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.
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?”