Binasa mo ba at all yung mismong ikaw ang nag-quote? Nasaan ang imminent danger? Na-establish ba yung existence nung firearm bago nila binaril yung tao?
Ano exactly yung threat dun sa mga pulis, before they shot the victim? Irrelevant ba sa kanila yung sinabi nung ibang tao dun sa area suggesting exactly what they’re dealing with so they can react accordingly?
May kaibigan akong pulis na mas mataas pa sa police chief in some town na rank. Anong point?
Pero ayun na nga, madami kang kaibigan na pulis. Did they ever claim that every Filipino policeman behaves with integrity and honesty, na lahat sila malamang eh magkikita sa langit after life on earth? Mahilig ka sa real world, nakikita mo ba ilang pulis ang nasasangkot sa mga illegal na bagay? Hindi ba kahihiyan yun para sa iba sa kanila na malamang eh mabubuting pulis naman?
Di naman to debate about all policemen, or yung friends mong mga pulis. It was simply OP asking for other users’ POV on the matter.
I had to say that because your behavior is more apt for those communities. You were making justifications without citing sources, wouldn’t accept differences in opinion, and just simply would rather antagonize instead of educating others on your position.
Majority? Sorry, hindi to Philippine elections. Hindi din to popularity contest. Walang silbi kung sino ang maraming sasabihin. Patay na yung pinag-uusapan natin, napatay ng pulis. Nothing will change that.
I do not claim to speak for the majority, but you were obviously not respectful of the others on this thread. Nabigay mo na yung side/opinion mo, di mo na kelangan i-convince yung iba.
Giving sources and basis for your arguments is appropriate especially in a sensitive and polarizing topic. We may not agree, but we also want to learn about others’ positions, and to understand why their opinion may be different.
Yes, Florendo did aim for his body. We don’t know exactly what his intent was for doing so. I haven’t read any definitive information yet where the two bullets landed, did they land on his upper abdomen, chest area? I guess the medicolegal death investigators are still working on the autopsy report.
On gunshot fatality: range between the shooter and the victim, entry and exit points among others are to be carefully considered aside from where the shooter aimed his gun at (forensic pathology). Depending on the circumstances, some gunshot wounds to the head are survived, some instantaneously kill. Some people recuperate from gunshots in parts of their body apart from their head, some don’t especially when the bullet hits a vital organ.
The Factors in This Case
Police officer: Police Master Sergeant Daniel Florendo, Jr., 4 police trainees under the HPG where also present in the scene
Number of aggressors: 1 - Winston Ragos
Nature and characteristic of the weapon used: There was no weapon used as far as my judgement can tell, unless we now consider his hand going inside a bag ‘a weapon’. Ragos’ sling bag was seen taken by the police in the CCTV footage, thus contaminating the potential evidence.
Physical condition of Ragos, Florendo, his cohorts, the time and location can be seen on the video, although witness accounts and other forensic evidence must be reckoned with.
Your point that it was Florendo’s own judgment call to defend his physical safety (and of others) by shooting Ragos twice is understood as you’ve put it clearly. That actually was what he considered reasonable at that moment, albeit it can be deemed unreasonable under jurisprudence. I am (as I suppose we all are) interested in how the criminal and administrative investigation of this incident will unfold, how ‘the threat on his life’ would be justified with evidence, and how the judges will weigh the reasonableness of Florendo’s acts. Guess we have to wait for now and remain vigilant as usual.
Okay, I give you legal basis that involves a policeman then:
“Self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated as a valid justifying circumstance in this case. For, from the above admitted, uncontroverted or established facts, the most important element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim to justify a claim of self defense was absent. Lacking this essential and primary element of unlawful aggression, petitioner’s plea of self-defense, complete or incomplete, must have to fail.” (Mamangun v. People, G.R. No. 149152, 02 February 2007.)
Let me say it in a different way… If you are going to wait until you are 100% sure that it is a loaded gun with the safety off, then it’s already too late.
This is the entire gist of my exchange with the lady when I went something like “check kung plastic ba yung baril?”
Like I said: I understand how difficult the job was of policemen, and especially every “shoot or don’t shoot” scenario.
Do yourself a favor and try to watch those training/simulations in youtube.
No sources? I just gave you 2 sources and you can youtube/google the phone cam video.
Ikaw, ano source mo na ikaw ang boses ng majority? That you represent the ordinary people?
“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”
This is a discussion board. People are supposed to come here, post/lurk, and discuss.
How was I disrespectful?
You forgot: the 4 police trainees are NOT carrying firearms as they’re NOT allowed to.
Homicide charges have indeed been filed and the policeman will have to defend himself.
I expect nothing but an acquital and the policeman be back doing his job, making a living and feed his family.
Here are the facts of the case you cited:
Mamangun pointed his .45 cal. pistol at the man, who instantly exclaimed, “Hindi ako, hindi ako!,” to which Mamangun replied, “Anong hindi ako?” Before he (Ayson) could say anything, Mamangun fired his gun, hitting the man who turned out to be Contreras. He (witness) approached the victim who was then lying on his left side unconscious. He brought down the victim and they rushed him to the hospital where he died at about 10:00 o’clock that same evening.
The defense has its own account of what purportedly actually transpired
Thinking that the person was the suspect they were looking for, Mamangun chased said person. They announced that they were police officers but the person continued to run in a crouching position until Mamangun caught up with him and shouted, “Pulis. Tigil,” whereupon the person suddenly stopped, turned around, faced Mamangun, and raised a stainless steel pipe towards the latter’s head but Mamangun was able to evade the attack. This prompted Mamangun to shoot the person on the left arm. All three claimed that it was only at this point that PO2 Cruz and Diaz approached Contreras who told them, “Hindi ako. Hindi ako.” Mamangun went near Contreras and asked, “Why did you go to the rooftop? You know there are policemen here.” Contreras was thereafter brought to the hospital where he died.
Having admitted6 the fatal shooting of Contreras on the night of July 31, 1992, petitioner is charged with the burden of adducing convincing evidence to show that the killing was done in the fulfillment of his duty as a policeman.
The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under paragraph 5, Article II, of the Revised Penal Code may be invoked only after the defense successfully proves that: (1) the accused acted in the performance of a duty; and (2) the injury inflicted or offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance or lawful exercise of such duty.7
Concededly, the first requisite is present in this case. Petitioner, a police officer, was responding to a robbery-holdup incident. His presence at the situs of the crime was in accordance with the performance of his duty. However, proof that the shooting and ultimate death of Contreras was a necessary consequence of the due performance of his duty as a policeman is essential to exempt him from criminal liability.
As we see it, petitioner’s posturing that he shot Contreras because the latter tried to strike him with a steel pipe was a mere afterthought to exempt him from criminal liability.
We see no plausible basis to depart from the Sandiganbayan’s findings that there was no reason for the petitioner to shoot Contreras. The latter was unarmed and had already uttered, “Hindi po ako, Hindi po ako” before the petitioner fatally shot him on the left arm. Prosecution witness Ayson, who was then behind the petitioner when the latter shot Contreras, testified that to the victim’s utterances, the petitioner even responded, “Anong hindi ako,” and immediately shot Contreras. As correctly observed by the Sandiganbayan:
Basically, the SC did NOT believe any word the policeman said. The policeman immediately shot the victim after even acknowledging “hindi ako”.
Super different scenario. Especially since a video in the case on topic, is present, and is the best kind of evidence in the defense of the policeman.
You’d also note that there’s such a thing as “performance of duty”. Furthermore, the policeman found guilty by the SC did not even give an order to the victim (the SC did not believe the “Pulis, Tigil” claim).
You said this so I gave you a policeman-civilian case on self-defense.
The account of the defense you quoted was “self-serving” and “biased” according to the Supreme Court.
On performance of duty, the Supreme Court in Mamangun v. People said, “To be sure, acts in the fulfillment of a duty, without more, do not completely justify the petitioner’s firing the fatal gunshot at the victim. True, petitioner, as one of the policemen responding to a reported robbery then in progress, was performing his duty as a police officer as well as when he was trying to effect the arrest of the suspected robber and in the process, fatally shoot said suspect, albeit the wrong man. However, in the absence of the equally necessary justifying circumstance that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty, there can only be incomplete justification, a privileged mitigating circumstance under Articles 13 and 69 of the Revised Penal Code.” A privileged mitigating circumstance cannot justify the killing, hence the conviction of the policeman was upheld by the Court.
Killing “quarantine violators” will never be justified. This gives a chilling effect to civilians who regularly saunter out for family supplies, me included. As to the soundness of the police procedure employed in that event, I reckon jurisprudence is not on the aggressor’s side.
1st shot on the leg could have been reasonable and necessary but the 2nd one was not. Specially because the shooter is in the offensive position. He was actually in control. Until the training or ich to double-tap kicked in, perhaps with assurance of authorities that we are in war, kahit pandemic naman talaga ang kalaban. Baka hindi din sila that trained to handle situations concerning PTSD, because even when the shooter already knew of the state of the ex-soldier, he added more pressure. It seems he already decided early on when he declared, “Wala akong paki-alam, papatayin ko 'yan”.
I hope malaman din kung planted ang baril lalo’t walang nakitang baril sa video at ang mga eye witness. Kahina-hinala din na kinuha ng mga police yung bag, ipinasok sa sasakyan, when it was not their job to do so.
Like I said, the SC did NOT believe a single word by the policeman considering there were 4 of them, armed and were chasing the victim.
It’s a very different scenario than the recent shooting of the ex-soldier. The FACTS of the case will also come first and foremost. And the application/interpretation of the law will be very different.
The video where the ex-solider CLEARLY (1) defied the lawful order to “dapa” by the policeman, (2) aggressive stance towards an officer, and (3) his attempt to draw something - gun or not - from his sling bag will be the primary consideration and I am very confident any judge will side with the policeman. There’s NOT going to be a “he said, she said” in this case because of the video evidence.
It does not matter how they ended up in the situation. The moment a law enforcement officer orders you to lay on your tummy, you have to comply. If you don’t comply, more so, you put up an aggressive stance, it’s the duty of the officer to subdue you.
Whether or not the scenario warrants the use of a gun depends on the level of threat.
This is from the PNP Manual:
7.6 Factors to Consider in the Reasonableness of the Force Employed
A police officer, however, is not required to afford offender/s attacking him the opportunity for a fair or equal struggle. The reasonableness of the force employed will depend upon the number of aggressors, nature and characteristic of the weapon used, physical condition, size and other circumstances to include the place and occasion of the assault. The police officer is given the sound discretion to consider these factors in employing reasonable force.
RULE 8. USE OF FIREARM DURING POLICE OPERATIONS 8.1 Use of Firearm When Justified
The use of firearm is justified if the offender poses imminent danger of causing death or injury to the police officer or other persons. The use of firearm is also justified under the doctrines of self-defense, defense of a relative, and defense of a stranger. However, one who resorts to self-defense must face a real threat on his life, and the peril sought to be avoided must be actual, imminent and real. Unlawful aggression should be present for self-defense to be considered as a justifying circumstance.
The police officers, in that very scenario, is NOT afforded a chance to subdue the ex-soldier by means of say, tackling him to the ground, and what not. Hence, the order “dapa! dapa!”. Had he only complied, he would have still been alive.
you cited a case that’s actually against your earlier points. lol. did you even read the case?
edit: I’ll bite.
hi fretburner, please refrain from further embarrassing yourself by insisting on that PNP manual. you’re right, it says there “self-defense” however please note that the self-defense mentioned there is based on article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, so you can’t just spout quotes from that PNP Manual without even explaining what Self-defense in that context actually means.
The mention of relatives and friends from the PNP does not help your case at all since you’ve only shown where your biases are coming from. Which is actually enlightening, because I would expect UP students/graduates to properly argue their points with sound arguments. However after learning where you’re coming from. I get it.
In any case, please do read the case you keep on citing, do not gloss over the first few paragraphs and most especially the last part where the Supreme Court explained its decision.
and to think, nasa issue pa lang ata tayo ng unlawful aggression, paano pag napunta na sa reasonable necessity nung force na ginamit
Yes, I read the 2 cases. Facts first, before the ruling. As anyone should. Both cases cited are very different from this most recent one, so you cannot apply the same ruling, e.g. chasing a suspect vs face to face with a suspect who was pulling something out of his bag.
Your entire argument hinges on the fact that it is unclear if the ex-soldier (some would say there was none) really had a gun.
My argument is that, the ex-soldier does NOT need a gun.
The danger was already there, i.e. had it been a real gun, the policeman would have been dead. Per the police manual, A police officer, however, is not required to afford offender/s attacking him the opportunity for a fair or equal struggle., hence he made sure the ex-soldier does not get a chance to shoot him.
Now, if there was a chance for him to use non-lethal force to subdue the aggressive ex-soldier, then, it would have been wrong to point a gun at him. However, the situation, the setting does not give the policeman that option. The policeman or policemen cannot jump the railing or go around and blind-side the ex-soldier to tackle him to the ground for example. Nor did the policeman have a taser or rubber bullets. There were also bystanders and onlookers very close by and who knows if the ex-soldier would grab one as a hostage or even shoot them as well. He has to make a decision – what is “reasonable force” in the scenario? He had no choice but pull his gun.
It’s an unfortunate scenario that would have been avoided had the ex-soldier (1) not violated the ECQ rules, and (2) complied with the law enforcement officer’s orders as any law abiding citizen should.
If you did read the Rubiso case, why did you even cite it when it clearly does not support your argument? you nitpick from the case the argument of the defense when that is not the ruling in that said case.
Ok, he does not need to see a gun. Is that your argument now? however it fails to pass the requisites for it to be considered self-defense based on the other requisites.
If the lone guy, who appears to be a civilian manages to injure or kill any of those 6 policemen, I’ll be more than worried at the state of training these guys are undergoing. masyado kang nagfofocus sa violent na possible scenarios if ever the guy did have a gun. However, their training should also include deescalating the situation to prevent such incidents. Bakit ba gusto mo may tunggalian agad? kung simpleng face mask lang ang issue, bakit di kaya makipagcommunicate ng pulis sa taong yun nang mas civil? bakit may nakatutok kaagad na baril sa mukha ng tao kung may di lang pala nasunod na quarantine rule. you probably watch too many action shows to think and assume na hahantong palagi sa bugbugan, barilan ang mga ganiyang sitwasyon.
The reason for citing both cases is to illustrate that the case facts are very different, and therefore, you cannot apply the same ruling to the latest shooting of the ex-soldier.
It’s that simple.
Not even self defense but lawful exercise of right or office.
Below is what our revised penal code states:
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:
Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
The policeman was just doing his job. He followed protocol. The ex-soldier was not complying to his very clear orders. He cannot give the ex-soldier an opportunity for a fair or equal struggle, per the PNP Manual.
He already tried to de-escalate the situation by clearly, repeatedly, and lawfully ordering the guy “dapa! dapa!”.
As for your favorite “unlawful aggression”, it was very clear that the ex-soldier showed unlawful aggression and posed an imminent threat to the policemen by attempting to pull something from his bag, instead of keeping his hands up to show that he was not a threat and complying with the policeman’s order.
The gun was pointed at the ex-soldier when the policemen trainees (who are all unarmed) ran towards their superior. These policemen trainees would not have ran to their superior if they did not receive/perceive any threat.
I don’t know if I can embed a video here, but you should check this out:
That is not de-escalation. They should’ve considered his mental state. Which they already know from the neighbors and bystanders. Furthermore, the PNP’s Use of Force Continuum only authorizes the use of lethal force in the following situations:
Person/group is ARMED and has attacked or is attacking the police officer and/or the any member of the public using lethal weapons. Person/group is armed with factory manufactured and/or improvised small arms, light to heavy weapons, and explosives.
To answer @jojomojo question, it most definitely wasn’t. Unless the PNP updated their Use of Force Continuum (then we have bigger problems), they clearly violated their own procedures and used lethal force when it wasn’t necessary.
You gave your sources only after you were asked to provide them. And you’re basically twisting it to make it serve you.
Ang kulit mong tao ka. Saan ko sinabi that I represent the ordinary people?! That I represent the majority? I can only state my position on this topic, just like you wantonly represent your own twisted undertanding of the facts. Nagmamarunong ka makipag-debate pero hindi ka nagbabasa ng posts ng mga kausap mo.
Sir @fretburner, sorry I never bothered to familiarize myself with your reputation. Napaka-colorful mo pala. Sana ganyan ka ka-sayang kausap sa EB.
HA? you don’t have to require that the facts are exactly the same if di naman case law ang pinapairal natin dito.
yung Article 11 ng RPC ang pinagbabasehan natin na hindi kailangan ilimit sa case na cinite mo para masabing applicable. Did you really read the entire article? why jump to 5 when you actually missed 1.
ang hirap kasi sayo, you keep on moving goal posts. banggit ka ng banggit ng self-defense sa pnp manual na cinite mo pero di mo naman madefine ang self-defense. nandun sa article 11 ang self-defense, yang first item sa Art. 11 yung tinutukoy na self-defense. tapos ngayon 5 na kaagad yung icicite mo. hindi naman agad applicable yan kasi may requisites di yan, di mo puwede sabihin na oh basta performing their duties ok na. lol.
de-escalate na pala yung nakatutok yung baril sa mukha ng tao na wala namang visible na firearm. teka ano nga ba violation? nasa leeg ang facemask? sobrang praning naman pala ng pulis na kaagad ka tututukan ng baril kapag wala ka facemask. anim pa silang pumaligid.
natatawa ako na ikaw na pala ang nagdedecide ng unlawful aggression based on your “expertise”. again, hirap ka na umintindi ng unlawful aggression, pero kahit maitawid mo yan, kukulangin ka naman sa ibang requisites. pero one at a time muna, baka pag naconnect mo na ang favorite mong PNP manual sa RPC.
You cannot possibly verify the person’s mental state at that point especially as he was arguing and defying the policeman’s orders.
And yes, the person was attacking by trying to pull something from his bag.
I didn’t know I had a reputation
I never joined an EB but I know some people here personally (my other friends won’t tell me their nick), and I’ve (mostly accidentally) met many people here from common friends. There’s a lot of “oh, ikaw pala yun” in those scenarios haha
And yes, I used those 2 cases cited by others here to my favor, because they actually are in favor of my argument. Again and again, the case facts come first. You apply the law based on the facts.
I didn’t need 1-4, that’s why I jumped to 5, i.e. fulfillment of duty. I only need 1, not all.
But sige, pagbigyan kita sa self defense art.11 sec.1:
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:
Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur;
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
All the arguments against the policeman here is on the 1st pre-requisite, i.e. unlawful aggression. Keso (a) di alam kung may baril ba talaga, at (b) hindi naman tinutok yung baril kung meron man.