My Board
Refresh History
  • Read the rules
  • Beast: Tagalog
    March 12, 2024, 02:16:41 AM
  • choichoichoi: my wife gone wild
    March 12, 2024, 05:53:47 PM
  • HappyMan: Kurtina
    March 13, 2024, 07:38:48 PM
  • phoenixiers: Usapan
    March 15, 2024, 06:20:06 PM
  • rrtu: ultramanyak
    March 16, 2024, 06:42:30 AM
  • sichoy: Edong
    March 16, 2024, 07:42:34 AM
  • leonel_aztig: Galawan fall
    March 16, 2024, 01:58:40 PM
  • ahw..: tagalog
    March 17, 2024, 02:31:13 PM
  • pointblank0617: ang titser
    March 21, 2024, 05:24:53 AM
  • Earl143: angela
    March 21, 2024, 05:12:40 PM
  • ungg0y: stephen
    March 24, 2024, 12:22:52 AM
  • makoylets: Laman sa laman
    March 24, 2024, 03:14:11 AM
  • Janzo: Mia
    March 24, 2024, 04:35:21 AM
  • bull28: Maling nangyari
    March 24, 2024, 04:33:14 PM
  • arkanghel_06: tita malou repost
    March 26, 2024, 10:31:37 AM
  • arkanghel_06: tita malou
    March 26, 2024, 10:31:51 AM
  • Itaplenga: My wife gone wild
    March 26, 2024, 08:36:11 PM
  • Beast: Tagalog
    March 27, 2024, 12:11:19 AM
  • Beast: Tagalog
    March 27, 2024, 12:11:38 AM
  • Beast: Tagalog
    March 27, 2024, 12:12:52 AM

Self defense

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline elmeroctavo

on: May 18, 2013, 09:09:01 PM
Tanong ko lang po.

Kapag may intruder po ba sa bahay. If you have a gun pwede niyo na po barilin at patayin?

How about that intruder, tumakas at hinabol ko at binaril ko habang papalayong tumatakbo?


My Board

Self defense
« on: May 18, 2013, 09:09:01 PM »

Offline mico

  • PT Author
  • Certified Member 1
  • *
  • Whoever tells the best story wins.
    • Capricorn
Reply #1 on: May 19, 2013, 01:18:31 AM
Medyo technical mga words, pero baka makatulong to:

Our criminal laws provide for instances where a person may defend himself and not be prosecuted for what would normally be a criminal action. Under Section 1, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, 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.”

The justifying circumstance of self-defense “is an affirmative allegation that must be proven with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it.” (People v. Nacuspag, 115 SCRA 172 [1982]) Where the accused has admitted that he is the author of the death of the deceased, it is incumbent upon the appellant, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove this justifying circumstance (self-defense) claimed by him, to the satisfaction of the court. To do so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence, and not on the weakness of the prosecution for even if it were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused admitted the killing.

It is basic that for self-defense to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) there must be unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) that the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression were reasonable; and (3) that there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. We shal now discuss the following requisites in detail:

A. Unlawful Aggression:

Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual or imminent danger on the life or limb of a person. Mere shouting, intimidating or threatening attitude of the victim, assuming that to be true, does not constitute unlawful aggression. Real aggression presupposes an act positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor, which is not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude, but a material attack. Examples are the pointing of a gun or the brandishing of a knife or other deadly weapon.

B. Reasonable necessity of the means employed:

Whether the means employed is reasonable or not, will depend upon the kind of weapon of the aggressor, his physical condition, character, size, and other circumstances as well as those of the person attacked and the time and place of the attack. Although a knife is more dangerous than a club, its use is reasonable if there is no other available means of defense at the disposal of the accused.

C. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself:

“Sufficient” means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to stir one to its commission. Imputing to a person the utterance of vulgar language is sufficient provocation. This element refers to the person defending himself and is essentially inseparable and co-existent with the idea of self-defense.

Source: abogadomo (dot)(com)


"Ignorance of the law excuses no man - from practicing it. "


Offline salvediaz

Reply #2 on: May 20, 2013, 12:47:13 PM
sa unag tanong, depende kung merong unlawful gat kung eto ay commensurate sa pagbaril. sa pangalawa, hndi na pwede kasi walang ng unlawful aggression dahil patakas na intruder...


My Board

Re: Self defense
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2013, 12:47:13 PM »

Offline charliehouse

Reply #3 on: May 21, 2013, 09:18:16 PM
Tanong ko lang po.

Kapag may intruder po ba sa bahay. If you have a gun pwede niyo na po barilin at patayin?

How about that intruder, tumakas at hinabol ko at binaril ko habang papalayong tumatakbo?

Hindi mo siya pwedeng patayin, kasi dapat equal and reasonable force lang at hindi siya nabibilang sa self defense kung hindi sa defense of property and between a person's life and a property. a person's life is prior in the ordo cognoscendi thus kung ang endangered lang ay ang property mo thru sa pag trespass e, di mo siya pwedeng patayin.
Sa bawat bobong post ay may pilosopong reply.


Offline elmeroctavo

Reply #4 on: May 22, 2013, 12:24:10 AM
thank you sa replies mga sir, how about incapacitating (barilin sa tuhod, etc) para hindi na makatakas at mapahuli sa mga pulis? Kasi kung hindi mo tutuluyan baka balikan ka pa ng criminal eh.


My Board

Re: Self defense
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2013, 12:24:10 AM »

Offline Habagat12

Reply #5 on: May 23, 2013, 10:11:02 AM
Sa Actual Case, medyo masalimoot itong self-defense pagka ito ang ginamit mong dahilan.

Pagka ginamit mo kasi ito, inaaamin mo na din ang pagpatay and in so doing, the burden of proof para maipakita na justified yung pagpatay kasi self-defense nga, falls on you. Meaning, kailangan mong mag present ng credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, his conviction will follow from his admission of killing the victim.

Ang mangyayari kasi, ikaw na nag claim ng self-defense ang magiging akusado.

To escape liability, the accused must show by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that:
(a) the victim committed unlawful aggression amounting to an actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the accused claiming self-defense;
(b) there was reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and
(c) there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused claiming self-defense or at least any provocation executed by the accused claiming self-defense was not the proximate and immediate cause of the victim’s aggression. (People  v. Tagana, G.R. No. 133027, March 4, 2004, 424 SCRA 620, 634-635. )

thank you sa replies mga sir, how about incapacitating (barilin sa tuhod, etc) para hindi na makatakas at mapahuli sa mga pulis? Kasi kung hindi mo tutuluyan baka balikan ka pa ng criminal eh.

Kahit sa tuhod mo binaril ang isang tao, ikaw pa din ang lalabas na akusado at kailangan mo pa din maipakita na present and mga nasa itaas na circumstances para ka maabswelto.

The fact kasi na tumakbo na papalayo (and supposedly palabas) ang suspected "magnanakaw/intruder", ay nag cease na ang imminent danger/threat sa buhay mo so absent na ang Unlawful Agression

Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.(People v. Alconga, 78 Phil. 366; People v. Pletado, G.R. No. 98432, July 1, 1992, 210 SCRA 634; People v. Bausing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991, 199 SCRA 355)

At dahil papatakbo na siya, wala nang Actual nor Imminent aggression.

Pero kung kunyari patakbo na siya pero bumabaril pa din, under this fact, meron pa ding actual threat at pwede mo din siyang barilin.

As in all criminal cases, it all depends on the facts of the case para masabi nating ganito or ganyan ang dapat.

Salamat po at nawa'y napaliwanagan namin kayo.

Thanks Sir Mico for your contribution, highly appreciated po.


zzgundam

  • Guest
Reply #6 on: May 23, 2013, 10:19:22 AM
Thank you for this.
I'd like to pose this hypothetical situation, though; please tell me if it's fine to use my gun at such a time:

1. Thief enters my lot by climbing over the walls. It's a walled property, with clearly defined property lines.
2. Said thief tries to open my house by removing a window. Said window is damaged in the process, but quietly.
3. Said thief is able to take my laptop.
4. I am awakened and try to pursue said thief.
5. Said thief tries to flee.
6. I take aim and shoot said thief, while still clearly inside my property. He is killed still clutching my laptop.
7. I call the police.

Do I get charged for this?

Thanks.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 10:22:27 AM by zzgundam »


Offline Habagat12

Reply #7 on: May 23, 2013, 12:29:43 PM
Thank you for this.
I'd like to pose this hypothetical situation, though; please tell me if it's fine to use my gun at such a time:

1. Thief enters my lot by climbing over the walls. It's a walled property, with clearly defined property lines.
2. Said thief tries to open my house by removing a window. Said window is damaged in the process, but quietly.
3. Said thief is able to take my laptop.
4. I am awakened and try to pursue said thief.
5. Said thief tries to flee.
6. I take aim and shoot said thief, while still clearly inside my property. He is killed still clutching my laptop.
7. I call the police.

Do I get charged for this?

Thanks.

Charged, YES, for Homicide.

And if you'll use Self-Defense as your defense, the burden of proof is on you to prove that indeed there are justifiable reason/s as why you resorted to shooting and in the process killing the alleged robber.

In self-defense and defense of strangers, unlawful aggression is a primordial element, a condition sine qua non. If no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, self-defense and defense of strangers are unavailing, because there would be nothing to repel. Please note that nowhere in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) does it mention of the word "Defense of Property" as a justifiable means to kill somebody, it is because life is more important than property.

Dahil patakbo na ang nagnakaw ng laptop at hindi naman papunta sayo, bagkus, ito ay palayo syo, absent na ang element ng unlawful aggression.At wala na ding imminent danger sa life or personal safety mo and so the means employed which is shooting to death the robber is excessive.

Maybe, disabling the robber like shooting him in his/her thigh and later on allege that he tried to hit you with the laptop might be the better action rather than killing him/her while fleeing already, unless of course you allege and make up additional facts to strengthen your defense and justify your action.


zzgundam

  • Guest
Reply #8 on: May 23, 2013, 01:04:13 PM
Thanks man for clearing it up. +K to you.

...just my opinion, but I don't like the way the law works. Someone dares trespass on my property, break something that is mine, take something that is mine, and if I destroy him in the process, I get charged?

Maybe I'd better get an RPG-7 for thieves then. At least that doesn't leave a body for police to find.


Offline chillout

Reply #9 on: May 24, 2013, 01:43:27 PM
Thanks man for clearing it up. +K to you.

...just my opinion, but I don't like the way the law works. Someone dares trespass on my property, break something that is mine, take something that is mine, and if I destroy him in the process, I get charged?

Maybe I'd better get an RPG-7 for thieves then. At least that doesn't leave a body for police to find.

correct me if im wrong po, pero pag sa ganyang situation, may provision po ang Civil Code. Article 429 provides that the owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.

The important words here are Reasonable Force. sa example po na binigay, shooting the thief is not within the ambit of the defintion of reasonable force. The resistance is disproportionate to the attack.


Offline salvediaz

Reply #10 on: May 24, 2013, 04:50:01 PM
simple lang naman po kasi...ang pagnanakaw ay property ang involve at hindi buhay, kaya hindi pwede kumitil ng buhay...pero kung hinuhuli mo ang magnanakaw at in the process s'ya ay nasaktan, yan ay justifiable...unless there is a deliberate intention to harm him, in that case self-defense is inapplicable.


Offline elmeroctavo

Reply #11 on: May 27, 2013, 07:17:28 AM
kasi naisip ko kapag hahayaan mo makaalis siyempre maari pa siyang mabiktima ng iba. Our country is not like other developed countries na mas mataas ang chance na mahuli ang culprit. In my opinion lang mga sir, this part of the justice system sucks. Yung naisip kung mga incapacitate/kill the culprit is to help the police and the society in reducing crime.

Salamat sa mga insights mga sir.


zzgundam

  • Guest
Reply #12 on: May 27, 2013, 08:08:57 AM
kasi naisip ko kapag hahayaan mo makaalis siyempre maari pa siyang mabiktima ng iba. Our country is not like other developed countries na mas mataas ang chance na mahuli ang culprit. In my opinion lang mga sir, this part of the justice system sucks. Yung naisip kung mga incapacitate/kill the culprit is to help the police and the society in reducing crime.

Salamat sa mga insights mga sir.

Amen to this. Thus the RPG-7 at home. Hehe


karlkutu

  • Guest
Reply #13 on: July 06, 2013, 03:01:51 PM
Tanong ko lang po.

Kapag may intruder po ba sa bahay. If you have a gun pwede niyo na po barilin at patayin?

How about that intruder, tumakas at hinabol ko at binaril ko habang papalayong tumatakbo?
Gya po post ni sir mico. Una, yung intruder ba na yun nag post ng unlawful agression sayo or sa kapamilya mo na nasa loob ng bahay?
Pangalawa, ang pag baril ba or pag patay sa intruder na nabanggit ay akma ba sa unlawful agression na kanyang ginawa?
Pangatlo, ikaw ba na babaril o papatay sa intruder ay unang nag pakita ng dahas sa intruder?

pag yung intruder ay tumakbo ibig sabihin yung agression na nagmula sa kanya ceases to exist. ngayon kaw na humabol kaw ngayon ang naglalabas ng agression. ingat lang baka bumaliktad ang sitwasyon at yung intruder and mag sabi ng selfdefense.

I want to correct the term "equal force" directed to "reasonable necessioty of the means to prevent the agression". Mawalang galang na po hindi po kailangang equal force po, kasi halimbawa sabihin nating may baril ung intruder, ikaw na nagdedepensa hindi mo kailangang mag hanap nang baril din to equalize the agression. or kung kutsilyo hawak ng intruder hindi kailangang kuha karin ng kutsilyo. may point is reasonable mens to prevent ay nangangahulugan na kung anu meron witin youre reach to defend your person.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2013, 03:37:13 PM by karlkutu »


Offline ¿m☺ÿ

  • Elite Certified Member
  • Certified Member 4
  • *
  • If you want to be my friend, i'm just 1 PM away.
    • POTW
    • PTFM
    • Sagittarius
Reply #14 on: July 16, 2013, 04:55:27 PM
sa pagbasa ko ng law regarding self defense is really lacking the protection sa part ng supposed to be victim of the crime, especially inside your property. No wonder there are lots of criminal out there are still at large, at yung iba eh palabas-labas lang sa bilangguan... Does anyone think the law regarding self defense should be amended?


My Board

Re: Self defense
« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2013, 04:55:27 PM »

 


* PT Social Groups

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal