Art. 11, Revised Penal Code: Self Defense Q&A [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Art. 11, Revised Penal Code: Self Defense Q&A


eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-09-2009, 21:52
This thread discusses the legal technicalities of self defense.

For starters here is Art. 11, RPC:

"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.

2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Art. are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present;

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;

Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.


5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose."

PS: I will post Supreme Court cases discussing each part of Art. 11 whenever I find the time. for now if you have questions just post away.

Allegra
03-09-2009, 23:10
Di ba unless mayaman yung nakaaway mo , you can skip all that and proceed to the areglo stage?
Well at least , yan ang ginagawa dito sa probinsya
Mas organized ang patayan dito

eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-09-2009, 23:15
^Iba yung areglo stage... civil liability lang yun (a.k.a. danyos para sa pamilya ng napatay mo or vise versa)

yung criminal liability sa Sate Prosecutor (a.k.a Fiscal).

De Angelo
03-09-2009, 23:19
basta my advice to anyone who kills somebody, Run..do not surender, mas mabuti ng maki pag areglo ng hinde nakakulong kesa nakakulong ka..

crazy_hans
03-09-2009, 23:19
sir what if two opposing circumstnaces would concur?say you were compelled to rob a bank because your family is being held hostages but during the robbery a police officer fired shots at you (in the performance of his duty) then you shot back hitting the police and killing him as well (self-defense on your part). will you be held liable for shooting the police officer?thanks in advance po!

eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-09-2009, 23:33
Dapat pala sinama ko to sa unang post ko.

Art. 12, RPC

"Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — the following are exempt from criminal liability:

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.

2. A person under nine years of age.

3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80.

4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.

5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.

6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause."

eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-09-2009, 23:37
sir what if two opposing circumstnaces would concur?say you were compelled to rob a bank because your family is being held hostages but during the robbery a police officer fired shots at you (in the performance of his duty) then you shot back hitting the police and killing him as well (self-defense on your part). will you be held liable for shooting the police officer?thanks in advance po!

Sa Art. 12, RPC na pasok nyan. Pwede ka sa 5 or 6, depende sa facts ng case.

Kaso may civil liability ka pa din, damages for the death of the police officer and for robbing the bank. wala ka nga lang criminal liability.

eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-09-2009, 23:44
basta my advice to anyone who kills somebody, Run..do not surender, mas mabuti ng maki pag areglo ng hinde nakakulong kesa nakakulong ka..


NOT A GOOD IDEA... mag mukha kang guilty. Judges have this bias: If wala kang kasalanan bakit tumakbo ka? the typical answer na: "ayoko kasi ng problema at baka kasuhan ako" will never save you.

better stand your ground and let your lawyer do the talking.

trayO
03-10-2009, 03:48
NOT A GOOD IDEA... mag mukha kang guilty. Judges have this bias: If wala kang kasalanan bakit tumakbo ka? the typical answer na: "ayoko kasi ng problema at baka kasuhan ako" will never save you.

better stand your ground and let your lawyer do the talking.

My piece of advice is instead of running, make sure you don't leave witnesses behind. To put it plainly, if the other person is dead, you can freely say anything in your favor regarding the circumstances of the shooting and no one will correct you. I don't think our CSI have all that hi-tech equipment that we see on TV that can re-create the scene.

Black_SIR
03-10-2009, 04:49
My piece of advice is instead of running, make sure you don't leave witnesses behind. To put it plainly, if the other person is dead, you can freely say anything in your favor regarding the circumstances of the shooting and no one will correct you. I don't think our CSI have all that hi-tech equipment that we see on TV that can re-create the scene.


wala nga sila equipments eh heheheh gloves lang ata, may budget pero binulsa na

PMMA97
03-10-2009, 06:01
NOT A GOOD IDEA... mag mukha kang guilty. Judges have this bias: If wala kang kasalanan bakit tumakbo ka? the typical answer na: "ayoko kasi ng problema at baka kasuhan ako" will never save you.

better stand your ground and let your lawyer do the talking.

Sir are you a lawyer?

Dean
03-10-2009, 08:15
My piece of advice is instead of running, make sure you don't leave witnesses behind. To put it plainly, if the other person is dead, you can freely say anything in your favor regarding the circumstances of the shooting and no one will correct you. I don't think our CSI have all that hi-tech equipment that we see on TV that can re-create the scene.

"Make sure that you don't leave witnesses behind?"
MAKE SURE?
Friend, I think I understand that sentiment. But to really do that is kind of like crashing your car to cover up staying out an hour late, isn't it?
In a scenario in which you've wounded multiple assailants would you then "finish them off" with your pistol, because you don't want to leave witnesses? While you may want to, it doesn't make much sense.
That would be the actual comission of the crime of murder, to avoid being accused of the crime of assault under justifiable circumstances which makes it extremely difficult to prosecute. In actual practice such a thing is rarely doable and generally immoral.
Why turn a good self defense shooting into a double homicide rap and two life sentences?

No. You stay hardcore, make your police report and call your lawyer. They've probably got arrest records as long as your arm and now they're facing robbery charges. It's kind of hard to make bond when you're a prisoner with a forty-five slug in his gut.:drillsgt:

eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-10-2009, 08:16
Sir are you a lawyer?

Not yet, will be soon though. But seriously... tama yang perception na yan kasi I also work with lawyers and judges.

better yet, ask a lawyer, or if you have a friend who is a judge, what will the judge think if after shooting someone you RUN and not cooperate with the police.

Lastly, the Fiscal will use that as part of his theory: "you ran coz your guilty."

My piece of advice is instead of running, make sure you don't leave witnesses behind. To put it plainly, if the other person is dead, you can freely say anything in your favor regarding the circumstances of the shooting and no one will correct you. I don't think our CSI have all that hi-tech equipment that we see on TV that can re-create the scene.

This is the best case scenario. but this incident is rare.

BUT sometimes its better to have lots of witnesses so you could support your self defense theory.

PS: When using self defense as a defense in court, the court will convict you IF you cannot prove self defense and not because the prosecution's case is weak. This is so because the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to the defense's side.

crazy_hans
03-10-2009, 10:20
Sa Art. 12, RPC na pasok nyan. Pwede ka sa 5 or 6, depende sa facts ng case.

Kaso may civil liability ka pa din, damages for the death of the police officer and for robbing the bank. wala ka nga lang criminal liability.

sir why would shooting back not fall under art 11. of rpc?wouldn't you have complied with the requisites of art 11 in the facts given earlier?and why apply art 12?thanks po

crazy_hans
03-10-2009, 10:27
and sir why would there be a civil liability on the bank robbery when you were only compelled to do something meaning it is not your act but rather an act of another who forced you into doing something. i know that art 12 does not extinguish civil liability outright but why impose it as well?

sorry for passing the buck sir these questions have deprived me of sleep for a very long time.

De Angelo
03-10-2009, 14:03
NOT A GOOD IDEA... mag mukha kang guilty. Judges have this bias: If wala kang kasalanan bakit tumakbo ka? the typical answer na: "ayoko kasi ng problema at baka kasuhan ako" will never save you.

better stand your ground and let your lawyer do the talking.


sir based on experiences of friends who have killed people,,and advise of police friends and lawyers..they say do not surrender, mas mabuti pa daw antayin na lang i file ang kaso at antayin ang warrant..doon din naman pupunta yun sa court, may friend ako sumuko ayon, na stress out ang pamilya at gumastos pa sa mga pulis at mga preso para lang maalagaan sya sa kulungan, gumastos pa ng malaki sa fiscal dahil 3 ang binaril nya..buti na lang wala namatay at nabigyan sya ng bail..could you imagine if namatay yung 3?! multiple homicide yun o triple murder. no bail recommended yun mabubulok na sya doon. and this was done in self defense, bottom line self defense or not ikukulong ka pa din at i charge ng homicide


you dont have to take my word for it..i just learned it from experiences of others, ask a lawyer you know to tell you what he thinks or even a police friend if you have one.

no one is ever guilty unless proven in court, you just have to know how to work the system

eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-10-2009, 15:03
sir based on experiences of friends who have killed people,,and advise of police friends and lawyers..they say do not surrender, mas mabuti pa daw antayin na lang i file ang kaso at antayin ang warrant..doon din naman pupunta yun sa court, may friend ako sumuko ayon, na stress out ang pamilya at gumastos pa sa mga pulis at mga preso para lang maalagaan sya sa kulungan, gumastos pa ng malaki sa fiscal dahil 3 ang binaril nya..buti na lang wala namatay at nabigyan sya ng bail..could you imagine if namatay yung 3?! multiple homicide yun o triple murder. no bail recommended yun mabubulok na sya doon. and this was done in self defense, bottom line self defense or not ikukulong ka pa din at i charge ng homicide


you dont have to take my word for it..i just learned it from experiences of others, ask a lawyer you know to tell you what he thinks or even a police friend if you have one.

no one is ever guilty unless proven in court, you just have to know how to work the system

I did. A lot of POs, a few Majors, and another high ranking officer (division chief ata, dunno the exact term). Re: lawyer friends, dami din!

The thing is... kanya kanyang opinion yan. Sure you could run and not cooperate and not suffer the scenario you posted BUT what happens when the case hits the courts?

Sure your lawyer could argue the scenario you pictured above BUT there is no assurance that the judge will buy your story.

Don't get me wrong, i do understand your side of the coin and I AM tempted to agree with your opinion but... there are ways to get out of jail, as a detainee, and your lawyer could always use technicalities to get your bail. Hindi naman porket sinabi na NO BAIL RECOMMENDED ay hindi kana makakakuha ng bail.

eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-10-2009, 15:14
sir why would shooting back not fall under art 11. of rpc?wouldn't you have complied with the requisites of art 11 in the facts given earlier?and why apply art 12?thanks po

Kasi the aggression, in this case, is LAWFUL. The police officer has no idea that your family is being held hostage.

and sir why would there be a civil liability on the bank robbery when you were only compelled to do something meaning it is not your act but rather an act of another who forced you into doing something. i know that art 12 does not extinguish civil liability outright but why impose it as well?

sorry for passing the buck sir these questions have deprived me of sleep for a very long time.

Dahil sa Art. 101, RPC:

"Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the following rules:

First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part.

Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law.

Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received.

The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable.

When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damages have been caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations.

Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution. "


Please read the third rule of Art. 101.

Duckman1975
03-10-2009, 16:53
I did. A lot of POs, a few Majors, and another high ranking officer (division chief ata, dunno the exact term). Re: lawyer friends, dami din!

The thing is... kanya kanyang opinion yan. Sure you could run and not cooperate and not suffer the scenario you posted BUT what happens when the case hits the courts?

Sure your lawyer could argue the scenario you pictured above BUT there is no assurance that the judge will buy your story.

Don't get me wrong, i do understand your side of the coin and I AM tempted to agree with your opinion but... there are ways to get out of jail, as a detainee, and your lawyer could always use technicalities to get your bail. Hindi naman porket sinabi na NO BAIL RECOMMENDED ay hindi kana makakakuha ng bail.

IMOHI, the voice recording of Winston Garcia during a GSIS meeting regarding the Planned Meralco take over said it all:"We have a flawed legal system, we have to take advantage of it....."
Its a very sad fact, if you know how to work the system and have enough money you could take advantage of the system.

PMMA97
03-10-2009, 18:31
"Nasa ayos ang sistema natin, ang problema may mga taong wala sa ayos!" -Marine Major Ferdinand Marcelino

Sorry OT

horge
03-10-2009, 19:27
My piece of advice is instead of running, make sure you don't leave witnesses behind. To put it plainly, if the other person is dead, you can freely say anything in your favor regarding the circumstances of the shooting and no one will correct you. I don't think our CSI have all that hi-tech equipment that we see on TV that can re-create the scene.

Try to avoid even the semblance of promoting witness-elimination.
It is OUTSIDE the limits within which you may lawfully use your firearm.
WHY we shoot is all-important:
We shoot to end the threat, not to eliminate witnesses.
Promoting or enabling illegal activity violates the GT TOS.


My piece of advice is instead of running, make sure you don't leave witnesses behind. To put it plainly, if the other person is dead, you can freely say anything in your favor regarding the circumstances of the shooting and no one will correct you. I don't think our CSI have all that hi-tech equipment that we see on TV that can re-create the scene.

This is the best case scenario.

Try to avoid the apearance of agreeing with willful witness elimination.
When/if you finally get licensed as a lawyer of some sort or other,
then you can better give out qualified judgement as to what is the
'best case scenario'.

You would have done better not to claim proximity to the bar at all,
and so merely offered a layman's opinion.

trayO
03-11-2009, 01:21
It appears my opinion touched some nerves. I must admit that my phrase "make sure" was inappropriate when I was trying to sarcastically say "dead men tell no tales." I myself don't think I can finish off a helpless guy. But I will say that if a person uses lethal force on me or my family and I am able to gun him down, I have no problem wishing that he doesn't live to concoct a story against me. And, with the help powerful friends or influence, blackmail me or land me in jail. So friends, let me re-phrase, instead of "make sure you don't leave witnesses behind" be true to the rule "when you shoot, shoot to kill" and hope he stays dead rather than live to cause more trouble for you. That's my personal feeling of course and I have no problem if some people prefer them to live to give them the chance to say their story in court.

But going back to the topic, I see no need to run if the aggressor is dead. You can even exaggerate the degree of aggression used to make sure the police or fiscal won't twist the facts against you. What CSI would contradict?

nrmcolt
03-11-2009, 01:52
Mas organized ang patayan dito

:laughabove:

eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-11-2009, 02:46
Sir Horge,

Salamat po sa reconsideration at sa pagbukas uli ng thread.

Clusterbomb
03-11-2009, 03:44
Pasok dun sa items 1 & 2 ng Article 11 yung nangyari kay Sonny Parsons noon, pero anong nangyari? Instead of thanking him for doing their job, sya pa yung gustong kasuhan. Malas daw ni Sonny, kasi sya yung nadatnan ng pulis eh.

eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-11-2009, 04:02
^If my memory serves me right, Parsons went after the BG AFTER they left his property. Wala nang unlawful aggression nun.

Remember Art. 11 needs three things to be present before anyone could invokes its protection.

eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-11-2009, 04:06
Sorry my bad... double post

CatsMeow
03-11-2009, 20:19
Okay, before I go back to the job the government is paying me for...:supergrin: let me weigh in on the three requisites:

[1] Unlawful aggression.

The other guy is the attacker, and he must have a nefarious motive in doing so. Exceptions to this are law enforcement and military, for their attacking, like most government activities, have the presumption of regularity and legality, although nowadays I wonder...:upeyes: However there were cases where it was all too clear that the cop or soldier acted beyond authority, thus he became an unlawful aggressor.

Shooting a person running away is a no-no, there is no longer any unlawful aggression at that time.

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.

The reasonable means employed should be sufficient to stop the unlawful aggression. An example would be, if you're attacked with a knife, it may be lawful to shoot him, a knife can do a lot of damage and it never jams or becomes empty, remember the Tueller drill. There have been cases of senior citizens shooting unarmed attackers and were absolved, because their attackers were far bigger and stronger than them and would have wrung their necks had they not done so.

This brings us to "shoot to kill". WE DO NOT SHOOT TO KILL, WE SHOOT TO STOP. The employment of a firearm may be necessary because some acts of aggression require the use of lethal force to stop. It can't be helped at times that the attacker will die, but sometimes lethal force is what it takes to stop an attack, phasers that can be set on stun haven't been invented yet. The thing is, shoot till he stops, then stop shooting, if you continue to pump lead into him when he's on the ground, helpless and no longer a threat, YOU become the aggressor.

If your round passed within a centimeter of his cojones and he says EEEK and faints, you are no longer justified in shooting him again.

There have been a lot of cases where one guy tried to stab another with a knife, his would-be victim managed to wrest it away from him, but then started stabbing his attacker instead. The Supreme Court has ruled that this is no longer self-defense.

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

You should not have given cause to the other person to attack you. No teasing, no tough talk, no disparaging comments about the other guy's ancestry or lack of manly endowments, no touching where you shouldn't touch, etc.

If your situation does not include one of these above requisites, then you are entitled to Incomplete Self-Defense, you will still be convicted but your sentence will be reduced.

Read this article by Massad Ayoob, it covers self-defense in a nutshell:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n3_v37/ai_12462185

nrmcolt
03-11-2009, 21:22
If your round passed within a centimeter of his cojones and he says EEEK and faints..

:supergrin:

mansky
03-12-2009, 03:18
NOT A GOOD IDEA... mag mukha kang guilty. Judges have this bias: If wala kang kasalanan bakit tumakbo ka? the typical answer na: "ayoko kasi ng problema at baka kasuhan ako" will never save you.

better stand your ground and let your lawyer do the talking.


i ran away because ayw kong resbakan ako...
kung magpaiwan ako sa lugar ng putukan tapos ang unang dumating eh resbak pala ng naka enkwentro ko...

eh di nadagdagan pa yung naka higa....

:whistling:

De Angelo
03-12-2009, 04:04
i ran away because ayw kong resbakan ako...
kung magpaiwan ako sa lugar ng putukan tapos ang unang dumating eh resbak pala ng naka enkwentro ko...

eh di nadagdagan pa yung naka higa....

:whistling:


well said..ang pulis pa naman dito ubod ng bagal

CatsMeow
03-12-2009, 04:07
i ran away because ayw kong resbakan ako...
kung magpaiwan ako sa lugar ng putukan tapos ang unang dumating eh resbak pala ng naka enkwentro ko...

eh di nadagdagan pa yung naka higa....

:whistling:

We may believe you, but the judge might not... especially the Supreme Court. Hope you got an understanding judge and prosecutor.

Oh BTW in case self-defense is pleaded, the trial is reversed. The accused presents his evidence first, and if he fails to convince the judge, his conviction is guaranteed. Normally it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but when self-defense is pleaded, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that his act was justified, having already admitted the killing or injury.

If I'm too legalese with my posts, kindly ask for clarification.:supergrin: Can't help it.

eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-12-2009, 04:32
We may believe you, but the judge might not... especially the Supreme Court. Hope you got an understanding judge and prosecutor.

Oh BTW in case self-defense is pleaded, the trial is reversed. The accused presents his evidence first, and if he fails to convince the judge, his conviction is guaranteed. Normally it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but when self-defense is pleaded, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that his act was justified, having already admitted the killing or injury.

If I'm too legalese with my posts, kindly ask for clarification.:supergrin: Can't help it.

as a compromise... RUN but to the nearest police station. Do not say anything except: I'm involved in a particular event and then wait for the lawyer(s) to arrive.

Although I doubt that would be of much help considering some, if not most, police precincts don't know ***** about crowd control and detainee protection.

Catsmeow:

TY for the site. Although I'd prefer a case by the Phil. SC the site covers the basics nonetheless.

Also your explanation covers the most important aspects of self-defense.

Thanks for your contribution.

PS: "beyond authority" could mean a lot of things. As when the Police came to your house without a warrant and could not produce it later on and he uses force to keep you from leaving the precinct.

It could also mean that the Court Sheriff does not have jurisdiction over the matter, like when he tries to confiscate a property subject of a litigation but no final order or decision has been rendered yet.

saki1611
03-12-2009, 05:46
well said..ang pulis pa naman dito ubod ng bagal

i cannot see the relevance of your reply with sir mansky's post. i'm a policeman, please explain its connection with mansky's ideas. thanks.


as a compromise... RUN but to the nearest police station. Do not say anything except: I'm involved in a particular event and then wait for the lawyer(s) to arrive.

Although I doubt that would be of much help considering some, if not most, police precincts don't know ***** about crowd control and detainee protection.

Catsmeow:

TY for the site. Although I'd prefer a case by the Phil. SC the site covers the basics nonetheless.

Also your explanation covers the most important aspects of self-defense.

Thanks for your contribution.

PS: "beyond authority" could mean a lot of things. As when the Police came to your house without a warrant and could not produce it later on and he uses force to keep you from leaving the precinct.

It could also mean that the Court Sheriff does not have jurisdiction over the matter, like when he tries to confiscate a property subject of a litigation but no final order or decision has been rendered yet.

fyi: sir catsmeow has authority to comment on this matter, i believe almost everyday it's part of his routine to dissect the RPC, other than his guns.:supergrin:

crazy_hans
03-12-2009, 08:39
Okay, before I go back to the job the government is paying me for...:supergrin: let me weigh in on the three requisites:

[1] Unlawful aggression.

The other guy is the attacker, and he must have a nefarious motive in doing so. Exceptions to this are law enforcement and military, for their attacking, like most government activities, have the presumption of regularity and legality, although nowadays I wonder...:upeyes: However there were cases where it was all too clear that the cop or soldier acted beyond authority, thus he became an unlawful aggressor.

Shooting a person running away is a no-no, there is no longer any unlawful aggression at that time.

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.

The reasonable means employed should be sufficient to stop the unlawful aggression. An example would be, if you're attacked with a knife, it may be lawful to shoot him, a knife can do a lot of damage and it never jams or becomes empty, remember the Tueller drill. There have been cases of senior citizens shooting unarmed attackers and were absolved, because their attackers were far bigger and stronger than them and would have wrung their necks had they not done so.

This brings us to "shoot to kill". WE DO NOT SHOOT TO KILL, WE SHOOT TO STOP. The employment of a firearm may be necessary because some acts of aggression require the use of lethal force to stop. It can't be helped at times that the attacker will die, but sometimes lethal force is what it takes to stop an attack, phasers that can be set on stun haven't been invented yet. The thing is, shoot till he stops, then stop shooting, if you continue to pump lead into him when he's on the ground, helpless and no longer a threat, YOU become the aggressor.

If your round passed within a centimeter of his cojones and he says EEEK and faints, you are no longer justified in shooting him again.

There have been a lot of cases where one guy tried to stab another with a knife, his would-be victim managed to wrest it away from him, but then started stabbing his attacker instead. The Supreme Court has ruled that this is no longer self-defense.

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

You should not have given cause to the other person to attack you. No teasing, no tough talk, no disparaging comments about the other guy's ancestry or lack of manly endowments, no touching where you shouldn't touch, etc.

If your situation does not include one of these above requisites, then you are entitled to Incomplete Self-Defense, you will still be convicted but your sentence will be reduced.

Read this article by Massad Ayoob, it covers self-defense in a nutshell:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n3_v37/ai_12462185

wow!thanks sir!this is the way to answer may application hindi codal lang.i think i can sleep now hehehehe

cznayr
03-12-2009, 09:10
Howabout this scenario:

A bg infiltrates your house armed with a sledge hammer. You heard noises and check with your .40 cal. BG was surprised and lunged at you with the sledge hammer, no choice but to shoot. Three taps.

BG was hit, instinctly realizing it's a gun made a turn around. BG hit in the back. For your part, Perception reaction time is about 4 sec. So you dont realize he made a turn around until you hit him in the back. But you stopped after the third shot.

Sa US, they were able to hire a gun expert and explain this phenomenon.

Sa atin kaya??

De Angelo
03-12-2009, 13:10
i ran away because ayw kong resbakan ako...
kung magpaiwan ako sa lugar ng putukan tapos ang unang dumating eh resbak pala ng naka enkwentro ko...

eh di nadagdagan pa yung naka higa....

:whistling:

i cannot see the relevance of your reply with sir mansky's post. i'm a policeman, please explain its connection with mansky's ideas. thanks.

:supergrin:


I dont mean to offend your good graces, in instances that I had to call for police assistance, mabagal talaga dumating even if they are just a couple of blocks away, tagal pa sumagot ng telepono..just stating experience/s sir..

Sa america we had an occasion when we had to dial 911..the police, fireman, and paramedics came after 2 minutes and 50 seconds, at yes napag tripan namin timeran ang paga dating nila from the moment we ended the call..kaya mejo malayo talaga ang response time sa pinas.

presidingglock
03-12-2009, 19:59
fyi: sir catsmeow has authority to comment on this matter, i believe almost everyday it's part of his routine to dissect the RPC, other than his guns.:supergrin:[/QUOTE]


Nope, he already traded the RPC with a LC a long time ago if I'm not mistaken.

CatsMeow
03-12-2009, 20:19
fyi: sir catsmeow has authority to comment on this matter, i believe almost everyday it's part of his routine to dissect the RPC, other than his guns.:supergrin:


Nope, he already traded the RPC with a LC a long time ago if I'm not mistaken.[/QUOTE]

Yup, four years ago. No regrets, hardest part of being a prosecutor was having to apologize to the offended party when the accused got acquitted, for pity's sake, the accused ADMITTED to the crime (grave oral defamation), but claimed good faith, judge believed her, and there was nothing else I could do... Labor law is much better. Less bloody too.:supergrin:

I really miss shooting at Kamagong... and I don't dissect my guns every night, I fondle and dry-fire them...

eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-13-2009, 10:18
Howabout this scenario:

A bg infiltrates your house armed with a sledge hammer. You heard noises and check with your .40 cal. BG was surprised and lunged at you with the sledge hammer, no choice but to shoot. Three taps.

BG was hit, instinctly realizing it's a gun made a turn around. BG hit in the back. For your part, Perception reaction time is about 4 sec. So you dont realize he made a turn around until you hit him in the back. But you stopped after the third shot.

Sa US, they were able to hire a gun expert and explain this phenomenon.

Sa atin kaya??

Pwede naman yan IF kaya mong patunayan using EXPERT WITNESSES or by other means (ei: mya mga witnesses who could describe the whole thing).

I mean hindi porket tinamaan mo naman sa likod ay ibig sabihin ay nasa mali kana agad.

Case in point is when the BG does a tactical retreat and nabaril mo siya sa likod.

Tejeron
03-13-2009, 11:33
what if i had shoot a BG then I go to precint bringing a knife ng BG and leave the BG in the street, would it right for me? If I leave the BG knife in the street baka mawala pa ang evidence?

CatsMeow
03-15-2009, 21:49
Here are two cases I found on self-defense:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/140680.htm

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/137296.htm

Remember that your actions will be scrutinized in 20-20 hindsight by people who weren't even there when it happened.

as a compromise... RUN but to the nearest police station. Do not say anything except: I'm involved in a particular event and then wait for the lawyer(s) to arrive.

Although I doubt that would be of much help considering some, if not most, police precincts don't know ***** about crowd control and detainee protection.

Catsmeow:

TY for the site. Although I'd prefer a case by the Phil. SC the site covers the basics nonetheless.

Also your explanation covers the most important aspects of self-defense.

Thanks for your contribution.

PS: "beyond authority" could mean a lot of things. As when the Police came to your house without a warrant and could not produce it later on and he uses force to keep you from leaving the precinct.

It could also mean that the Court Sheriff does not have jurisdiction over the matter, like when he tries to confiscate a property subject of a litigation but no final order or decision has been rendered yet.

eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-16-2009, 09:17
Crazyhans:

Para sayo o.

Really... Hindi self defense yung scenario na binigay mo.

Mga sari saring discussion ng dalawang circumstances na sinabi ko sayo

This is compulsion of an irresistible force.

Appellant claims exemption from criminal liability under Article 12, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, because he allegedly acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force. He allegedly joined the armed Dorados against his will because of fear for his own safety. He claims in his brief that the Dorados were guarding him so closely that “escape was risky and protection by lawfully constituted authorities was, at the moment, out of reach.”[24]

We cannot sustain such defense. A person who invokes the exempting circumstance of compulsion due to irresistible force must prove his defense by clear and convincing evidence.[25] He must show that the irresistible force reduced him to a mere instrument that acted not only without will but also against his will.[26] The compulsion must be of such character as to leave the accused no opportunity to defend himself or to escape.

The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending; and it must be of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not enough.[27] A speculative, fanciful or remote fear,[28] even fear of future injury,[29] is insufficient.

In this case, appellant failed to show such compulsion. In his testimony, he did not mention that the Dorados physically or morally threatened to kill or hurt him. He did not even make any attempt to resist. He simply took for granted that they would kill or hurt him if he did not follow them. No evidence was presented to establish how, if at all, he was compelled to join the Dorados in killing the victim. In other words, appellant failed to prove that the Dorados made a real and imminent threat on his life or limb sufficient to overcome his free will.

Indeed, the Court finds no acceptable basis for appellant’s assertion that he was compelled and intimidated by the Dorados. Even without him, the Dorados could have easily carried out the crime, if such was their intention. If we believe appellant’s story, there was no need for the Dorados to mortally threaten appellant to join them. Besides, forcing appellant, a relative of the victim, to join them complicated rather than facilitated their criminal endeavor. With the appellant present among them, they would have had to guard themselves from possible resistance and double cross in case he did not consent to their plan. Furthermore, it would have been highly illogical for the Dorados to force appellant to take part in their crime, only to give him an unserviceable rifle.[30]

Moreover, his story does not inspire belief for reasons other than the obvious one that it is uncorroborated. According to appellant, he was taken against his will from his sister’s house in Tagolo-an the day before the commission of the crime. It is strange why his sister was not presented as witness to corroborate his account. Even the mayor of Tagolo-an, to whom he reported that he had been forced to participate in a killing, could have testified in his favor. But said official, who could have injected credence to his defense, was not presented to corroborate his testimony. The non-presentation of these witnesses tends to show that they would not have corroborated appellant’s allegations had they testified.

From: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/105002.htm

The conviction of del Rosario must be set aside. His claim for exemption from criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 5, Revised Penal Code as he acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force must be sustained. He was then unarmed and unable to protect himself when he was prevented at gunpoint by his co-accused from leaving the crime scene during the perpetration of the robbery and killing, and was only forced to help them escape after the commission of the crime.[16]

But the trial court ruled that his fear was merely speculative, fanciful and remote, hence, could not be considered uncontrollable; and that a gun pointed at him did not constitute irresistible force because it fell short of the test required by law and jurisprudence.[17]

We disagree. A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will is not my act. The force contemplated must be so formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.[18]

As a rule, it is natural for people to be seized by fear when threatened with weapons, even those less powerful that a gun, such as knives and clubs. People will normally, usually and probably do what an armed man asks them to do, nothing more, nothing less. In the instant case, del Rosario was threatened with a gun. He could not therefore be expected to flee nor risk his life to help a stranger. A person under the same circumstances would be more concerned with his personal welfare and security rather than the safety of a person whom he only saw for the first time that day.[19]

Eto Source: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/apr99/127755.htm

eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-16-2009, 09:21
Here are two cases I found on self-defense:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/140680.htm

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/137296.htm

Remember that your actions will be scrutinized in 20-20 hindsight by people who weren't even there when it happened.

Maraming salamat po!

I summarized the cases you posted po:

The appellant’s claim of self-defense deserves scant consideration. Case law has it that like alibi, the affirmative defense of self-defense under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, is a weak defense.[11] The accused who invokes self-defense thereby admits having killed the victim, and the burden of evidence is shifted on him to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, the confluence of the following essential elements: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and, (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[12] The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution because even if the evidence of the prosecution is weak, the same can no longer be disbelieved. The accused cannot escape conviction if he fails to prove the essential elements of a complete self-defense.[13]

The accused cannot invoke self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless he proves unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.[14] Unlawful aggression exists when there is an actual and sudden attack or imminent peril to the life and limbs of the person defending himself coming from the victim.[15] Retaliation, as distinguished from unlawful aggression, exists when the inceptual unlawful aggression of the victim has already ceased and there is no evidence that he persists in consummating the same.[16] The accused cannot invoke self-defense if he kills the victim by way of retaliation.

Source: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/137296.htm

This is a good case about retaliation (Think of it this way, imagine Manny Pacquiao hitting his opponent, say Oscar, when Oscar is already down and out for the count.)


Under the circumstances here, we are convinced that appellant is the unlawful aggressor. As maybe gleaned from the narrations of the witnesses, the incident has two stages. The first stage took place in appellant’s house where the victim felt insulted when rebuked by the appellant for interfering in a family squabble. This prompted the victim to hit appellant’s upper left arm with a steel pipe. Afterwards, the victim left.

The second stage began when the victim met appellant and Kagawad Fernandez along the road. At this time, the victim wanted to reconcile with the appellant. In fact, he offered appellant a handshake, telling him to forget what happened. Unfortunately, appellant, who had not yet shaken off his ire against the victim, stabbed the latter.

While admittedly, the victim was the unlawful aggressor during the first stage of the incident, however, he ceased to be in the second stage. The lapse of an appreciable time interval had cooled off his head as shown by the fact that he was trying to shake appellant’s hand and telling him, “forget what happened.”

Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof.[39] For one to be considered the unlawful aggressor, he must be shown to have exhibited external acts clearly showing his intent to cause and commit harm to the other.[40] In the case at bar, the prosecution witnesses belied any act of aggression on the part of the victim. The evidence shows he was unarmed and had no idea of the impending attack against him.

Certainly, the victim’s act of aggression during the first stage of the incident does not justify appellant’s conduct during the second stage. Settled is the rule that when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender has no longer any right to kill or wound the former aggressor, otherwise, retaliation, and not self-defense is committed.[41]

eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-16-2009, 09:23
what if i had shoot a BG then I go to precint bringing a knife ng BG and leave the BG in the street, would it right for me? If I leave the BG knife in the street baka mawala pa ang evidence?

You are better off taking a vidoe of the whole thing while a police officer is clearing the scene and have it inventoried and such an inventory is signed by the officer.

Honestly, I'm not sure kung pwede kang maki-epal sa mga SOCO ha pero its worth a try.

eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-16-2009, 09:35
Crazyhans:

Eto naman yung impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury

The only question of law raised whether the defense of uncontrollable fear is tenable to warrant her exemption from criminal liability¾has to be resolved in the negative. For this exempting circumstance to be invoked successfully, the following requisites must concur: (1) existence of an uncontrollable fear; (2) the fear must be real and imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed.[24]

It must appear that the threat that caused the uncontrollable fear is of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.[25] It should be based on a real, imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb.[26] A mere threat of a future injury is not enough. It should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote.[27] A person invoking uncontrollable fear must show therefore that the compulsion was such that it reduced him to a mere instrument acting not only without will but against his will as well.[28] It must be of such character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape.[29]

In this case, far from it, the fear, if any, harbored by Ty was not real and imminent. Ty claims that she was compelled to issue the checks a condition the hospital allegedly demanded of her before her mother could be discharged for fear that her mother’s health might deteriorate further due to the inhumane treatment of the hospital or worse, her mother might commit suicide. This is speculative fear; it is not the uncontrollable fear contemplated by law.

To begin with, there was no showing that the mother’s illness was so life-threatening such that her continued stay in the hospital suffering all its alleged unethical treatment would induce a well-grounded apprehension of her death. Secondly, it is not the law’s intent to say that any fear exempts one from criminal liability much less petitioner’s flimsy fear that her mother might commit suicide. In other words, the fear she invokes was not impending or insuperable as to deprive her of all volition and to make her a mere instrument without will, moved exclusively by the hospital’s threats or demands.

Source: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/149275.htm

crazy_hans
03-16-2009, 20:00
Crazyhans:

Para sayo o.

Really... Hindi self defense yung scenario na binigay mo.

Mga sari saring discussion ng dalawang circumstances na sinabi ko sayo

This is compulsion of an irresistible force.



From: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jul1997/105002.htm



Eto Source: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/apr99/127755.htm

thnak you sir but then on the first case you raised there was no irresistable force as held by the SC while on my question there was an irresistable force on the bank robbery but what about for shooting to cop?he wasn't compelled by the bank robbers to shoot as well but rather he acted in defense of his life. and how about the civil liability of the 2nd case?thanks ulit!

eug3n3_d3nn1s
03-17-2009, 01:22
thnak you sir but then on the first case you raised there was no irresistable force as held by the SC while on my question there was an irresistable force on the bank robbery but what about for shooting to cop?he wasn't compelled by the bank robbers to shoot as well but rather he acted in defense of his life. and how about the civil liability of the 2nd case?thanks ulit!

Dude, the cases are decided based on the facts presented and how the court perceived those facts.

Ika nga ni catsmeow diba: Remember that your actions will be scrutinized in 20-20 hindsight by people who weren't even there when it happened.

The cop is just doing his duty, kaya lawful aggression (read: its not unlawful aggression) yung pag baril nya sayo.

Shooting the cop is nothing but an extension of the condition for the release of your family AND its connected or a consequence with the force or fear. To expound, para makuha mo ang pamilya mo kelangan mag rob ka ng banko, sympre idedeliver mo yung pera na ninakaw mo sa mga kidnappers, ngayon dahil sa pag nakaw mo sa banko ay binaril ka ng pulis. Wala ka ngayong choice but barilin pabalik yung pulis dahil kung hindi mo siya gagawin hindi makakawala yung pamilya mo kasi nga kelangan mong ideliver yung pera.

So the killing of the cop is nothing but a natural and logical consequence of the force or fear exerted.

Re: Civil liability: Yung mga nang-blackmail sayo (o yung kidnappers/hostage takers) ang unang sisingilin ng pamilya ng pulis at ng banko. Pag hindi sila makabayad, for one reason or the other, ikaw yung sisingilin nila. Pag nasingil ka naman nila, pwede mo pa din singilin yung mga blackmailers pag makakabayad na sila.

It sounds a little bit unfair right? However, the alternative is to call the cops and tell them what is going on. This is what the law wants to promote.

saki1611
03-17-2009, 03:46
Dude, the cases are decided based on the facts presented and how the court perceived those facts.

Ika nga ni catsmeow diba: Remember that your actions will be scrutinized in 20-20 hindsight by people who weren't even there when it happened.

The cop is just doing his duty, kaya lawful aggression (read: its not unlawful aggression) yung pag baril nya sayo.

Shooting the cop is nothing but an extension of the condition for the release of your family AND its connected or a consequence with the force or fear. To expound, para makuha mo ang pamilya mo kelangan mag rob ka ng banko, sympre idedeliver mo yung pera na ninakaw mo sa mga kidnappers, ngayon dahil sa pag nakaw mo sa banko ay binaril ka ng pulis. Wala ka ngayong choice but barilin pabalik yung pulis dahil kung hindi mo siya gagawin hindi makakawala yung pamilya mo kasi nga kelangan mong ideliver yung pera.

So the killing of the cop is nothing but a natural and logical consequence of the force or fear exerted.

Re: Civil liability: Yung mga nang-blackmail sayo (o yung kidnappers/hostage takers) ang unang sisingilin ng pamilya ng pulis at ng banko. Pag hindi sila makabayad, for one reason or the other, ikaw yung sisingilin nila. Pag nasingil ka naman nila, pwede mo pa din singilin yung mga blackmailers pag makakabayad na sila.

It sounds a little bit unfair right? However, the alternative is to call the cops and tell them what is going on. This is what the law wants to promote.

Questions: (As to scrutinize the defense)

1. On the given situation, is the offender had no liberty to report the crime to the authority and let them handle the situation? If not, how come he was able to rob a bank with a gun that is capable to shoot and kill and did not use it with the hostage takers?

2. When the offender shot the police, was it the last recourse? Does he had an opportunity to to just run away from the police and deliver the money?

9MX
03-17-2009, 08:18
ahhh..the english here is so deep ha..ocean deep:supergrin:

my 2cents on the whole shebang:

a self defense incident is best told by one side only:cool:

ikaw nga ng isang kaibigan kong pulis na saksakan ng daming pangaral ang alam. para siya si booda..@ goodah! "mas maganda na ikaw ang nagpapaliwanag..kesa ikaw ang ipinapaliwanag":rofl:

crazy_hans
03-17-2009, 08:52
Dude, the cases are decided based on the facts presented and how the court perceived those facts.

Ika nga ni catsmeow diba: Remember that your actions will be scrutinized in 20-20 hindsight by people who weren't even there when it happened.

The cop is just doing his duty, kaya lawful aggression (read: its not unlawful aggression) yung pag baril nya sayo.

Shooting the cop is nothing but an extension of the condition for the release of your family AND its connected or a consequence with the force or fear. To expound, para makuha mo ang pamilya mo kelangan mag rob ka ng banko, sympre idedeliver mo yung pera na ninakaw mo sa mga kidnappers, ngayon dahil sa pag nakaw mo sa banko ay binaril ka ng pulis. Wala ka ngayong choice but barilin pabalik yung pulis dahil kung hindi mo siya gagawin hindi makakawala yung pamilya mo kasi nga kelangan mong ideliver yung pera.

So the killing of the cop is nothing but a natural and logical consequence of the force or fear exerted.

Re: Civil liability: Yung mga nang-blackmail sayo (o yung kidnappers/hostage takers) ang unang sisingilin ng pamilya ng pulis at ng banko. Pag hindi sila makabayad, for one reason or the other, ikaw yung sisingilin nila. Pag nasingil ka naman nila, pwede mo pa din singilin yung mga blackmailers pag makakabayad na sila.

It sounds a little bit unfair right? However, the alternative is to call the cops and tell them what is going on. This is what the law wants to promote.

yah remember my pm?i was rasing the point of self-defense since you were shot at and you didn't shoot back because of your family but rather of self-preservation.i agree that the aggression is lawful as far as the police is concerned since he was performing his duty. As for you, you also have the right to defend yourself since you are exempted from criminal liability for the reason that you were only forced to rob a bank. that is why i refer to it as concurrence of certain circumstances.

crazy_hans
03-17-2009, 08:58
Questions: (As to scrutinize the defense)

1. On the given situation, is the offender had no liberty to report the crime to the authority and let them handle the situation? If not, how come he was able to rob a bank with a gun that is capable to shoot and kill and did not use it with the hostage takers?

2. When the offender shot the police, was it the last recourse? Does he had an opportunity to to just run away from the police and deliver the money?

sir saki! on the first question let us assume that the hostage takers are not with the robbers but else where so taking the robbers out is not an option. on the second question let us assume that no other option is available but to shoot back maybe even just a cover fire but you hit a police officer in that instance.

OT nix and saki di kaya isipin nila communists tyo?puro tayo kaliwete sa isang thread!:supergrin:

saki1611
03-18-2009, 05:17
sir saki! on the first question let us assume that the hostage takers are not with the robbers but else where so taking the robbers out is not an option. on the second question let us assume that no other option is available but to shoot back maybe even just a cover fire but you hit a police officer in that instance.

OT nix and saki di kaya isipin nila communists tyo?puro tayo kaliwete sa isang thread!:supergrin:

if he has the liberty to report to the authority the taking of his family and failed to do so, i believe he would be liable to the offense, consequently the same with the shooting of the police.

crazy_hans
03-19-2009, 08:04
if he has the liberty to report to the authority the taking of his family and failed to do so, i believe he would be liable to the offense, consequently the same with the shooting of the police.

errr if i am holding your family against your will, would you be at liberty to report to the authorities?

saki1611
03-19-2009, 09:13
ahhh..the english here is so deep ha..ocean deep:supergrin:

my 2cents on the whole shebang:

a self defense incident is best told by one side only:cool:

ikaw nga ng isang kaibigan kong pulis na saksakan ng daming pangaral ang alam. para siya si booda..@ goodah! "mas maganda na ikaw ang nagpapaliwanag..kesa ikaw ang ipinapaliwanag":rofl:

why is it that some people just to show-off themselves, would think stupid and without realizing make them more stupid...:whistling:

crazy_hans
03-19-2009, 20:02
why is it that some people just to show-off themselves, would think stupid and without realizing make them more stupid...:whistling:

because a lot of people are under achievers:supergrin: