On QC shootout -- a justified killing incident or not?

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. :wave:

1 Like

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.

3 Likes

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 :smiley:

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:

  1. 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.

First, the SC noted in G.R. No. 172606 November 23, 2011 that there are 2 kinds of unlawful aggression:

(a) actual or material unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression.

The second one is further defined as a “means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening

Now tell me, yung pag bunot hindi yung impending? Or at the point of happening? That after defying the lawful orders of the policeman and the ex-soldier actually telling the officer “ano problema mo?”

go ahead. tuloy mo sa 2 other requisites. di yan puwede titigil sa first lang just because you don’t need the other two :rotfl:

1 Like

Hopefully, Florendo wins his case against murder.