Share on other sites
thebob

 

 

I think what you are missing here is that the law "defines" being alone in a place private or public with a minor as abuse. It is a condition that is prejudicial to the child's development.

 

 

 

Guessing that you meant to write, "It is a condition that *it* is..." (Sorry to be pedantic but it does change the meaning),   Unfortunately that is not a condition. It is not required that each point be met. In other words, read the law as though it has an "OR" between each paragraph.

 

Oh don't apologise, I admire pedantry.

 

The first "It" in my second sentence in an anaphoric reference to "being alone in a place private or public with a minor as abuse". My use of the word "condition" isn't used in an exclusionary fashion but is intended to indicate situation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..

Capture.JPG

I Understand...