Full Text
Rosanna L. Tan-Andal Vs. Mario Victor M. Andal
G.R. No. 196359. May 11, 2021
Law School and Bar Exam Advice Every Aspiring Lawyer Needs Right Now. #Grit #Excellence #Heart
“Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember you have within you the strength, the patience and the passion to reach for the stars, to change the world.” –Harriet Tubman
Driven by his passion and zeal, our good friend, Mr. and Future Attorney Hans Kasilag, endeavored to reach out to the luminaries in the legal profession and public service to ask them for advice concerning his desire to become a lawyer. He is so kind to share all the responses he got with all of us.
Happy reading!
From Vice President Leni Robredo
From Supreme Court Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa
From Atty. Chel Diokno
From Governor Francis “Chiz” Escudero
Thank you, future Atty. Hans Kabisag. Pinay Jurist wishes you and every one here all the best!
“All our dreams can come true if we have the courage to pursue them.” —Walt Disney
Pinay Jurist on YouTube
x x x [a] Summary of the witnesses’ intended testimonies, provided that the judicial affidavits of said witnesses shall be attached to the pleading and form an integral part thereof.
Image by Rebecca Brand https://rebeccabrand.org/
JURISDICTION OF CYBERCRIME COURTS
R.A. 10175
RA 10175, otherwise known as the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012” defines acts constituting Cybercrime offenses; prescribes penalties therefor; and provides procedures facilitating their detection, investigation, and prosecution.
Section 21 of RA 10175 provides:
SEC. 21. Jurisdiction. — The Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction over any violation of the provisions of this Act. including any violation committed by a Filipino national regardless of the place of commission. Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements was committed within the Philippines or committed with the use of any computer system wholly or partly situated in the country, or when by such commission any damage is caused to a natural
or juridical person who, at the time the offense was committed, was in the Philippines.
There shall be designated special cybercrime courts manned by specially trained judges to handle cybercrime cases.
Implementing Rules thereof explicitly directs the designation of special Cybercrime Courts manned by specially trained judges to handle cybercrime cases which shall have jurisdiction over Cybercrime cases:
RULE 4
Jurisdiction
Section 21. Jurisdiction. – The Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction over any violation of the provisions of the Act, including any violation committed by a Filipino national regardless of the place of commission. Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements was committed within the Philippines, or committed with the use of any computer system that is wholly or partly situated in the country, or when by such commission any damage is caused to a natural or juridical person who, at the time the offense was committed, was in the Philippines.
Section 22. Venue. – Criminal action for violation of the Act may be filed with the RTC of the province or city where the cybercrime or any of its elements is committed, or where any part of the computer system used is situated, or where any of the damage caused to a natural or juridical person took place: Provided, That the court where the criminal action is first filed shallacquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.
Section 23. Designation of Cybercrime Courts. – There shall be designated special cybercrime courts manned by specially trained judges to handle cybercrime cases.
Pursuant to Section 23 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, the Supreme Court issued A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC, “Designating Certain Branches of the Regional Trial Courts to Try and Decide Cybercrime Cases under Republic Act No, 10175”, on November 15, 2016.
The above-mentioned Resolution pronounced:
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court resolves as follows:
1. The Regional Trial Court branches designated as Special Commercial Courts in A.M. No. 03-03-03-SC dated June 17, 2003 are hereby further DESIGNATED as “Cybercrime Courts” to try and decide cybercrime cases covered under Republic Act No. 10175, in addition to their designation as Special Commercial Courts;
x x x
5. Cybercrime Courts in Quezon City, Manila, Makati, and Pasig shall have authority to act on applications for the issuance of search warrants involving violations of Republic Act No. 10175, which search warrants shall be enforceable nationwide.
x x x
Where to file an Application for a Cybercrime Warrant?
Section 2.2 of A.M. No.17-11-03-SC [the Rule on Cybercrime Warrants]. Quoted as follows:
Section 2.2. Where to File an Application for a Warrant. -An application for a warrant under this Rule concerning a violation of Section 4 (Cybercrime Offenses) and/or Section 5 (Other Offenses), Chapter II of RA 10175 shall be filed by the law enforcement authorities before any of the designated cybercrime courts of the province or the city where the offense or any of its elements has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, or where any part of the computer system used is situated, or where any of the damage caused to a natural or juridical person took place. However, the cybercrime courts in Quezon City, the City of Manila, Makati City, Pasig City, Cebu City, Iloilo City, Davao City and Cagayan De Oro City shall have the special authority to act on applications and issue warrants which shall be enforceable nationwide and outside the Philippines.
It is clear from the foregoing provisions that it is the appropriate Commercial Courts designated as a Cybercrime Court which has jurisdiction over cybercrimes and to issue cybercrime warrants when proper.
Notes & Cases | Political Law Pt.1
Notes & Cases | Remedial Law Pt. 1
On May 1, 2020, A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC took effect and introduced amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Notable Amendments under
RULE 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
Section 2. Pleadings allowed.
An answer may be responded to by a reply only if the defending party attaches an actionable document to the answer. (2a)
Section 3. Complaint. – The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff’s or claiming party’s cause or causes of action.
Section 3. Complaint. – The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff’s or claiming party’s cause or causes of action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint. (3a)
Section 4. Answer. – An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his or her defenses. (4a)
Section 5. Defenses.
Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the dismissal of a complaint, specifically, that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment.
Section 7. Compulsory counterclaim.
A compulsory counterclaim not raised in the same action is barred, unless otherwise allowed by these Rules.
Section 10. Reply. — All new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set forth in an amended or supplemental complaint. However, the plaintiff may file a reply only if the defending party attaches an actionable document to his or her answer.
A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of new matters alleged in, or relating to, said actionable document.
In the event of an actionable document attached to the reply, the d
Section 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)-party complaint.
The third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint shall be denied admission, and the court shall require the defendant to institute a separate action, where: (a) the third (fourth, etc.)- party defendant cannot be located within thirty (30) calendar days from the grant of such leave; (b) matters extraneous to the issue in the principal case are raised; or (c) the effect would be to introduce a new and separate controversy into the action. (11a)
3 Minute Motivation | Law School & the Bar
The Stockholm Syndrome
Stockholm syndrome is a term that had been coined to explain the apparently irrational feelings of some captives for their captors.
The name of the syndrome was derived from the 1973 bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden.
Jan-Erik Olsson entered Sveriges Kreditbank in Stockholm, carrying a loaded machine gun, declared a robbery, and took four bank employees as hostages.
The hostages were held at gunpoint, and taken into the bank’s main vault.
Olsson demanded more than $700,000 in Swedish and foreign currency, a getaway car and the release of Clark Olofsson, who was serving time for robbery and murder. The police delivered Olofsson and then, there were two of them holding the hostages.
Amidst their ordeal, and even when threatened with physical harm, the hostages appeared to develop sympathy and compassion towards their captors, and formed a strange and very unlikely bond with them.
The standoff lasted for six (6) days. The police drilled a hole into the vault and managed to launch a gas attack. The robbers had no choice but to surrender after more than 130 hours.
In the end, the convicts and hostages embraced, kissed and shook hands. When the police arrested the gunmen, two female hostages cried, “Don’t hurt them—they didn’t harm us”
Olofsson and Olsson were imprisoned, and their hostages made jailhouse visits to them.
Within months of the siege, psychiatrists dubbed the strange phenomenon “Stockholm Syndrome.”
Psychologists who have studied the syndrome believe that the bond is initially created when a captor threatens a captive’s life, deliberates, and then chooses not to kill the captive. The captive’s relief at the removal of the death threat is transposed into feelings of gratitude toward the captor for giving him or her life.
Another case of the “Stockholm Syndrome” was that of the heiress Patty Hearst, who was only 19 years old when she was kidnapped from her apartment in Berkeley, California by Symbionese Liberation Army, a group of revolutionary militants. Hearst not only developed emotional attachment to her captors, she even joined them in a series of robberies. She was eventually arrested and charged. Hearst used the “Stockholm Syndrome as her defense to the charges against her.
She was eventually convicted and received a prison sentence. After almost two years in prison Hearst, was granted a full Presidential Pardon by President Clinton in January 2001.
According to Steven Norton, a forensic psychologist, the symptoms of Stockhold Syndrome could overlap with those associated with other diagnoses, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and “learned helplessness.”
He also said that it is a survival strategy and coping mechanism that is based on the level of fear, dependency and trauma of the situation.
Sources:
Klein, Christopher. Stockholm Syndrome: The True Story of Hostages Loyal to Their Captor retrieved from history.com
Burton, Neel, M.D. (March 24, 2012) What Underlies Stockholm Syndrome? Psychology Today
Westcott, Kathryn. (August 22, 2013) What is Stockholm syndrome? BBC News Magazine
Nierenberg, Cari (June 27, 2019) What is Stockholm syndrome? Retrieved from livescience.com
Heckler’s Veto
Heckler’s veto refers to restrictions on speech inciting hostile reactions.
The offense to audiences and their reactions to expression generally have been important justifications for restrictions on speech. Issues of obscenity and “fighting words” are common examples. The circumstances that raise a heckler’s veto, in which the claim of offense has been viewed with much greater skepticism, can be distinguished in two ways.
First, speech protected by raising the heckler’s veto objection is considered to have some value or contribution to public debate, unlike the forms of speech that the Supreme Court has left categorically unprotected.
Second, cases involving supposed hecklers’ vetoes usually concern the behavior of crowds, not an impressionable observer or an individual who might be provoked to fight.
Heckler’s veto ‘doctrine’ refers to the government’s responsibility to control the crowd.
A heckler’s veto “doctrine” has sometimes been articulated as the principle that the Constitution requires the government to control the crowd in order to defend the communication of ideas, rather than to suppress the speech.
Heckler’s veto cases typically consider the appropriate behavior of local law enforcement when a crowd or individual threatens hostile action in response to a demonstration or speaker.
It recognizes that when a mob is angered by a speaker and jeopardizes the public order by threatening the speaker, the policeman must act to preserve the opportunity of an individual to speak. The duty of the policeman is to restrain the mob.
While the term was first coined by First Amendment scholar Harry Kalven, the credit for originating the concept of an impermissible “heckler’s veto” is given to Justice Black in his dissent in Feiner v. New York (1951).
In this case, Mr. Irving Feiner was speaking to a crowd of black and white people. Mr. Feiner was allegedly encouraging the African-Americans in the crowd to take up arms against whites to secure their civil rights and was hurling insults at a wide range of public figures, including the President and the mayor of Syracuse. The police determined that a fight was about to break out among the members of the crowd. Consequently, they asked Mr. Feiner to stop speaking and to ask the crowd to disperse. When he refused, the police arrested him. He was convicted of breaching the peace and failing to obey a police officer.
The Supreme Court nevertheless upheld Irving Feiner’s conviction under the clear and present danger doctrine because, in the trial court’s view, “a clear danger of disorder was threatened.”
It ruled that Feiner caused a breach of the peace after the police asked him three times to stop speaking to a crowd that was growing hostile.
In general, the core concern with the heckler’s veto is that allowing the suppression of speech because of the discontent of the opponents provides the perverse incentive for opponents to threaten violence rather than to meet ideas with more speech.
Heckler’s veto cases are helpful because they illustrate the fundamental conflict between two members of the public with competing speech goals and the role of the state in promoting the dissemination of messages. Heckler’s veto cases justify compelling (and prohibiting) state action to promote the First Amendment goal of disseminating unpopular views.
Heckler’s veto cases recognize that it is important for conflicting speakers to have access to the same audience or crowd. Heckler’s veto cases do not permit the state to hide behind the unpleasant reaction of some portions of the public in order to silence a speaker.
Thus, the obligation of the state to protect a speaker is engendered by the state’s police power to prevent and regulate violence.
Heckler’s veto cases also recognize that it is important for competing speakers to have access to the same audience or crowd. The heckler’s veto doctrine grew out of the seminal doctrine of “clear and present danger.”
Terminiello v. Chicago
A landmark heckler’s veto case is Terminiello v. Chicago [337 U.S. 1 (1949)], in which a riot took place outside an auditorium before, during, and after a controversial speech. Justice William O. Douglas, writing for a 5-4 majority, held unconstitutional Arthur Terminiello’s conviction for causing a breach of the peace, noting that speech fullfills “its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.”
Justice Douglas explained that “a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute.” “The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion. . . . [I]t is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that the government remains responsive to the will of the people . . . . The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.” “[T]he alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.”
Sources:
Fiss, Owen M., (n.d.) Free Speech and Social Structure, Yale Law School
Schmidt, Patrick. (n.d.) THE FIRST AMENDMENT ENCYCLOPEDIA The Middle Tennessee State University retrieved from https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/968/heckler-s-veto
Leanza, Cheryl A. (n.d.) HECKLER’S VETO CASE LAW AS A RESOURCE FOR DEMOCRATIC DISCOURSE retrieved from https://law.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/journals/lawreview/lrv_issues_v35n03_cc10.leanza.final.pdf
Mental Health and Productivity Boost for busy Law Students [Under Quarantine]
While you have a good deal of responsibilities with your law studies and preparations for the bar, don’t be too hard on yourself. You MATTER. Your WELL-BEING comes FIRST.
Please consider the following list and check on yourself and your loved ones in this particular time that everyone is being restrained and recreation is restricted indoors so much so that people turn to the internet to “keep them sane” and to cope. But is it really the answer? Maybe there’s more.
Although this is structured especially for when you’re a law student, (driven, committed, and well, busy studying), some ideas here can be shared to loved ones who are not as busy.
First of all, be grateful. Having gratitude is very important to keep you grounded and faithful.
If you believe in what you pray for, you say Thank You to God as if you have already received it.
You’ve been working so hard to be right where you are now. Anticipate getting what you pray for with your enduring diligence and tremendous passion.
Manage your thoughts. Having that goal of becoming a lawyer, visualize success and keep that mindset. A mind filled with success driven thoughts is a healthy and happy mind. It keeps you motivated and that is good for increasing productivity.
Take control of what stays in your head.
You are now mentally set to conquer it all. Now follow it right up with a milestone.
Perhaps, it is as simple as making your bed to a very polished, hotel-like finish, or making your to-do list for the day, if you have not done so yet, or maybe writing down on your journal.
These are but small things that really count.
A satisfying feeling of accomplishment is guaranteed thereafter.
This is setting yourself up for a good, productive day you will thank yourself later for.
Read, not your law books or reviewer (yet). A book/an e-book, or listen to an audio-book or a podcast.
Reading an actual book or listening to a podcast can be your distraction from social media.
Scrolling through your facebook newsfeed in the morning may be the cause of anxiety, trigger for depression, or crank up a bad mood. So be cautious and keep yourself guarded.
Consider some of these books you can read on the side:
The Bible
Greek Mythology
Reader’s Digest
Psychology Today
The Economist
Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill
Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Listening to music is also a good alternative if you are not an Oscar Wilde loving or you do not own any book other than your law books. Let the music heal your soul.
SELF CARE and “ME TIME”
While everything else in here is also about self-care, emphasis is given to the following for their tremendous effect on our mental and over all health.
- Eat balanced meals to fuel your mind and body for what you have planned to accomplish for the day. It is also very important to not skip meals.
Swap the chips and candies to these healthier alternatives for snacks.
Nuts (Cashew nuts, Almonds, etc.)
Dark chocolate
Fresh fruits
Yogurt
- Exercise.
It improves your mood and gets your blood flowing. Good blood circulation makes the brain happy and boosts your energy.
You can do it anytime of the day really.
However, you do not turn to exercise as a quick fix for the heavy meal you just had. When you workout, incorporate measurements in it. Time is measurement, and so is intensity. It does not have to be for two hours, and low impact exercises is still better than none. It’s up to you to make your exercise count.
- Meditate/ practice yoga.
If you are not into any of the two, it is worth trying really. Alternatively, you can get about the same benefits by getting some fresh air and taking intentional, deep breaths. Deeply breathing is not only calming, it also taps into your nervous system to relieve stress and anxiety. Cultivate a good amount of positivity and harmony from within.
RELATIONSHIPS
Surround yourself with people who bring out the best in you. Get connected with the people who matter most to you, if they happen to be elsewhere.
Make the effort to reach out. You have your alliance of support with these people in your life, so check on them too, and offer emotional and mental support to them. Maybe they need a good talk or kind words from someone, every now and then. Be happy to give them a moment of your time, it will be good for you too.
SELF- LOVE
Pamper yourself and give yourself nice things.
More sleep; little naps; a nice bath, or a hot shower with music playing in the background; scented candles or humidifier with essential oil; exchanging relaxing massages with your partner or a family member; playing board games or card games, or pinoy henyo; window shopping online is fine too, if you’re not impulsive to ‘add to cart’ and can patiently wait for the delivery. Otherwise, just look around and ‘add them to list’ for now. Lastly, Netflix and chill.
COMMUNITY
Give back to the community in your own little ways. Offering to help and reaching out to others to lend a helping hand, creates a support network and a great opportunity to to turn acquaintances into friendships.
Build connections with people who are in the same situation as you and support one another and encourage each other.
FINALLY,
Be weird. Dance Like No one is watching. Sing your heart out in the shower. Have a good laugh over funny shows and movies. Keep calm and don’t stress over anything.
DO MORE OF WHAT MAKES YOU HAPPY.
xoxo
Pinay Jurist
Thank You All
Loading…
ProductiviTips Amidst the COVID 19 Lockdown
Do you feel like your productivity level is at its all time low these days? Now this home quarantine scheme to prevent the spread of COVID 19, while ideal for public health and for the preservation of humanity, can be very tricky. I, for one, would not know what day it is unless I look at the calendar. These days, it is either just day or night.
Meantime, I’ve come up for myself a list of productivity hacks and skills to beat the conundrum that is brought before me.
I honestly believe that when something is usually tedious or is rather hard to do, easier said than done, and nearly impossible, but you are able to do it anyway, it is considered a skill.
Here goes the actionable list.
1. Regulate your use of Social Media: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and to some, TikTok.
Reflection:
Do you feel that you are investing in yourself by being in Social Media for a considerable amount of time during the entire period of the lockdown? Yes or no?
Sometimes, it just happens. When you are on your phone scrolling through social media, you will find that you’ve already spent unproductive hours lurking and liking, instead of reading or studying.
What you can do is to track your social media activities and the time you spend on them in a day.
When you see that you are overdoing it, then stop, and do something about it.
Decide how much time in a day you can spend or willing to spend being on social media. Be true to yourself, and decide wisely.
Stick to a rather limited time and commit to a considerably regulated use of social media.
2. Make a To-Do List for the day/ for the next day (if you prefer to do it at night).
Be intentional about how you want to spend your day while you’re in the comfort of your own home. Sometimes, I get into into the details by indicating the time that I will be doing my “to-do’s”.
Although I feel that I don’t have to allot a particular time frame to accomplish each item because I have more time now, than ever before, due to the lockdown. One might actually be better off dedicating a specific time for each task “to-do”.
That feeling of accomplishment and pride when you check off items in your to-do list, is worth all the trouble of writing them down in the first place.
3. Do some memory work while washing your [dirty] hands.
There is no need the emphasize the importance of washing your hands these days.
You know what it is they say.
“Once who comes to court, must have clean hands”.
And of course, to combat COVID 19.
I now wash my hands thoroughly while reciting the Lawyer’s Oath. I’m proud to say I’ve memorized it through spaced repetition.
4. Find something interesting to do or seek a new hobby.
Explore with a purpose. Yes, that is productive. Make use of your spare time finding something interesting to read and doing something you enjoy.
For example, my downtime really is playing Wordscape, [believing that it will increase my vocabulary somehow], strumming the guitar, [I love music but the feeling is not mutual, so the struggle is very apparent], learning Spanish [with the use of online tutorials, and I’m still on the basics], reading a book [by Napoleon Hill, currently] and lastly, Netflix and chill, being the real deal.
[Sherlock, Interior Design TV shows, and Forensic Files are on My List. Thankfully, I’m done with ‘Crash Landing On You’. I’m glad it was the first series I watched at the beginning of the lockdown. Now I can brag about watching Sherlock at the moment].
Before we get very personal, with my disclosures so far, the 5th and last tip is:
5. DECLUTTER.
Lucky you, I have a YouTube video on this. You can just sit back, and watch {enough with the reading).
And lucky me, I’ll be done with the list by simply embedding the video right here:
Muchos Gracias!
Carpe [Every] Diem.
Pinay Jurist
The Rights of the Accused to Exculpatory Evidence
BRADY v. MARYLAND
John Leo Brady and his companion Donald Boblit were found guilty of murder in the first degree, and were both sentenced to death for the murder of 53-year-old William Brooks.
Brady and Boblit were tried separately. At his trial, Brady admitted participating in the crime but claimed that his companion did the actual killing.
Prior to the trial, Brady’s counsel had requested the prosecution to allow him to examine the companion’s extrajudicial statements. Several of these were shown to him; but one in which the companion admitted the actual killing was withheld by the prosecution and did not come to petitioner’s notice until after he had been tried, convicted and sentenced and after his conviction had been affirmed by the Maryland Court of Appeals. In a post-conviction proceeding, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecutor denied petitioner due process of law, and it remanded the case for a new trial of the question of punishment, but not the question of guilt, since it was of the opinion that nothing in the suppressed confession “could have reduced [petitioner’s] offense below murder in the first degree.” [BRADY v. MARYLAND 373 U.S. 83 (1963)]
In a nutshell, Brady v. Maryland held that the prosecution violates the Due Process Clause when it fails to disclose material evidence favorable to the accused.
Brady v. Maryland is a landmark criminal procedure case that rivals Miranda v. Arizona in importance. It seeks to ensure that criminal defendants enjoy fair opportunities to defend themselves by providing them access to information that tends to show their innocence. [Law Shelf Educational Media. (n.d.) Defendants’ Rights to Exculpatory Evidence: Brady v. Maryland Retrieved from https://lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontentview/defendants-rights-to-exculpatory-evidence-brady-v-maryland]
The Brady rule rests on the notion that a criminal trial is a search for the truth. As Justice Fortas later asserted, ‘The State’s obligation is not to convict, but to see that, so far as possible, truth emerges.”[Hochman, Robert (1996) “Brady v Maryland and the Search for Truth in Criminal Trials,” University of Chicago Law Review: Vol. 63 : Iss. 4] [see also Giles v Maryland, 386 US 66, 98 (1967) (Fortas concurring)].
The Brady rule aims at discovering the truth and achieving fairness in the criminal process. Courts must take the utmost care when there is reason to doubt the accuracy of a conviction. When state actors have in their possession evidence that raises such doubts, then the courts must make them produce it. [Hochman. (1996). p. 1705]
Quick Backstory:
John L. Brady met Donald Boblit and his sister Nancy because their parents were good friends with his aunt. They soon became close, and he and Nancy fell in love. Then Nancy got pregnant. To show his commitment to the woman he loved, he wrote her a post-dated check for $35,000. However, John did not at that time have that amount of money. In fact, he was working at a local tobacco packing company for $1.50 an hour, had recently purchased a car, a 1947 Ford, and was behind his bill payments. He badly needed money.
He and Donald initially planned to rob a bank, but the success of which was not feasible with the use of his 1947 Ford. Hence, they plotted to take William Brooks’ car for their plan. Brooks, who is a long time acquaintance to Brady died in the process of the taking.