My Board
Academics => Legal Department => Topic started by: 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?
-
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)
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
what do you mean amended sir? bawasan ng requisite? hindi naman po lacking ng protection sa part ng victim. pwedeng mag malakas yung armas ng victim kaysa assailant. ang self defense kasi ginawa yan dahil alam ng estado na hindi nya kayang protektahan bawat citizen nya. the key to a self defense is unlawful agression sa part ng victim at hindi sa part ng person defending himself or an stranger or a relative.
-
what do you mean amended sir? bawasan ng requisite? hindi naman po lacking ng protection sa part ng victim. pwedeng mag malakas yung armas ng victim kaysa assailant. ang self defense kasi ginawa yan dahil alam ng estado na hindi nya kayang protektahan bawat citizen nya. the key to a self defense is unlawful agression sa part ng victim at hindi sa part ng person defending himself or an stranger or a relative.
ang ibig kung sabihin sa amend is to improve.... how about if the situation is like this... the victim have been stab inside his home already by his best friend and a guy who stab him thought he is dead but did not realize he is not and has a license gun with him and manage pull it out and shoot the guy trying to escape and because he is escaping the guy was shot at the back dead... correct me if i'm wrong, the investigation can go on either way classified as homicide or self defense if there is no reliable person who witness the crime.... and there are lots of possible explanation an investigating officer can come up with depending on whom he work with. In our judicial system, there are cases that a certain event the offended have been turn around to become the offender, just because of a certain position a guy was shot dead. and sometime or most of the time a family member doesn't have a lot of weight on the witness stand thinking it is bias.
-
sir, nung tatakas na yung nag stab sa kanya ibig sabihin po wala na yung main element na unlawful agression. At nung barilin sya yung babaril or bumaril nalipat sa kanya yung unlawful agression.
yes sir, tama po observation nyo. In a case lalo na sa example po nyo labanan po yan ng ebidensya kung sinu may kapanipaniwalang kwento yun po papanigan ng korte.
syempre hindi makapagsasalita ang patay. pero sabi nga ni kuya gus abelgas "hindi nagsisinungaling ang ebidensya". tignan po nila kung saan tama ng victim....kung papatakas sya ang point of entry ng bala is mula sa likod...or kung ganu kalayo yung victim sa assailant. labanan po talaga ng ebidensya.
-
sir, nung tatakas na yung nag stab sa kanya ibig sabihin po wala na yung main element na unlawful agression. At nung barilin sya yung babaril or bumaril nalipat sa kanya yung unlawful agression.
yes sir, tama po observation nyo. In a case lalo na sa example po nyo labanan po yan ng ebidensya kung sinu may kapanipaniwalang kwento yun po papanigan ng korte.
syempre hindi makapagsasalita ang patay. pero sabi nga ni kuya gus abelgas "hindi nagsisinungaling ang ebidensya". tignan po nila kung saan tama ng victim....kung papatakas sya ang point of entry ng bala is mula sa likod...or kung ganu kalayo yung victim sa assailant. labanan po talaga ng ebidensya.
yes, at this point being the offended who manage to pull the trigger can be jailed because of the late action he have done....siya pa ang malalagay sa mali ng hindi inaasahan... thus making the law shift to attempted murder or murder in the case of the offender turned offended...wala ng self defense...paano kung ang iniisip ng killer na napatay niya is to massacre the remaining occupants of the house which is by law can be considered as property of the stabbed guy na madalas mangyari kapag may napatay ng isang miyembro ng pamilya eh damay damay na...he is depending his property, right pero hindi ito mapapatunayan without any act of aggression towards anyone.... that is why i think the self defense law is to be amended or improve to better protect our property without a consequence of backfiring it against us....kaya lang for me hindi ko rin alam kung paano, i may have an idea but i'm not a law maker or a lawyer at least... thank your sir for this....mahirap pa lang maging abogado...kasi daming posibility....
-
tama po kayo, sa maikling pananalita ang criminal law ay mateknikal. konting twist sa facts ibang crime na naman. and homiccide po yung kaso. diko lang po alam buhay ng mga abugado di po kasi ako abugado.
-
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.
Well no one should put the law in his or her own hands, as long as the law is enforced, we should abide by it.
-
be prepared at all times. dont expect that the state will always be there to protect you. more so dont rely youre life to your friends and neighbors.
-
I agree that this law should be ammended. Sorry for the word. Ang bullshit ng batas natin. Criminal na nga bibigyan pa ng rights? I respect human rights but by committing crime, you are giving away that right. it should be like that.
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?
-
Salamat sa paalaala sir.
Nalungkot ako sa "dont expect that the state will always be there to protect you.". We pay taxes whether we like it or not and eto pa gagawin ng state.
be prepared at all times. dont expect that the state will always be there to protect you. more so dont rely youre life to your friends and neighbors.
-
Salamat sa paalaala sir.
Nalungkot ako sa "dont expect that the state will always be there to protect you.". We pay taxes whether we like it or not and eto pa gagawin ng state.
Sa ratio po ng pulis sa citizen ay masyadong imbalance.
-
I agree that this law should be ammended. Sorry for the word. Ang bullshit ng batas natin. Criminal na nga bibigyan pa ng rights? I respect human rights but by committing crime, you are giving away that right. it should be like that.
I don't think that's possible. Hindi pa nman dumaan sa trial kaya di masasabing "criminal" na agad. Magiging unconstitutional ang batas pag tinanggalan mo ng rights yung taong supposedly committed the crime. may right to due process din nman yung akusado.
-
Pero sir sana kung on the act na po yung crime, hindi na need ng due process kasi ongoing na ang crime at wala na dapat patunayan. Parang sa pagaresto sa isang criminal ng kapulisan kapag within a specific hours from the time the crime was committed hindi na need ng warrant of arrest.
I don't think that's possible. Hindi pa nman dumaan sa trial kaya di masasabing "criminal" na agad. Magiging unconstitutional ang batas pag tinanggalan mo ng rights yung taong supposedly committed the crime. may right to due process din nman yung akusado.
-
sir, kahit po caught in the act marami parin po dapat nila patunayan. Given na kitang kita mo na sinasaksak ni A si B. Hindi ibig sabihin na si A ang agressor or si B ang person na dapat mag defend or sa kabaliktaran. at pag sa warrant less arrest din po kailangang ma "inquest". Ibig sabihin tignan ng prosecutor kung may probable cause ba sa pag arresto.
Criminal cases po ay labanan ng teknikalidad kahit pa ganito sana ang nangyari kung wala kang ebidensya na ganun nga talaga.
-
yes, at this point being the offended who manage to pull the trigger can be jailed because of the late action he have done....siya pa ang malalagay sa mali ng hindi inaasahan... thus making the law shift to attempted murder or murder in the case of the offender turned offended...wala ng self defense...paano kung ang iniisip ng killer na napatay niya is to massacre the remaining occupants of the house which is by law can be considered as property of the stabbed guy na madalas mangyari kapag may napatay ng isang miyembro ng pamilya eh damay damay na...he is depending his property, right pero hindi ito mapapatunayan without any act of aggression towards anyone.... that is why i think the self defense law is to be amended or improve to better protect our property without a consequence of backfiring it against us....kaya lang for me hindi ko rin alam kung paano, i may have an idea but i'm not a law maker or a lawyer at least... thank your sir for this....mahirap pa lang maging abogado...kasi daming posibility....
sir pwede pa rin po pumasok ang self defense.kahit barilin nya patalikod ang assailant tapos nasa property nya pa yung assailant tapos baka madamay pa yung ibang tao sa property nya.to prevent greater evil, tingin ko po pasok po sya sa justifying circumstances
Sent from my GT-S5360 using Tapatalk 2
-
sir pwede pa rin po pumasok ang self defense.kahit barilin nya patalikod ang assailant tapos nasa property nya pa yung assailant tapos baka madamay pa yung ibang tao sa property nya.to prevent greater evil, tingin ko po pasok po sya sa justifying circumstances
Sent from my GT-S5360 using Tapatalk 2
Always take note that the rule in self defense is not meant for you to indiscriminately shoot someone. If the offender is on the the stage to cease his unlawful aggression against your property then you have no right to kill him for ceasing his unlawful aggression. Furthermore, wala nang greater evil kasi he had already ceased his aggression. Yung phrase the baka madamay yung ibang tao sa property is of no to avail, there must be and actual or imminent danger and not only a conjecture.
Also take note that the police officers nga who are in-charge of protecting the citizens of the state from evil and evildoers are mandated to exercise maximum tolerance against suspects na tumatakbong nakatalikod. Thus, making the conclusion that we also are to exercise the same.
-
Ang ganda talaga pag crim law usapan, hehehe... konting dagdag lang po.
Self-defense ay maari lamang gamitin sa mga pagkakataon na kailangan mo ipagtanggol ang sarili mo (kaya nga self-defense e)
(pasensya na po, susubukan ko rin po pasimplehin para sa mga ka-PT natin na walang background legal)
Ang sinasabi sa batas gaya ng mga naunang nabangit ay una, unlawful aggression. ibig sabihin ay sinubukan ka saktan ng labag sa batas. Syempre, kung sinugod ka dahil ginalit mo yung tao o kasalanan mo kung bakit ka sinugod, di na kasama yun. pero depende pa rin sa pagkakataon syempre.
pangalawa, ang dapat gamitin para ipagtanggol ang sarili ay ang tinatawag na "reasonable force". Kung maari ay yung sapat lamang na lakas o pamamaraan ang gamitin para ipagtanggol ang sarili mo. Hindi kailangan na pantay ito sa gamit ng sumubok manakit o pumatay sayo. Kung sinubukan ka sugurin ng kasing laki ni Lou Ferrigno at nagkataong may baril ka, maari mo sya barilin para ipagtanggol ang sarili mo. Alangan naman makipagsapakan ka sa kasing laki ni Hulk.
pero inuulit na ito ay pagtatanggol lang sa sarili. Sa sandaling nawala na ang unlawful aggression, huminto na sya o tumakbo palayo, di na sakop yun. Defense nga e, di offense.
yung sa magnanakaw, mamari mo gamitin ang defense of property na nasa Revised Penal Code rin, pero kahit dala pa nya ang gamit mo di mo pa rin sya pwedeng basta patayin. Sa mata ng batas, mas mahalaga ang buhay ng tao kaysa sa anumang bagay.
Kung kamag-anak mo ang ipagtatanggol mo, ang tamang depensa ay "defense of a relative" at kung nagkatong may tinulungan ka lang, mapa kaibigan o kakilala mo lang, it ay "defense of a stranger", pero may kanya kanyang mga elemento ang mga ito. Sa defense of a stranger, fapat ay di ka motivated ng malisya o galit.
sa kahit na alin sa mga depensa na ito, alalahanin na ang layunin ay mapahinto ang unlawful agression or threat: ang banta sa iyong buhay o ang aktong pananakit o pagpatay sa iyo. Oras na nawala na ang banta, kapag ikaw ang sumugod pag patakas na sya, halimbawa, ikaw na ang ituturing na may sala dahil ibang act na iyon.
Tama po ba?
-
^ if the unlawful aggression had already ceased then ikaw na ang magiging aggressor, what is there to defend if there is no unlawful aggression.. hehe
-
^ if the unlawful aggression had already ceased then ikaw na ang magiging aggressor, what is there to defend if there is no unlawful aggression.. hehe
hay tama po yan, at sa ganyang sitwasyon yung kaaway mo naman ang mag claim ng self defense. ang key po dito is unlawful agression.
-
sa ganda ng mga paliwanag tungkol sa self defense eh palagay ko wala ng mga ka pt na makukulong. yung malapit na mag take ng BAR, bumisita kayo dito, parang may crim law review. he he he
-
basa muna ako para na rin ako nag review ng crim law 1 ko
-
The self defense is very important and for this purpose we can hire services of security service (http://www.rent-a-cop.com.au/gold-coast-security-company/) providers.
-
ganda ng mga discussion para lang akong nakikinig sa crim law 1 ko hehehe
hinde muna ako sasali sa inyo pag abugado na ako hehehe
-
nakows may nabugbug na po kami na magnanakaw.. naabutan ko po na palabas na sa bintana ng cr kalahating katawan na lang ang natira... ang ginawa ko hinwakan ko ang isang paa sabay sigaw ng magnanakaw. na dislocated po yung isang tuhod nya at nakita siya ng kapitbahay pati ng barangay na nakasabit sa bintana namin. nung binitawan ko na po siya nahulog at di na makalakad. kinuyog ng taga apartment namin. di mo na makilala ang mukha bali dalawang paa at ang dalawang kamay sigurado bali bali din tadyang nun. buhay pa nung dinala ng barangay at di na namin alam kung nasaan na.
sometimes we feel strong when we have a gun - but knowing when to use it is most difficult. guns aren't bad - it is the person owning it that can't handle the situation.
so if you really want to find out, shoot first then ask questions later - but be ready to face the consequences.
-
Magandang topic. Napakagandang topic. Binabalak ko po kasing kumuha ng law pagkagraduate ko ng eng'g.. malaking tulong po ito mga sir.. mabuhay po kayo..
Sent from my mom's iPad using Tapatalk
-
@ sir salvediaz pardon po pero madami din pong magnanakaw na handa ding pumatay ng biktima nila lalo na sa mga case na kilala sila or namukhaan sila ng biniktima nila. One good example is yung mother ni ms. cherie pie picache na matapos pagnakawan nakuha pa nilang patayin.
-
Kung me threat to life in the course of robbery, then, it might fall under self-defense...