Suspect in Pasig Traffic Shooting Arrested [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Suspect in Pasig Traffic Shooting Arrested


Alexii
10-03-2007, 00:43
I can't believe no one has posted about this condemnable act at BOG yet. Anyway, here is JuDGe's original post at Pinoyguns.com. Bro JuDGe, I hope you don't mind:


Police have arrested the suspect in the killing of two persons following a traffic altercation in Pasig City past 2 p.m. Tuesday, ABS-CBN News reported.

Senior Superintendent Francisco Uyami, city police chief, said lawyer Manuel Hernandez Jr. was arrested shortly after the incident at the entrance gate of Barangay San Antonio Village on Shaw Boulevard.

Uyami said the suspect was collared at his home.

Police named Hernandez suspect in the fatal shooting of Egadrdo Canizares and Katherine Palmero.

Witnesses told police that the incident took place around 2 p.m. when Canizares's Nissan Cefiro (XSA 205) nearly ran into Hernandez's Toyota car (UEP 547) that was about to leave the village near the corner of Shaw Boulevard.

Following the near-accident, Canizares alighted from his car and hurled invectives at Hernandez.

The suspect initially ignored Canizares and drove on. Canizares, however, kicked the suspect's car and forced him to draw a pistol and open fire.

Witnesses said after shooting Canizares four time, the suspect vented his ire on Palmero.

Authorities took the victims to The Medical City hospital. They died while undergoing treatment.

The assailant, meanwhile, escaped on board his car toward Pioneer Street. With reports from Sol Aragones and Ricky Velasco, DZMM


Video:Saksi-Suspect-in-fatal-traf fic-shooting-arrested

JuDGe
10-03-2007, 01:00
alexii, i posted the same at the gunban thread

enting
10-03-2007, 05:20
He ask for it, he got what he wanted. lesson learned: Ask & you will recieve, seek & you shall find, knock & you will be shot. But i condemn the act.

Allegra
10-03-2007, 05:37
Have to agree , I'm sure the victim is a good guy
But if someone were to kick my car during a traffic disagreement , I cant say I wont do the same

boni
10-03-2007, 07:06
Originally posted by Allegra
Have to agree , I'm sure the victim is a good guy
But if someone were to kick my car during a traffic disagreement , I cant say I wont do the same

presumption of innocence pa rin until proven otherwise. dapat kasi wag pa siga2x eh nakita nya katapat nya tuloy. 9mm ang gamit sir? but sana hindi yung sa babae. in my opinion kasi pati yung kasama tinuluyan para walang witness. :sad: nakaranas na rin kami nyan ng sigaan sa daan. kasi nag aaway sila ng kasintahan nya ay nung nag overtake kami ay tinutukan kami ng baril. ewan ko bakit pero astang siga talaga eh naka convoy pa naman kami dalawang sasakyan lahat naka carry. umabot hanggang out of town ang habulan but at least wlang namatay. :) lesson learned for him. lesson din ito ata para sa ating lahat. :sad:

Allegra
10-03-2007, 08:10
I'm also curious why he shot the girl

But I'm not talking about what is wrong and what is right or ipapakita sino ang siga
I'm not a siga and I dont carry a gun
I always avoid traffic confrontations even if someone cuts me off
But if he starts yelling invectives and kicks my car I'm gonna beat him to death w/ my nokia or maybe ako naman ang mababaril
More of magdilim ang paningin and not anything else

JuDGe
10-03-2007, 08:56
A lawyer is now facing criminal charges for allegedly killing two persons following a traffic altercation in Pasig City Tuesday, ABS-CBN News reported Wednesday.

Police said suspect Manuel Hernandez was charged with murder and violation of the Commission on Elections gun ban before the city prosecutor's office.

Senior Superintendent Francisco Uyami, city police chief, said Hernandez, 32, works at the legal department of City Hall and has a sibling who is a Sandiganbayan magistrate.

A check with the Office of the Press Secretary Web site said the Sandiganbayan has an associate justice named Jose Hernandez.

Police arrested the suspect at his residence in Barangay Kapitolyo after authorities traced the ownership of his Toyota car (UEP 457) at the Land Transportation Office.

Hernandez was identified as the gunman who shot and killed businessman Edgardo Canizares and his companion named Katherine Palmero.

Uyami said Hernandez initially refused to undergo a paraffin test but changed his mind Wednesday morning.

“May pinagsabihan siya kanina na gusto niyang magpa-paraffin kaya lang useless na, baka hinugasan na niya ang kanyang kamay (He told someone earlier that he wanted to undergo a paraffin test but it's useless now because he might have already washed his hands),” Uyami said.

Witnesses, meanwhile, have been invited to the police headquarters to give their statements regarding the incident past 2 p.m. Tuesday. Police added that they also have a witness who saw what took place.

Reports said the traffic altercation happened around 2 p.m. Tuesday when Canizares's Nissan Cefiro (XSA 205) nearly ran into Hernandez's car that was about to leave Barangay San Antonio Village near the corner of Shaw Boulevard.

Witnesses told police that Canizares alighted from his car and hurled invectives at Hernandez. The suspect ignored the victim and drove on.

Canizares, however, kicked the suspect's car. Moments later, witnesses saw Hernandez alighting from his car with a pistol.

After shooting Canizares four times, the suspect vented his ire on Palmero and shot the woman.

Authorities took the victims to The Medical City hospital. They died while undergoing treatment. With a report from Sol Aragones

cebuboy
10-03-2007, 09:10
Originally posted by Allegra
I'm also curious why he shot the girl


Road rage???

Eye Cutter
10-03-2007, 09:18
i smell a glock...

accdg sa newscast, wala raw license/record sa FED yung pistol na ginamit

Allegra
10-03-2007, 09:19
Originally posted by cebuboy
Road rage???

sobrang galit
he already shot the 1st victim 4x di pa nahulasan

Allegra
10-03-2007, 09:22
Originally posted by Eye Cutter
i smell a glock... wala raw license/record sa FED


ayun , yan mga naka glock di dapat pinagtitiwalaan yan e :) sing plastic ng baril nila :)

jundeleon
10-03-2007, 10:30
ayun , yan mga naka glock di dapat pinagtitiwalaan yan e sing plastic ng baril nila

correct. benta ko nga glock ko Php 5,000 each bago ko makabaril.

3kings
10-03-2007, 13:16
Originally posted by jundeleon
correct. benta ko nga glock ko Php 5,000 each bago ko makabaril.

are u serious jun?

SOLD! :banana:

3kings
10-03-2007, 13:19
Originally posted by Eye Cutter
i smell a glock...

accdg sa newscast, wala raw license/record sa FED yung pistol na ginamit

lawyer + loose firearm = double trouble

paano kaya naging professional iyan?

dapat maconvict at ma dis-bar yan! these people give us (legal and responsible f/a owners) a bad name!

g35pt
10-03-2007, 16:52
ayun , yan mga naka glock di dapat pinagtitiwalaan yan e sing plastic ng baril nila

Originally posted by jundeleon
correct. benta ko nga glock ko Php 5,000 each bago ko makabaril.

Mabuti na lang Sir jundeleon nakita ko sa picture ang para mo kaya binenta ko ang glock ko.mabuti na lang hindi na plastic ang baril ko

gen1
10-03-2007, 17:49
basag daw iyong salamin ng toyota sa lakas ng sipa.

sufficient na yun siguro as proof na may threat na sa buhay mo kung may martial arts training iyung BG. kaso bakit naman dinamay pa yung tsik.

zorkd
10-03-2007, 21:01
....took place around 2 p.m. when Canizares's Nissan Cefiro (XSA 205) nearly ran into Hernandez's Toyota car (UEP 547) ...

doesn't this mean si canizares ang muntik nang makabangga sa auto ni hernandez?

if that is the case, and siya pa may ganang bumaba nang auto at makipag sigawan, tapos sinipa pa niya auto nung isa, eh di nagkamali lang siya nang (muntik) binangga'.

TTPower
10-03-2007, 21:41
i heard on the news last nite that they're checking if the lawyer was on drugs coz they cant believe that he also shot the girl who was just helping the guy.

st. matthew
10-03-2007, 22:12
Originally posted by jundeleon
correct. benta ko nga glock ko Php 5,000 each bago ko makabaril.

sir, intersado ako sa g35 mo :supergrin:

mistahglock17
10-03-2007, 22:16
Originally posted by 3kings
lawyer + loose firearm = double trouble

paano kaya naging professional iyan?

dapat maconvict at ma dis-bar yan! these people give us (legal and responsible f/a owners) a bad name!

A lawyer/a city hall employee, nephew of Sandiganbayan Justice Jose Hernandez....

well, since he practice and knows well our law (together with his uncle at Sandiganbayan)maybe he thought there is a way he can get away from his crime.

di yan maglalakas loob gumawa ng krimen or magdala ng kargada kung walang 'kapit'... knowing there is a gun ban.

yung mag ipit ka lang ng calling card ng kahit sinong mayor sa lisensya mo pakakawalan ka ng MMDA for any minor traffic violation.
what more if you will put a calling card that has sandiganbayan seal, with matching personal signature.

but lets see kung tatanggapin ng presyo yung calling card ng uncle nya para di sya "patuwarin" pagpasok nya sa munti:animlol: :rofl:

vega
10-03-2007, 22:47
Why don't I feel any pity for Canizares?

TTPower
10-03-2007, 23:25
Originally posted by vega
Why don't I feel any pity for Canizares?

like what the others said he was looking for trouble... the problem was trouble found him first! maybe Canizares is in heaven now.... yun lng nga napaaga lng biyahe nya!

lesson to us all... wag masyado matapang at mayabang! kasi for sure may masmatapang at mayabang sa atin. :supergrin:

juramentado
10-04-2007, 00:12
Originally posted by vega
Why don't I feel any pity for Canizares?

IMHO, we should feel pity for him. He's a victim as well, and not just the women he was with.

Personally, I don't think it's legally or morally right to shoot someone dead unless he or she has endangered my own life. I'm not a lawyer and maybe one can confirm this. But this is just my own personal understanding of the use of deadly force.

If I was in my car and someone kicked and abused it, I'm safe in it. Unless the attacker goes after my car window to get to me. Then I'll feel that my life in in danger and I can use deadly force.

According to the news reports and witnesses, the male victim was unarmed and kicked the car as it tried to drive away. Prior to that, the suspect flashed his gun while inside the car, trying to intimidate the male victim.

nevertheless, they are both wrong in that they escalated the incident needlessly. But the suspect took it to the ulitmate conclusion.

tagaykoyan
10-04-2007, 00:37
Originally posted by gen1
basag daw iyong salamin ng toyota sa lakas ng sipa.

sufficient na yun siguro as proof na may threat na sa buhay mo kung may martial arts training iyung BG. kaso bakit naman dinamay pa yung tsik.

the shooter was inside the car when the victim made his martial arts move. how can there be a threat to his person?

guys, lets do away with the notion that the victim got what he deserved. dirty finger signs, foul words and kicks/punches to the vehicle (or even to your face) does not equate to deadly force, and does not justify the use of firearms.

TTPower
10-04-2007, 00:53
Originally posted by tagaykoyan
the shooter was inside the car when the victim made his martial arts move. how can there be a threat to his person?

guys, lets do away with the notion that the victim got what he deserved. dirty finger signs, foul words and kicks/punches to the vehicle (or even to your face) does not equate to deadly force, and does not justify the use of firearms.

kicks and punches to ur vehicle is not assult... but when someone punches u in the face? i think that can be considered as a threat to ur life. people have died because of a punch in the face or in the head.

BOGS am i right here?

tagaykoyan
10-04-2007, 01:00
Originally posted by TTPower
kicks and punches to ur vehicle is not assult... but when someone punches u in the face? i think that can be considered as a threat to ur life. people have died because of a punch in the face or in the head.

BOGS am i right here?

shooting someone because he punched you in the face? i beg to disagree bro. according to the supreme court, "...the provocation must be sufficient to excite a person to commit a wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity."

gen1
10-04-2007, 01:04
the news reports are as follows:

1.there was a near accident between the two at the village gate.
2.bumababa si canizares, hinamon si hernandez.
3.hindi pinansin ni hernandez si canizares, at nagpatuloy sa biyahe niya.
4.sinundan ni canizares sa kotse at dinuro-duro habang sabay silang tumatakbo.
5.nang mahinto sa trapik, bumaba si canizares, hinahamon ulit si hernandez.
6.nang hindi pumapalag si hernandez, sinipa ni canizares ang kotse. basag ang salamin. at this point, hindi threats ang ginagawa ni canizares. assault na ito. pwede mo nang ilabas ang carry mo dahil may direct threat na sa iyo.

at kung may percieved threat sa atin o sa mga mahal sa buhay natin, ano ba ang gagawin natin ? kaya nga ako may PTC. . .
:supergrin:

TTPower
10-04-2007, 01:11
Originally posted by tagaykoyan
shooting someone because he punched you in the face? i beg to disagree bro. according to the supreme court, "...the provocation must be sufficient to excite a person to commit a wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity."


i dont want to get into a debate here... and no offense bro :)
but if ur going to ask me... im not going to wait till im black and blue and about to die before i start blasting the @$$hole!

just a reminder... there's no bail in heaven or hell :tongueout:

9MX
10-04-2007, 01:17
a punch in the face? lethality depends on who is doing the punching..

so both you may be right depending on the factors present

however these are "what if" scenarios

it might be a good idea that we just stick to the present issues

but that's just me;)

tagaykoyan
10-04-2007, 01:44
Originally posted by gen1
the news reports are as follows:

1.there was a near accident between the two at the village gate.
2.bumababa si canizares, hinamon si hernandez.
3.hindi pinansin ni hernandez si canizares, at nagpatuloy sa biyahe niya.
4.sinundan ni canizares sa kotse at dinuro-duro habang sabay silang tumatakbo.
5.nang mahinto sa trapik, bumaba si canizares, hinahamon ulit si hernandez.
6.nang hindi pumapalag si hernandez, sinipa ni canizares ang kotse. basag ang salamin. at this point, hindi threats ang ginagawa ni canizares. assault na ito. pwede mo nang ilabas ang carry mo dahil may direct threat na sa iyo.

at kung may percieved threat sa atin o sa mga mahal sa buhay natin, ano ba ang gagawin natin ? kaya nga ako may PTC. . .
:supergrin:


assault to property does not legitimize the killing of a person bro. neither does "perceived" threats (what if mali pala yung perception mo?)

based on jurisprudence, there should be actual threat to your person.
now, if you wanna roll the dice and see what the courts will say, then its fine with me. it's your ass anyways:thumbsup:

bertud ng putik
10-04-2007, 02:22
pareho silang pinasok ng dimonyo sa katawan. at una una lang yan. hehehehe!

gen1
10-04-2007, 02:56
Originally posted by tagaykoyan
assault to property does not legitimize the killing of a person bro. neither does "perceived" threats (what if mali pala yung perception mo?)

based on jurisprudence, there should be actual threat to your person.
now, if you wanna roll the dice and see what the courts will say, then its fine with me. it's your ass anyways:thumbsup:
-------------------
The three elements of self-defense are provided under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code:

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 to prevent or repel it;

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

x x x x x x x x x

There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one�s life, limb or right is either actual or imminent. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon.27 It is a statutory and doctrinal requirement that, for the justifying circumstance of self-defense, the presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non. There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim commits an unlawful aggression against the person defending himself
-------------

yup. call ko na talaga iyon depende sa perception ko sa sitwasyon.

mahirap kung maging ang last words ko eh, "akala ko celpon lang yung hinuhugot niya, ughhh.... " :animlol:

kung magkamali ako, eh, bahala na si attorney diyan :supergrin:

iMD
10-04-2007, 02:57
heard in the news this morning that Atty Hernandez's gun is unlicensed.....tsk tsk tsk

Alexii
10-04-2007, 03:43
I don't feel pity for Canizares as well. I felt bad for Katherine (who was in the wrong comapany, place, and time) but I felt worst for the families of Canizares, the girl, and Hernandez.

Hernandez should be incarcerated for life.

enting
10-04-2007, 04:18
"do unto others before they do it unto to you."

cebuboy
10-04-2007, 04:40
Too bad for the girl, just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time...

Well this serves as a lesson to all the road bullies/toughies out there...

Allegra
10-04-2007, 06:04
Why is a 49 year old man picking a fight in traffic anyway?
If I was 49 I'll have the girl fight for me instead

atmarcella
10-04-2007, 08:33
:agree: :animlol:

royal glockster
10-04-2007, 09:01
Originally posted by iMD
heard in the news this morning that Atty Hernandez's gun is unlicensed.....tsk tsk tsk

...but where's the gun??....remember, in criminal case conviction needs proof beyond reasonable doubt..:upeyes: I'm not a lawyer though...hehe.

royal glockster
10-04-2007, 09:02
Originally posted by enting
"do unto others before they do it unto to you."

do you justify the killing bro?:upeyes: just asking lang naman..peace!

atmarcella
10-04-2007, 09:46
at kung may percieved threat sa atin o sa mga mahal sa buhay natin, ano ba ang gagawin natin ? kaya nga ako may PTC. . .

ako dati mahilig din mag carry...

but i found out the hard way na matindi pala galit ko... dko kaya e control, i was putting myself in a position to do something stupid, afterwhich i can hear the gates of heaven closing for me..... thats why i quit carrying....unless i really really have to i.e. me dala ako cash...big amount ;)

thats just what happened to hernandez...he put himself in a position where he did something stupid:sad:

it also happened to hitler you know...alam nya matindi galit nya sa jews then he put himself in a position where he could do something about it

crazy_hans
10-04-2007, 10:22
Originally posted by tagaykoyan
assault to property does not legitimize the killing of a person bro. neither does "perceived" threats (what if mali pala yung perception mo?)

based on jurisprudence, there should be actual threat to your person.
now, if you wanna roll the dice and see what the courts will say, then its fine with me. it's your ass anyways:thumbsup:

(what if mali pala yung perception mo?) if you are going to use this arguement malamang abswelto ka na. you call that as a mistake of fact which can absolve you.right?

charlie-xray
10-04-2007, 12:42
It was on the news that the Atty onwns no 9mm but a 22lr only and that the weapon used is not found.

Hope the LEO's investigating the case makes this stick....and stick big time. Also heard on the news that the investigators are getting pressures from Generals, Colonel and other big influencial people.

bulm540
10-04-2007, 17:32
Originally posted by TTPower
i dont want to get into a debate here... and no offense bro :)
but if ur going to ask me... im not going to wait till im black and blue and about to die before i start blasting the @$$hole!

just a reminder... there's no bail in heaven or hell :tongueout:
Ditto!

Tejeron
10-04-2007, 19:32
i think he can get away with the killing of the Canizares but not with Katherine, doon siya maconvict.

isuzu
10-04-2007, 20:11
Originally posted by Tejeron
i think he can get away with the killing of the Canizares but not with Katherine, doon siya maconvict.

I agree. If the reports are true that the victim ran after the alleged shooter, then, he was asking for trouble. The lawyer tried to get away from the situation he was in, but he was still followed.

As for the car being kicked, IMHO, it would just be property damage or vandalism if there was nobody inside. If there was somebody inside the car and he kicked the window of the car, I would categorize it not only as property damage/vandalism, but an assault on the individual as well; because of the compounding circumstance, that is, going after the lawyer after he has fled the first scene of confrontation. The victim had an intention to pick up a fight, which, he unfortunately got, and was at the receiving end of it.

Shooting the lady is certainly murder. If I were the lawyer, he would plead guilty/no contest to the charges filed against him for shooting the lady.

As for possessing and carrying a loose firearm, WRONG!

bulm540
10-04-2007, 20:15
Originally posted by Tejeron
i think he can get away with the killing of the Canizares but not with Katherine, doon siya maconvict.
Agree....

juramentado
10-04-2007, 20:18
Originally posted by Tejeron
i think he can get away with the killing of the Canizares but not with Katherine, doon siya maconvict.

because the victim kicked his car window?

I don't mean to start a debate, but I still don't understand why some people think it's ok to kill someone for kicking a car.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not siding with the victim, who was obviously to stupid and mayabang for his own good.

maskytrading
10-04-2007, 20:24
1. Perception of the shooter was that there was an imminent threat to his life...that's why he shot the other fellow. That's his judgment call...but the problem is investigators, witness accounts and last but not least plaintiff lawyers, fiscal(s) and a judge will determine if his perception was correct

2. What about the second victim? Was there a imminent threat to his life from her?

3. Where is the smoking gun?

4. How many credible witnesses are there? I heard from the news that there is only one.

MO, without 3 and 4, he will walk away still a lawyer. Maybe even without no. 3

Capt.Barbel
10-04-2007, 22:09
Ah basta kahit ano pa sabihin, they are both WRONG!

Allegra
10-04-2007, 22:39
Originally posted by juramentado
because the victim kicked his car window?

I don't mean to start a debate, but I still don't understand why some people think it's ok to kill someone for kicking a car.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not siding with the victim, who was obviously to stupid and mayabang for his own good.


hehe I dont think it's ok
Still I dont think mapipigilan ko sarili ko if he was asking for a fight and he was kicked my car w/ me inside

Anyone think what would have happened if it's the other guy who had the gun

juramentado
10-04-2007, 22:49
Originally posted by Allegra
Anyone think what would have happened if it's the other guy who had the gun

You have folks like Rolito Go or Inocencio Gonzalez.

http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jun2001/139542.htm

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=editorial_sept13_2006

ahtsay
10-04-2007, 23:18
Originally posted by Capt.Barbel
Ah basta kahit ano pa sabihin, they are both WRONG!

+1

Allegra
10-04-2007, 23:20
Originally posted by juramentado
You have folks like Rolito Go or Inocencio Gonzalez.

http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/jun2001/139542.htm

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=editorial_sept13_2006


Correct :)
City guys make things so complicated kasi , right or wrong, gulity or innocent
Dito sa probinsya , sasabihin lang ng mga dobandids - e di ba away ang hanap nya??

tagaykoyan
10-04-2007, 23:33
Originally posted by Allegra
hehe I dont think it's ok
Still I dont think mapipigilan ko sarili ko if he was asking for a fight and he was kicked my car w/ me inside

Anyone think what would have happened if it's the other guy who had the gun

he he kaya nga kelangan may high level of self control ang mga gunowners. hindi pwedeng konting kanti lang eh babarilin mo na.

kung binasag ang kotse mo eh di basagin mo ang mukha nya. kung bumunot sya, eh di bumunot ka rin. ang problema satin eh ang rason "di bale nang mauna sya kesa ako".. juskoday, kahit si chuck liddell sumapak sa 'yo i doubt kung mamamatay ka

napinap
10-04-2007, 23:37
Originally posted by Allegra

...hehe I dont think it's ok Still I dont think mapipigilan ko sarili ko if he was asking for a fight and he was kicked my car w/ me inside...

+1. lalo pa na nakakandarapa akong mag-monthly amortize nitong kabayo ko...:supergrin:

Eye Cutter
10-04-2007, 23:50
what if dumiretso na lang sa precinto si hernandez and ni-report nya yung pag tadyak sa kotse niya and assault sa kanya ni canizares... tapos demanda niya sa pasig rtc and pina-subpoena niya na lang? what if??? anyway taga pasig city hall siya so marami siya kakilala doon... sakit ng ulo yang mag attend ka ng mag attend ng hearing sa asunto... what if???

ano ba relationship ni canizares kay palomares? officemates? relatives?

kcboy
10-05-2007, 01:01
there are alot of circumstances that we don't know regarding the case, i am not siding with anyone, but it is possible that the lawyer thought the girl was going to draw and hurt the lawyer,too, maybe that's why he shot the lady.

i just hope the police comes out with all the informatioin surrounding the case so that we can see the whole picture, who's wrong, who's right, and learn from this tragic event that could have been avoided if both parties kept their cool.

tagaykoyan
10-05-2007, 01:02
Originally posted by Eye Cutter
what if dumiretso na lang sa precinto si hernandez and ni-report nya yung pag tadyak sa kotse niya and assault sa kanya ni canizares... tapos demanda niya sa pasig rtc and pina-subpoena niya na lang? what if??? anyway taga pasig city hall siya so marami siya kakilala doon... sakit ng ulo yang mag attend ka ng mag attend ng hearing sa asunto... what if???

ano ba relationship ni canizares kay palomares? officemates? relatives?

reminds me of my favorite song, Creed's "What If"..

anyway, tsismis time;)... mag live-in partners daw yata yung 2 victims

sandman_sy
10-05-2007, 01:39
There's a chinese saying my mom always tells me when i get angered and give a agressive attitude around the store. She tells me "make a Mountain into a ant hill, and make an ant hill into a plain.." I think my translation sucks. But you get the idea. People killing each other for what... Traffic encounter... life is precious. Sometimes we have to accept ***** from people who don't know better. I think Jesus said it in another way when he was being whipped and beaten.:sad: ..But sometimes when "sobra na", our guns are not the solution unless lives are at stake, fist fight nalang, at least black and blue lang at most maybe a few broken bones. But not the lost of lives;)

charlie-xray
10-05-2007, 04:09
+1 IMHO If he had kicked my car while I was inside, specially with my family inside for example HE'D BE SHOT TOO for sure and NOT SUE him for damages, that is just PURE KAYABANGAN what to impress the girl she's with that he has BIG BALLS. (This is my opinion)

But shooting the fleeing lady is not logical.

The Atty shooting Canizares he might get away, but he should not GET AWAY from shooting the Girl (She did not pose any threat anymore, when she started to flee).

Originally posted by Allegra
hehe I dont think it's ok
Still I dont think mapipigilan ko sarili ko if he was asking for a fight and he was kicked my car w/ me inside

Anyone think what would have happened if it's the other guy who had the gun

charlie-xray
10-05-2007, 07:04
80K for BAIL and for HOMICIDE not MURDER????????

Whooooaaaaaa justice delayed is justice denied.

ANO BA YAN??!!!!???

And where's the HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER...disappearing act comes to mind.

JuDGe
10-05-2007, 07:04
Police on Friday released the lawyer who was named in the fatal shooting of two persons following a traffic altercation in Pasig City Tuesday, ABS-CBN News reported.

Pasig police freed lawyer Manuel Hernandez at 5 p.m. after the suspect posted an P80,000-bail.

Hernandez’s release order was signed by Judge Amelia Manalastas of the Pasig City Regional Trial Court.

The release order was signed following a prosecutor's evaluation that said the two counts of murder charges filed against the suspect should be downgraded to homicide. The report said the incident past 2 p.m. Tuesday was not premeditated and had no element of treachery.

The suspect, however, still faces charges for violating the gun ban imposed by the Commission on Elections for the October 29 barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan polls.

The lawyer was tagged by several witnesses as the man who shot Edgardo Canizares and Katherine Palmero in Barangay San Antonio Village.

Canizares and Palmero died while undergoing treatment at The Medical City hospital.

Senior Superintendent Francisco Uyami, city police chief, said Hernandez, 32, works at the legal department of City Hall and has a relative who is a Sandiganbayan magistrate.

Reports said the traffic altercation started when Canizares's Nissan Cefiro (XSA 205) and Hernandez's Toyota car (UEP 547) nearly ran into each other as the suspect was about to leave the village near the corner of Shaw Boulevard.

Witnesses told police that Canizares alighted from his car and hurled invectives at Hernandez. The suspect ignored the victim and drove on.

Canizares, however, kicked the suspect's car. Moments later, witnesses saw Hernandez alighting from his car with a pistol.

After shooting Canizares four times, the suspect vented his ire on Palmero and shot the woman.

The suspect fled after the incident. Police, however, arrested him several hours after tracking him down through the vehicle registry of the Land Transportation Office. With a report from Ina Reformina

boni
10-05-2007, 07:25
Originally posted by charlie-xray
80K for BAIL and for HOMICIDE not MURDER????????

Whooooaaaaaa justice delayed is justice denied.

ANO BA YAN??!!!!???

And where's the HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER...disappearing act comes to mind.

mga sir, the person is still presumed innocent until proven otherwise. d ba? kahit sabihin natin guilty sincerely and like hell itong suspect eh suspect pa rin sya its the court who will decide the case and he has all the right to defend himself in court. and yung sinasabi ng pulis na unlicensed yung f/a nya eh at his advantage yun. why reasonable doubt pa rin, hindi kaya there was another shooter with the man who is really carrying that 9mm? walang na recover na baril. hindi kaya wala cya talagang baril? remember his a lawyer. why would he be a licensed gun holder ng isang walther 22 then carry a 9mm na hindi naman licensyado d ba? bakit is he not qualified? mga ganun lng mga arguments eh pasok ka na sa reasonable doubt d ba? plus credibility ng witnesses? eh ito nga namatay ay kasakasama babae nya not his wife again d kaya pinapatay ito ng asawa nya? hehehe im just saying mga another side sa story d ba? At yung illegal possession na kaso eh aggravating circumstance nalng ito d ba? gud day!:supergrin:

atmarcella
10-05-2007, 07:25
very bad example....

kung ako sa family ng victims ako na mismo hahanap ng hustisya ko...

atmarcella
10-05-2007, 07:28
pati pamilya nya dadamay ko pa, an eye for an eye....

mistahglock17
10-05-2007, 09:15
Originally posted by atmarcella
pati pamilya nya dadamay ko pa, an eye for an eye....
wooaah! bro we have the same thing in mind.

he and his uncle in sandiganbayan is probably cooking something now...
"missing weapon" and 80K bail for homIcide (and not MURDER),... these are the signs!

I'm not gonna spend a cent in lawyers fee, i can spend 100K to do my "LAUNDRY" and specifically instruct to let the suspect watch how the "WORK" is being done.... SLOWLY. I mean very S-L-O-W-L-Y.:banana:

RATRAT
10-05-2007, 09:20
Originally posted by gen1
the news reports are as follows:

1.there was a near accident between the two at the village gate.
2.bumababa si canizares, hinamon si hernandez.
3.hindi pinansin ni hernandez si canizares, at nagpatuloy sa biyahe niya.
4.sinundan ni canizares sa kotse at dinuro-duro habang sabay silang tumatakbo.
5.nang mahinto sa trapik, bumaba si canizares, hinahamon ulit si hernandez.
6.nang hindi pumapalag si hernandez, sinipa ni canizares ang kotse. basag ang salamin. at this point, hindi threats ang ginagawa ni canizares. assault na ito. pwede mo nang ilabas ang carry mo dahil may direct threat na sa iyo.

at kung may percieved threat sa atin o sa mga mahal sa buhay natin, ano ba ang gagawin natin ? kaya nga ako may PTC. . .
:supergrin:


The question here..ano threat na binigay nung babae ke Hernandez???

charlie-xray
10-05-2007, 10:41
I like the way you think brothers mistah and atmarcella

Originally posted by mistahglock17
wooaah! bro we have the same thing in mind.

he and his uncle in sandiganbayan is probably cooking something now...
"missing weapon" and 80K bail for homIcide (and not MURDER),... these are the signs!

I'm not gonna spend a cent in lawyers fee, i can spend 100K to do my "LAUNDRY" and specifically instruct to let the suspect watch how the "WORK" is being done.... SLOWLY. I mean very S-L-O-W-L-Y.:banana:

crazy_hans
10-05-2007, 10:51
Originally posted by RATRAT
The question here..ano threat na binigay nung babae ke Hernandez???

sir what if with a big what if the girl was hit by ricochet lang or the bullet just went through and through the intneded recipient and hit the other one.?if its a 9mm there would be a big possibility that the ammo will over penetrate the subject.just thinking aloud po. :)

New_comer
10-05-2007, 11:54
Originally posted by RATRAT
The question here..ano threat na binigay nung babae ke Hernandez???
She was at the wrong place at the wrong time...

I subscribe to the idea that once a person is driven to homicide, he is temporarily out of his wits. In the peak of the man's sudden dementia for seeing his beloved possession destroyed by an irrational and aggressive stranger (road rage nga yata ito), it's never a good idea to go in between and play peacemaker, or even be associated with an unlawful aggressor...

Ang dami nang namatay na damay o umaawat lang... :sad:

That said, two dead people are still two dead people. Parang OJ na lang siguro mangyayari dyan, patatagalin lang muna, pero sa areglo din lang ito mauuwi. Me sala din naman kasi yung namatay... :shocked:

chowchow
10-05-2007, 12:29
Its really not easy sa ganitong situation. The guy who followed the shooter is a jerk. He got what he didn't ask for. Condolence sa mga families.

jundeleon
10-05-2007, 13:56
Would the result of this tragic incident be the same had the victim/s also carried a gun?

To those who inquired, I did not sell the Glock 35 at 5k. price too low. i only sold magazine and ammo so gun can't fire.

3kings
10-05-2007, 16:54
my lola once told me, pray a "hail mary" just before you think you will start a fit of rage...

now (every so often) i not only recite the "hail mary", i complete all the mysteries of the rosary (joyful, sorrowful, glorious, light) especially when im in edsa at rush hour

New_comer
10-05-2007, 19:15
Originally posted by jundeleon
Would the result of this tragic incident be the same had the victim/s also carried a gun?

Had victim brandished a gun, or shot at atty's car instead of kicking it, kahit passerby o off duty cop, pwede na siguro syang barilin. And, yung atty siguro ang lalamayan. Ala-Rolito Go or Teehankee ulit.

But this one's a different situation. May unlawful aggression mula sa namatay. Magandang subaybayan if only for the lessons we can learn on how the law will weigh the facts, especially on a self-defense perspective.

royal glockster
10-05-2007, 22:52
Originally posted by Allegra
ayun , yan mga naka glock di dapat pinagtitiwalaan yan e :) sing plastic ng baril nila :)


racist!!!....hehehe(:supergrin:

juramentado
10-05-2007, 23:40
Originally posted by New_comer
But this one's a different situation. May unlawful aggression mula sa namatay. Magandang subaybayan if only for the lessons we can learn on how the law will weigh the facts, especially on a self-defense perspective.

Unlawful aggression, most certainly. But did that aggressive act warrant a response using deadly force?

3kings
10-05-2007, 23:50
mautak yang mga taong yan.

malay nyo baka later on lumabas na may relasyon ni atty yun.

papalabasin nilang crime of passion. so whats the term used - destierro ba yun? and he will be free like a bird

New_comer
10-06-2007, 00:53
Originally posted by juramentado
Unlawful aggression, most certainly. But did that aggressive act warrant a response using deadly force? The only one who can answer that is the shooter.

We could only imagine the scenario of the atty feeling extreme humiliation and fear by receiving invectives from the aggressor, capped with damage to his property with no indication of abating, despite him trying to get away.

As I indicated, who here knows the bounds of irrational aggression, please speak up. From the atty's judgment, his life was in grave danger, and from his perspective, he was pushed to the edge(dementia nga). Did his action prevent damage to his person? I feel it did. If deadly force were justified, let the facts prove them. Right or wrong, somebody is dead, and someone must pay, whether by jail time or monetary restitution. It's now up to the court to decide.

As we always say din naman di ba:
1. "We'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."
2. "When you pull out a gun, shoot. When you must shoot, kill."

That's why I load 2 riot rounds last in my shotgun, after the 4 sabot slugs... ;)

gen1
10-06-2007, 01:49
from the news reports that hernandez did not have a license for his 9mm, isa lang ang masasabi ko - he is not one of us. he is not a responsible gun owner.

sa pag baril kay canizares, debatable, pero in my book good shoot yun.

sa pag baril sa babae, quite evident na pinatay ni hernandez ang best witness (siguradong kasing tetestigo. yung mga tambay na witness, pwedeng mabili yun).

Sino ang talagang mga victim dito ? bukod sa babae, eh siguro tayo ang collateral damage. baka i-hold na naman ang FED sa pag-issue ng PTC :sad:.

juramentado
10-06-2007, 02:02
Originally posted by New_comer
The only one who can answer that is the shooter.

We could only imagine the scenario of the atty feeling extreme humiliation and fear by receiving invectives from the aggressor, capped with damage to his property with no indication of abating, despite him trying to get away.

As I indicated, who here knows the bounds of irrational aggression, please speak up. From the atty's judgment, his life was in grave danger, and from his perspective, he was pushed to the edge(dementia nga). Did his action prevent damage to his person? I feel it did. If deadly force were justified, let the facts prove them. Right or wrong, somebody is dead, and someone must pay, whether by jail time or monetary restitution. It's now up to the court to decide.

As we always say din naman di ba:
1. "We'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."
2. "When you pull out a gun, shoot. When you must shoot, kill."

That's why I load 2 riot rounds last in my shotgun, after the 4 sabot slugs... ;)

Of course the shooter will say he needed to use deadly force. That's plainly obvious.

the evidence will show if his actions were indeed justified. From what I gather from the reports, the victim kicked the car as it was driving away. The shooter could have just kept going to police outpost to file a complaint. But instead, he got down and shot the victim.

IMHO extreme embarrassment is not a valid reason to kill someone. He can always plead insanity.

Personally, the shooting of both victims is not justified. That's just my opinion as a non-lawyer. For me, the detail that stands out is that he suspect was in a car, and he could have just driven away.

I think the firearm owners community needs to look into this case very minutely. There are so many lessons to be learned from this, from handling aggression (which both victim and suspect failed miserably) to the legalities of self-defense. The last thing we need is for a licensed gun owner to be caught in a similar high stress situation, commit the same mistake and a use this as a precedent.

royal glockster
10-06-2007, 03:49
Originally posted by gen1


Sino ang talagang mga victim dito ? bukod sa babae, eh siguro tayo ang collateral damage. baka i-hold na naman ang FED sa pag-issue ng PTC :sad:.

yes, i smell it. The PTC will be eventually scrapped (hope not). We, the reponsible gun-owners are the victims here. The authorities, as usual, are punishing the wrong people..huhuhu.:sad:

New_comer
10-06-2007, 05:05
On the contrary, all the more na justified ang pag-continue ng responsible carry of firearms.

This should not have happened had the deceased thought twice about displaying intimidating, irrational and destructive behavior at anytime, especially in public. Eh kung frail na 78 years old yung sa sinipang kotse, baka namatay na sa heart attack o stroke iyon.

An important consideration na nakakalimutan kasi is: your freedoms end where other's rights begins. Pushing people to the edge elicits different reactions, mostly passive but not always.

He got the worse kind...

charlie-xray
10-06-2007, 06:38
Very true

I'd be a hypocrite If I say that I'm ALWAYS COOL and ALWAYS IN CONTROL and will never do or come near what the Atty did.

I'd SAY HELL'YA you provoked me, threathen me, kick and pound and potentially damage my property which I paid for, maka-lalaki ka sa akin you'd get what you ask for immediately.

Even the shooting of the poor girl victim, who amongst US here would admit to shoot her or NOT TO even if it means saving ourselves? our liberty? our lives? WHO????? Just being realistic here and just asking.

Originally posted by New_comer
On the contrary, all the more na justified ang pag-continue ng responsible carry of firearms.

This should not have happened had the deceased thought twice about displaying intimidating, irrational and destructive behavior at anytime, especially in public. Eh kung frail na 78 years old yung sa sinipang kotse, baka namatay na sa heart attack o stroke iyon.

An important consideration na nakakalimutan kasi is: your freedoms end where other's rights begins. Pushing people to the edge elicits different reactions, mostly passive but not always.

He got the worse kind...

Allegra
10-06-2007, 07:32
Would it be murder or homicide if I shoot the next m@#$%^&er who texts me the rsult of the fight tomorrow while I'm still watching the delayed telecast sa gma?

Sucks having no cable out here in the boondocks

juramentado
10-06-2007, 07:49
Everyone has a breaking point. The wise man is one who knows what that point is :)

I don't want to get into any debates here but if you examine the info available to the public on this case, there's a clear escalation on both sides.

Shooter counterflows
Victim almost gets hit
Victim goes down to berate the shooter
Shooter shows off gun while in his car
Victim goads and insult shooter
shooter tries to drive away....etc

Somewhere along the way, one side could have just stepped back and de-escalated the issue. But apparently both sides wanted to prove something and it just went downhill from there.

Kaya ako, I always opt for de-escalation. I've used it on several situations already because I learned my lesson. I had an ex-girlfriend who almost got me killed because she was spoiling for a fight. If you understand that a lot of fights and incidents are a series of bad decisions, you'll realize that it only takes one side to just back down, tapos na yung init ng ulo and the tension goes down.

With cases like the Eldon Maguan case, iba yun. That's murder and from the very start the suspect just wanted to kill the victim.

IMHO lang, I think as gun owners the burden of de-escalating situations is greater. We have the privilege of owning and carrying firearms, other do not. Shooting someone come with a lot of legal hassles, even if it's apparently a good shoot in the eyes of the gun owner.

As the comics always point out, with great power come great responsibility. :)

boni
10-06-2007, 07:59
Originally posted by 3kings
mautak yang mga taong yan.

malay nyo baka later on lumabas na may relasyon ni atty yun.

papalabasin nilang crime of passion. so whats the term used - destierro ba yun? and he will be free like a bird

destierro is banishment. eh hindi nya siguro ma invoke yung law na penalty is destierro lng sir d ba? your refering to the law on death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances? hindi nya siguro ma invoke ito eh the requirement is he must surprise his legal spouse in the act of doing it with another person. under this circumstance at napatay nya destierro lng ang penalty. pag physical injury wla syang criminal liability. may kakilala akong ganito nangyari sa kanya. in effect this law confers upon the offended spouse the power to inflict the ultimate penalty of death. correct me lng mga sir if meron pa dyan mas tama. hehehe gud day.

tagaykoyan
10-06-2007, 08:06
Originally posted by juramentado
Everyone has a breaking point. The wise man is one who knows what that point is :)

I don't want to get into any debates here but if you examine the info available to the public on this case, there's a clear escalation on both sides.

Shooter counterflows
Victim almost gets hit
Victim goes down to berate the shooter
Shooter shows off gun while in his car
Victim goads and insult shooter
shooter tries to drive away....etc

Somewhere along the way, one side could have just stepped back and de-escalated the issue. But apparently both sides wanted to prove something and it just went downhill from there.

Kaya ako, I always opt for de-escalation. I've used it on several situations already because I learned my lesson. I had an ex-girlfriend who almost got me killed because she was spoiling for a fight. If you understand that a lot of fights and incidents are a series of bad decisions, you'll realize that it only takes one side to just back down, tapos na yung init ng ulo and the tension goes down.

With cases like the Eldon Maguan case, iba yun. That's murder and from the very start the suspect just wanted to kill the victim.

IMHO lang, I think as gun owners the burden of de-escalating situations is greater. We have the privilege of owning and carrying firearms, other do not. Shooting someone come with a lot of legal hassles, even if it's apparently a good shoot in the eyes of the gun owner.

As the comics always point out, with great power come great responsibility. :)

ah, finally! a sensible reply for this thread! amen bro juramentado:-)

its plain and simple really. unarmed vs. armed. are you justified in shooting an unarmed guy? ni wala man lang syang hawak na bato or tubo.. c'mon..

lets be responsible owners ok para hindi matanggal sa atin ang "privilege to bear arms."

boni
10-06-2007, 08:12
Originally posted by atmarcella

kung ako sa family ng victims ako na mismo hahanap ng hustisya ko...

correct. if any of my love ones nangyari ito eh kahit aso sa bahay ng gumawa ng krimen eh hindi ko palalampasin. :) but if talagang apektado talaga sa ginawa sa family member nila sir d ba? pano pag hindi? hehe what if parang silent lng? hehe eh d parang for compliance lng na kaso kaso d ba? :)

Originally posted by 3kings
mautak yang mga taong yan.

malay nyo baka later on lumabas na may relasyon ni atty yun.

papalabasin nilang crime of passion. so whats the term used - destierro ba yun? and he will be free like a bird

destierro is banishment. eh hindi nya siguro ma invoke yung law na penalty is destierro lng sir d ba? your refering to the law on death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances? hindi nya siguro ma invoke ito eh the requirement is he must surprise his legal spouse in the act of doing it with another person. under this circumstance at napatay nya destierro lng ang penalty. pag physical injury wla syang criminal liability. may kakilala akong ganito nangyari sa kanya. in effect this law confers upon the offended spouse the power to inflict the ultimate penalty of death. correct me lng mga sir if meron pa dyan mas tama. hehehe gud day.

enting
10-06-2007, 08:39
Of course it could not be justified by killing them. Maybe what the shooter was thinking the guy that was shot will pull out a handgun so he shot him.Maybe this is his motto:"do unto others before they do it unto you"

atmarcella
10-06-2007, 09:29
Originally posted by Allegra
Would it be murder or homicide if I shoot the next m@#$%^&er who texts me the rsult of the fight tomorrow while I'm still watching the delayed telecast sa gma?

Sucks having no cable out here in the boondocks

i have one word for you master A.... dream:thumbsup:

meron ako live bukas, 500 bukols....yan din ang price sa SM cinemas sa guaranteed seats nila, mas comportable pako sa bahay ko:tongueout:

its plain and simple really. unarmed vs. armed. are you justified in shooting an unarmed guy? ni wala man lang syang hawak na bato or tubo.. c'mon..

:agree: :agree: :agree:... at least yung nakalaban ko dati me hawak na tubo...kahit na, ayaw ko na talaga mag carry:sad:

Alexii
10-06-2007, 09:45
Originally posted by Allegra
Would it be murder or homicide if I shoot the next m@#$%^&er who texts me the rsult of the fight tomorrow while I'm still watching the delayed telecast sa gma?

Pet peeve ko din yan, bro Allegra. That's why I switch off my cell and refuse to answer any calls during the fight. One spoiler in the past is one too many! ;)

cebuboy
10-06-2007, 10:38
Originally posted by atmarcella
pati pamilya nya dadamay ko pa, an eye for an eye....

ahihihi if this is the case, we will all end up blind :cheers:

Alexii
10-06-2007, 10:43
As some would state, hindsight is almost always 20/20. I said almost because no one among us can say with absolute certainty what were the actual goings-on on the shooter's mind during the event. All we saw, read, and heard about are the aftermath of the shooting that left two people dead and their killer out on bail. That's as close as most of us can get to Monday morning quarterbacking the incident.

Everybody here is entitled to second-guess the actions of the lawyer and I'm going to take my shot (no pun intended) at it: the lawyer most likely 'pre-set' the point when the mental trigger trips during the first seconds of the encounter. "Up to what point will I snuff the life out of this screaming SOB in front of my car?" "I'll try to drive away; if he chases me, that's enough to establish unlawful aggression, and all bets are off!". In the mind of the shooter, he is justified to take out Canizares at that time.

The condemnable act of killing Katherine is quite possibly an attempt to eliminate a prime witness. What was Katherine's physical location and demeanor relative to the shooter's position at the time of her shooting? Was she shot in the back as she started to flee as the initial TV reports said?

There are too many unknown facts about this case that begs for even more unanswered questions. My personal view on this is for Hernandez to pay his dues in this life or the next. As my Pranic Healing teacher says, 'No karmic debt is left unpaid; the universe balances itself in the end'.

atmarcella
10-07-2007, 03:06
Originally posted by cebuboy
ahihihi if this is the case, we will all end up blind :cheers:


:animlol: :animlol: :animlol:

choi_tan2000
10-07-2007, 20:49
WOW

very interesting topic for all of us.. to all legal persons here tuloy natin to sana masubaybayan natin sa court proceedings so we could learn more.

i admire all the gentelmans here that even differents point of views are crossing, eh cool na cool parin.. sana ganyan tayo lagi sa daan hehe..

in fact, i am now imagining that this forum is like a little court, which now in debate, hearings, diff, pint of views.. im learning a lot and surely, will be more responsible gun owner.

buti nalng di unlicensed and gun nya or else anit-gun group will hounding us again..

lets stay safe and cool bro's..

abangan................

New_comer
10-08-2007, 00:59
Warning: Long read!

I took this from http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/may99/..%5Csyllabi99%5CMay%5C125185_syl.htm
as a good case where actual Supreme Court interpretations of Unlawful Aggression and Self Defense concepts are explained in detail, for our edumacation. ;)

SYNOPSIS

Accused-appellant was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City of murder and homicide. In the present appeal, appellant contended that the trial court erred in not considering the justifying circumstance of self-defense in his favor and in ruling that treachery attended the killing qualifying the same to murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Court stressed that for unlawful aggression to be attendant, there must be a real danger to life or personal safety. In the case at bar, the act of the deceased of allegedly drawing a gun from his waist cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression. Such act did not put in real peril the life or personal safety of appellant. Unlawful aggression refers to an actually materialized attack or at the very least, clearly imminent attack. It cannot consist of oral threats or mere threatening posture. The Court also held that the presence of several gunshot wounds on the victim is physical evidence that strongly militates against appellant’s stance of self-defense. The Court also upheld the trial court’s finding of treachery. The sudden and unanticipated killing of the victim, Federico Medina, notwithstanding the fact that assailant and the victims were face to face at the start of the attack clearly indicates the presence of treachery. The killing of the victim, Danilo Almario, however, cannot be adjudged as perpetrated with treachery in view of the absence of proof as to the manner the victim was attacked. Treachery as a qualifying circumstance must be proved convincingly as the crime itself. The trial court was correct in convicting him of simple homicide.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; SELF-DEFENSE; ELEMENT OF UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION; THE ACT OF THE DECEASED OF ALLEGEDLY DRAWING A GUN FROM HIS WAIST CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED AS AN UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION; SAID ACT DID NOT PUT IN REAL PERIL THE PERSONAL LIFE OR PERSONAL SAFETY OF THE APPELLANT.— From the facts and circumstances of the present case, no unlawful aggression could be gleaned. It bears stressing that for unlawful aggression to be attendant, there must be a real danger to life or personal safety. Unlawful aggression requires an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. Here, the act of the deceased Federico Medina of allegedly drawing a gun from his waist cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression. Such act did not put in real peril the life or personal safety of appellant. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there was really unlawful aggression by Federico on appellant’s person, it can be deduced from the latter’s own declaration during the trial that such unlawful aggression had ceased the moment Federico was dispossessed of the gun. Unlawful aggression refers to an actually materialized attack or at the very least, clearly imminent attack. It cannot consist of oral threats or mere threatening posture. After disarming Federico Medina, appellant became the aggressor, when he shot Federico.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S THEORY OF SELF-DEFENSE IS NEGATED BY THE NATURE, NUMBER AND LOCATION OF THE GUNSHOT WOUNDS SUSTAINED BY THE VICTIM.— Neither did the trial court err in rejecting appellant’s theory of self-defense considering the nature and number of gunshot wounds of the victims. The deceased Danilo Almario suffered four (4) gunshot wounds on the left side of his back below the scapula, on the right forearm, on the left thigh and on the lower left femur, all fired by the assailant from behind. The deceased, Federico Medina, suffered two (2) gunshot wounds, one on the head and another on the left forearm. Verily, the nature, location and number of the wounds sustained by the victims make appellant’s theory of self-defense implausible. As held in People vs. Guarin, the presence of several gunshot wounds on the body of the deceased is physical evidence that strongly militates against appellant’s stance. If appellant shot the victims just to defend himself, it defies reason why he had to inflict several wounds on them. Irrefutably, the multiple and serious injuries sustained by the victims evinced determined effort on the part of appellant to kill them.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S FLIGHT ALSO NEGATES HIS PLEA OF SELF-DEFENSE.— Appellant’s failure to discharge his burden of giving evidentiary support to his invocation of self-defense is abundantly clear. Evidence for the defense is of doubtful veracity and weight. It is neither clear nor convincing. To top it all, appellant took flight immediately after the incident and went into hiding for three (3) long years before he was arrested and brought to court to face his accusers. Appellant’s flight negates his plea of self-defense. As repeatedly held by this Court, flight is evidence of consciousness of guilt and betrays the existence of a guilty conscience.

4. ID.; MURDER; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; TREACHERY; PRESENT WHERE THE KILLING WAS SUDDEN AND UNANTICIPATED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE ASSAILANT AND THE VICTIM WERE FACE TO FACE AT THE START OF THE ATTACK.— The sudden and unanticipated killing of Federico Medina reinforces the trial court’s finding of treachery, notwithstanding the fact that the assailant and the victims were face to face at the start of the attack. As consistently held by this Court, an unexpected and sudden attack under circumstances which render the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack constitutes alevosia. That the attack was frontal does not preclude the presence of treachery as the same rendered the attack no less unexpected and sudden. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning — done in a swift and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; THE PRESENCE OF TREACHERY MAY NOT BE SIMPLY ASSUMED FROM THE MERE FACT THAT THE FATAL WOUNDS WERE FOUND AT THE BACK OF THE DECEASED.— The People, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, maintain that inasmuch as Danilo was shot from at the back, treachery qualified the killing to murder. This contention is untenable. While the evidence shows that Danilo was shot from behind, such circumstance is not conclusive of the attendance of treachery insofar as the deceased Danilo was concerned, absent a showing how the latter’s wounds were inflicted. Settled is the rule that treachery cannot be presumed. It must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, as Conclusively as the killing itself. The presence of treachery may not be simply assumed from the mere fact that the fatal wounds were found at the back of the deceased.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant.

Puts several myths on Self defense to rest, doesn't it?:thumbsup:

cznayr
10-08-2007, 01:00
Actually, loose firearm ang ginamit. From FED records, they were able to determine that he has indeed a license but it's for a .22

The 9mm gun is still missing and he has no license (To own and to carry) for a 9mm.


Originally posted by choi_tan2000
WOW

very interesting topic for all of us.. to all legal persons here tuloy natin to sana masubaybayan natin sa court proceedings so we could learn more.

i admire all the gentelmans here that even differents point of views are crossing, eh cool na cool parin.. sana ganyan tayo lagi sa daan hehe..

in fact, i am now imagining that this forum is like a little court, which now in debate, hearings, diff, pint of views.. im learning a lot and surely, will be more responsible gun owner.

buti nalng di unlicensed and gun nya or else anit-gun group will hounding us again..

lets stay safe and cool bro's..

abangan................

CatsMeow
10-08-2007, 01:25
Hi all,

I watched this news unfold as me and my colleagues spent the whole week cooped up in a hotel in subic (kayod na kayod in the interests of the service). Internet was ispiking dollars, that is,, P5 a minute...:shocked: Remind me to get one of those wifi thingies for my laptop...

Anyway, from the sketchy details, plus your inputs, here is my take as a former prosecutor: the fella was already in violation of the law long before he pulled the trigger,i.e. the unlicensed gun and no PTC, gun ban pa. So perhaps one more unlawful act was, well, nothing to him. The bitter thing is, he's a compañero and thus should know better...

Anyway, it is basic that you are not supposed to project lethal force against somebody who has not posed a clear and present danger to your life and limb, or the life and limb of others. This means you are not to shoot somebody unless that somebody is looking to cause you great physical hurt at the very least.

Let the law take it's course na lang and hope our PTCs won't be affected... PTC was never in issue in this shooting and that of the Atenista lawyer-to-be some years ago, but since when has this government been logical?

charlie-xray
10-08-2007, 01:35
Correct

Originally posted by TTPower
like what the others said he was looking for trouble... the problem was trouble found him first! maybe Canizares is in heaven now.... yun lng nga napaaga lng biyahe nya!

lesson to us all... wag masyado matapang at mayabang! kasi for sure may masmatapang at mayabang sa atin. :supergrin:

choi_tan2000
10-08-2007, 19:36
cznayr,

ay sory sir mali post ko buti nalang unlicensed ung gamit nya pala..

means hes not one of us....

thanks

isuzu
10-08-2007, 20:12
The Court stressed that for unlawful aggression to be attendant, there must be a real danger to life or personal safety. In the case at bar, the act of the deceased of allegedly drawing a gun from his waist cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression.

So wait for the assailant to aim and fire at you. Then, consider it as unlawful aggression.:upeyes:

choi_tan2000
10-08-2007, 20:21
wow katakot hirap ata ilag ah.. well its good that we now know what law said. so carefull guys.

stay safe

CatsMeow
10-08-2007, 21:49
Originally posted by isuzu
The Court stressed that for unlawful aggression to be attendant, there must be a real danger to life or personal safety. In the case at bar, the act of the deceased of allegedly drawing a gun from his waist cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression.

So wait for the assailant to aim and fire at you. Then, consider it as unlawful aggression.:upeyes:

Action always beats reaction, you cannot outdraw a gun that's already drawn, and as Massad Ayoob always said, if you wait to see the bad guy's gun, you're going to see what comes out of it.;)

Anyway, as a lawyer I'm not supposed to criticize the SC, but sometimes their reasoning defies logic...

maskytrading
10-08-2007, 21:50
Quote"In the case at bar, the act of the deceased of allegedly drawing a gun from his waist cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression. Such act did not put in real peril the life or personal safety of appellant. Unlawful aggression refers to an actually materialized attack or at the very least, clearly imminent attack." Unqoute
----------------------------------------------------------------------====================================================================

The above was lifted from one of the previous posts in this thread..."allegedly drawing a gun cannot be categorized as unlawful agression." IMO, the shooter was not able to prove to the court that victim had a gun...verbiage of decision used "Allegedly"

Without the word "alleged or allegedly" it will read "act of Deceased drawing a gun from his cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression??? It becomes self defense to me, imo.

The fine print of legal language :upeyes:

"Scenario"
You are carrying with current PTC, of course...going to your car at a dimly lit outdoor parking lot with a few cars left because it is late...while about to board your vehicle...you see 2 guys walking quickly towards you...you notice that one of the two has his hand under his shirt like in a "crossdraw" position...Very very bad vibes and you pull out your beretta 92FS just in time before the "crossdraw" presents his "teka-teka" {Eng.trans.-gun of unknown mfr.} while his partner swiftly fans a "29*..."Crossdraw" guy falls down from a hail of HPs in a blink..."29" starts to run but drops from another barrage of HPs...Actually the time diff. between the two barrages is so minute that the shooter stopped firing only after the "29" guy fell down...Afterwards..."teka-teka" recovered but unfired and the fan knife, too..."Crossdraw" has 4 hits all frontal..."29" has several hits at the back...IMO, still Self-Defense to me as there is no "allegedly" drawing a weapon as they were recovered.

gen1
10-08-2007, 22:43
1. CRIMINAL LAW; JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; SELF-DEFENSE; ELEMENT OF UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION; THE ACT OF THE DECEASED OF ALLEGEDLY DRAWING A GUN FROM HIS WAIST CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED AS AN UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION; SAID ACT DID NOT PUT IN REAL PERIL THE PERSONAL LIFE OR PERSONAL SAFETY OF THE APPELLANT.— From the facts and circumstances of the present case, no unlawful aggression could be gleaned. It bears stressing that for unlawful aggression to be attendant, there must be a real danger to life or personal safety. Unlawful aggression requires an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. Here, the act of the deceased Federico Medina of allegedly drawing a gun from his waist cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression. Such act did not put in real peril the life or personal safety of appellant. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there was really unlawful aggression by Federico on appellant’s person, it can be deduced from the latter’s own declaration during the trial that such unlawful aggression had ceased the moment Federico was dispossessed of the gun. Unlawful aggression refers to an actually materialized attack or at the very least, clearly imminent attack. It cannot consist of oral threats or mere threatening posture. After disarming Federico Medina, appellant became the aggressor, when he shot Federico


Awww! this is a no-brainer. Frederico did draw a gun from his waist, but was then subsequently disarmed by the assailant. After being disarmed, binantan pa rin si frederico. marder talaga yan :supergrin:

New_comer
10-09-2007, 00:27
Originally posted by isuzu
The Court stressed that for unlawful aggression to be attendant, there must be a real danger to life or personal safety. In the case at bar, the act of the deceased of allegedly drawing a gun from his waist cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression.

So wait for the assailant to aim and fire at you. Then, consider it as unlawful aggression.:upeyes:
There is still this qualifier:
Unlawful aggression refers to an actually materialized attack or at the very least, clearly imminent attack.
When can we say an attack is imminent?

Is "gun unholstering" by a belligerent or hostile person considered "imminent"? Does he still have to point it at me, or shoot at me first, to be considered an imminent attack?

Can it be argued that he was only shooting at the floor or backwall if only to intimidate me? :upeyes:

frontsight007
10-09-2007, 01:10
What is surprising here is for those of us who are not fully aware of all the facts involved, we are quick on the draw to jump to hasty conclusions. Comments such as "pati pamilya nya dadamay ko pa, an eye for an eye...." or "I'm not gonna spend a cent in lawyers fee, i can spend 100K to do my "LAUNDRY" and specifically instruct to let the suspect watch how the "WORK" is being done.... SLOWLY. I mean very S-L-O-W-L-Y" does not reflect well for us rational, responsible gun owners as a whole. Do not take this wrongly, but comments like this give the anti's more ammunition to paint us as blood thirsty, irresponsible warfreaks who should be stripped of all their firearms, defensive or otherwise.

And in case some of you may have already noticed, with the exception of one or two, most of the lawyers on this forum have not spoken or given their thoughts on the matter. It is because they are aware that there's a lot more than meets the eye in cases like this. Also, if you review the initial news videos, some of you may actually recognize a BOG member lawyer in one of the segments. Small community.

The media, unfortunately, tries to sensationalize most of what it reports in the battle for ratings. Facts are often distorted and omitted. Consider the following factors (whether true or not depends on who says what):

- Atty. Hernandez had just made a considerable withdrawal from a nearby bank when the incident happened. This may or may not have had an effect on his mindset at the time.

- He was not "captured", as was reported, but actually surrendered on his own accord to the authorities.

- A lot of "witnesses" were "narrating" their eyewitness accounts to the media, but as of now there seems to be only one, the rest were simply "Uzi's".

- Atty Hernandez is not exactly a fit or otherwise athletic individual, as opposed to Mr. Canizares. And considering the latter's aggressive movements, which I'm sure a lot of us here would easily perceive as "hostile", the phrase "disparity of force" comes into play. Of course this is not palatable to the media compared to the more sensational narration that the perpetrator (defendant to some) simply got out of his car and shot the helpless victim (attacker to some). You get the point.

- Canizares did not simply "kick" Hernandez's car, causing "just" property damage (as viewed by some), but was part of the early stages of his escalating aggression. He was in physical contact with the latter, shoving his fingers and I.D. into Hernandez's face. And devoid of actual witness accounts of his verbal assaults (Hernandez has remained silent on the matter), his words could have been somewhat like "Halika, barilan tayo, meron ako dala dito (or sa kotse)", OR "Kukunin ko yang baril mo at sayo ko ipuputok" (assuming Hernandez had a gun), OR "Eto baril ko, tingnan natin kung kaya / marunong ka pumutok, kung hindi sayo ko ipuputok yan", OR "Eto I.D. ko, N_I or IS__P ako, kaya kita patayin pati buong pamilya mo", ETC, ETC. The list goes on as to what possibly could have been the dialogue. But the fact is none of us know for sure.

- Like someone earlier pointed out, the bullets that hit Palmero could have initially gone through Canizares, or Palmero being a participant in the heated verbal exchange (who, mind you, is not the legal wife of Canizares, you get the picture) may have appeared going for a weapon also (from the point of view of someone who is tunnel-visioned after having shot another human being). But like I said, who really knows.

Which brings us back to our earlier problem: since nothing is as simple as it seems (especially in the unfortunate shooting deaths of two human beings and the ruined life of another and their families), let the facts and evidence stand on their own merits in court and the legal system move on its own, rather than us making our own judgements and conclusions on the matter.

P.S. Don't ask how I know some of these details, hahaba lang usapan...:thumbsup:

mistahglock17
10-09-2007, 04:49
everyone is entitled to their opinion and comments.

warfreak is someone who wil just shoot somebody at the parking lot because he didn't like the way he was looked upon by a bystander or a group of guys parked near by.

now, going back to the topic and situation:
- 80K for homicide and not murder,
- missing weapon,
- an uncle from sandiganbayan that starts calling all his panyeros and connections

given the infos above., if you are the father of the victims, what will you do?
do you think the victim will get the justice they deserve?

those are few questions that some of us here would ask.
...questions that has different responses from BOGs members
...questions that does not require you to create a dummy account just to post your opinion :animlol::animlol::animlol:




Originally posted by frontsight007
What is surprising here is for those of us who are not fully aware of all the facts involved, we are quick on the draw to jump to hasty conclusions. Comments such as "pati pamilya nya dadamay ko pa, an eye for an eye...." or "I'm not gonna spend a cent in lawyers fee, i can spend 100K to do my "LAUNDRY" and specifically instruct to let the suspect watch how the "WORK" is being done.... SLOWLY. I mean very S-L-O-W-L-Y" does not reflect well for us rational, responsible gun owners as a whole. Do not take this wrongly, but comments like this give the anti's more ammunition to paint us as blood thirsty, irresponsible warfreaks who should be stripped of all their firearms, defensive or otherwise.

And in case some of you may have already noticed, with the exception of one or two, most of the lawyers on this forum have not spoken or given their thoughts on the matter. It is because they are aware that there's a lot more than meets the eye in cases like this. Also, if you review the initial news videos, some of you may actually recognize a BOG member lawyer in one of the segments. Small community.

The media, unfortunately, tries to sensationalize most of what it reports in the battle for ratings. Facts are often distorted and omitted. Consider the following factors (whether true or not depends on who says what):

- Atty. Hernandez had just made a considerable withdrawal from a nearby bank when the incident happened. This may or may not have had an effect on his mindset at the time.

- He was not "captured", as was reported, but actually surrendered on his own accord to the authorities.

- A lot of "witnesses" were "narrating" their eyewitness accounts to the media, but as of now there seems to be only one, the rest were simply "Uzi's".

- Atty Hernandez is not exactly a fit or otherwise athletic individual, as opposed to Mr. Canizares. And considering the latter's aggressive movements, which I'm sure a lot of us here would easily perceive as "hostile", the phrase "disparity of force" comes into play. Of course this is not palatable to the media compared to the more sensational narration that the perpetrator (defendant to some) simply got out of his car and shot the helpless victim (attacker to some). You get the point.

- Canizares did not simply "kick" Hernandez's car, causing "just" property damage (as viewed by some), but was part of the early stages of his escalating aggression. He was in physical contact with the latter, shoving his fingers and I.D. into Hernandez's face. And devoid of actual witness accounts of his verbal assaults (Hernandez has remained silent on the matter), his words could have been somewhat like "Halika, barilan tayo, meron ako dala dito (or sa kotse)", OR "Kukunin ko yang baril mo at sayo ko ipuputok" (assuming Hernandez had a gun), OR "Eto baril ko, tingnan natin kung kaya / marunong ka pumutok, kung hindi sayo ko ipuputok yan", OR "Eto I.D. ko, N_I or IS__P ako, kaya kita patayin pati buong pamilya mo", ETC, ETC. The list goes on as to what possibly could have been the dialogue. But the fact is none of us know for sure.

- Like someone earlier pointed out, the bullets that hit Palmero could have initially gone through Canizares, or Palmero being a participant in the heated verbal exchange (who, mind you, is not the legal wife of Canizares, you get the picture) may have appeared going for a weapon also (from the point of view of someone who is tunnel-visioned after having shot another human being). But like I said, who really knows.

Which brings us back to our earlier problem: since nothing is as simple as it seems (especially in the unfortunate shooting deaths of two human beings and the ruined life of another and their families), let the facts and evidence stand on their own merits in court and the legal system move on its own, rather than us making our own judgements and conclusions on the matter.

P.S. Don't ask how I know some of these details, hahaba lang usapan...:thumbsup:

frontsight007
10-09-2007, 05:11
Originally posted by mistahglock17
everyone is entitled to their opinion and comments.

...questions that does not require you to create a dummy account just to post your opinion :animlol::animlol::animlol:

As expected, we have those who would rather deviate from a topic than address the matter at hand. I didn't mean to imply that you or others are "warfreaks" or what have you; just that we should be carefull as to how others might view us. I hope you are not missing out on my point on how the anti's will be portraying us in general; we're very much in the same boat, as hard as it is to believe. :angel:

P.S. I have been browsing this forum for the better part of 4 years, and it's only now that I deemed it necessary to post an answer, specifically to avoid lurid remarks. But a good democracy entails freedom of speech at its core, so more power to all of us. :thumbsup:

New_comer
10-09-2007, 06:57
Hello frontsight007,

Nice of you to join the forum... Welcome ;)

Do continue to contribute your insights. Seems to me you've got more to say about this case we're dissecting. :thumbsup:

atmarcella
10-09-2007, 07:14
blood thirsty, irresponsible warfreaks

i dont think im warfreak, what if.... kapatid mo si canizares? tapos nangyari ang nangyari, would you trust this country's "impeccable" justice system to give you justice, after you see the perp go free for just 80k????



A lot of "witnesses" were "narrating" their eyewitness accounts to the media, but as of now there seems to be only one, the rest were simply "Uzi's".

he killed the no. 1 witness:sad:

now, going back to the topic and situation:
- 80K for homicide and not murder,
- missing weapon,
- an uncle from sandiganbayan that starts calling all his panyeros and connections

given the infos above., if you are the father of the victims, what will you do?
do you think the victim will get the justice they deserve?

those are few questions that some of us here would ask.
...questions that has different responses from BOGs members

frontsight,

i would like to have your opinion on the abovementioned points raised by mistahglock...thank you sir.

frontsight007
10-09-2007, 08:51
Originally posted by atmarcella
i dont think im warfreak, what if.... kapatid mo si canizares? tapos nangyari ang nangyari, would you trust this country's "impeccable" justice system to give you justice, after you see the perp go free for just 80k????

he killed the no. 1 witness:sad:

[QOUTE]now, going back to the topic and situation:
- 80K for homicide and not murder,
- missing weapon,
- an uncle from sandiganbayan that starts calling all his panyeros and connections

given the infos above., if you are the father of the victims, what will you do?
do you think the victim will get the justice they deserve?

those are few questions that some of us here would ask.
...questions that has different responses from BOGs members[/QUOTE]

First of all, I would like to get things straight. I am in no way siding with Atty. Hernandez. If it is proven that he acted wrongly or maliciously (an understatement), then not only should he be jailed for life but he should get the death penalty for what he did (I fully support capital punishment, but since it's not here anymore it's a moot choice). Such actions are not only deplorable but give those of us who strive hard in defending our rights to own and carry arms for self-protection an impossible task. Every questionable use of firearms such as in this case is an additional nail in the coffin the anti's are hammering in our direction.

My sympathies go out to the families of the deceased more than that of the Hernandez's since their son is still vertical and breathing, while the other two are six feet under. The bail set by the RTC and the conditions that led to it are the informed decisions of experts in their field of jurisprudence, and I wouldn't want to second guess them any more than I would want to second guess a specialist doctor on matters pertaining to the medical field. Since this has received a lot of media and public attention, anybody in their right mind (read: connections of the accused) would definitely think twice before risking their necks on the chopping block just to help; I know both you and I would.

If all of us had to resort to dark justice (ok,ok, wipe those smiles off your faces) on every instance we "perceive" as injustice, then we'll end up as a nation of vigilantes and assassins. And think about it; we'll be giving the government further justification in limiting our firearms ownership as a whole. We HAVE to trust the system, even if we know it sucks a lot of times. You and I have no right to pretend to be experts in a field outside our own and vice versa with others, so it's best to let those qualified do their jobs, warts and all. I'd rather trust an in-place system than none at all.

A more enlightening way of viewing things is to put ourselves in the shoes of each and every one those involved: from Hernandez, to Canizares to Palmero to the individual family members of either side and even the investigating law enforcement and judicial personnel involved. You will find that suddenly not everything is as crystal clear as it seems. There is a reason why lady justice wears a blindfold and instead relies on weighing the facts of each case to arrive at a just decision.

Also, the mere fact that we are on this forum entails (generally, with certain exceptions) some level of maturity as responsible Pinoy firearms owners. Being an open public forum, our views and comments will inevitably come under scrutiny by those who seek to subvert us, and I certainly would not want to be the one to give them any of my own ammunition to use against me.

My two cents ;)

chowchow
10-09-2007, 09:08
Front sight , galeng nang insights mo. :thumbsup:

9MX
10-09-2007, 09:27
Originally posted by mistahglock17
everyone is entitled to their opinion and comments.



exactly. for so as long as the GT rules aren't violated, its democracy at work.

if one doesn't like the the comments/reactions in the thread, like this one..then ignore it. it is that simple

Allegra
10-09-2007, 10:17
How was the girls personality? anyone know?
I cant believe he shot the girl because he was removing a witness
Hindi ganun kadali pumatay

Di kaya siya ang naka away ni Hernandez kaya galit na galit si Canizares?
I cant understand why he shot the girl

low profile
10-09-2007, 18:11
bad aim :) and the girl was in the line of fire

charlie-xray
10-09-2007, 18:14
This one I really want to hear everybody here speculate.

So let me start my take on it, it's very very probable that at the height of the shouting of the victim to the atty the lady could be shouting at the victim to either STOP or GET HIM GET HIM either of which it could not be translated correctly by the atty due to stress caused by the victim and could have just contrued it as the girl shouting at him as well.

Or as per my previous question and a sensitive one at most, he is an atty and he shooting the victim he suddenly realized his actions/repercussions and circumstances and calculatedly decided to shoot the girl as well to remove as somebody here called the #1 witness, (now this is truly worthy of a dummy account here before answering) ANYBODY HERE with the RISK OF GOING TO JAIL and LOOSING YOUR FREEDOM, LOOSING YOUR LICENSE, LOOSING YOUR HARD EARNED FREE COMFORTABLE LIFE WOULD YOU HAVE NOT DONE THE SAME (just be true to yourself).

Moral question, not at all I'm not pointing out a morally right or morally wrong thing here. We are speculating and discussing so let's discuss lest we be judged of our opinions.

Just ASKING and SPECULATING.



Originally posted by Allegra
How was the girls personality? anyone know?
I cant believe he shot the girl because he was removing a witness
Hindi ganun kadali pumatay

Di kaya siya ang naka away ni Hernandez kaya galit na galit si Canizares?
I cant understand why he shot the girl ;)

CatsMeow
10-09-2007, 19:13
As a general rule, the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt, be it mere theft up to plunder (i.e. Erap). HOWEVER, when an accused pleads self-defense, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS NOW ON THE ACCUSED TO PROVE SELF-DEFENSE. This means that if you shoot somebody who meant to cause you grave physical hurt at the very least, and get charged by my former colleagues in court, you better have an airtight defense, or off to jail you go.

Some circumstances that will negate self-defense: multiple wounds (i.e. you were not content to just double-tap the other guy), wounds in the back, attacking when the other guy is already helpless and disarmed... A recurring scenario I have seen in jurisprudence is when one guy tries to stab another, who then takes away the knife, but then uses the knife against its former owner allegedly because the latter continued struggling for it. Not self-defense since the other guy was already disarmed. More often than not the stab wounds on the former owner are multiple, automatically negating self-defense anyway.

So let the law take its course...

choi_tan2000
10-09-2007, 19:24
yah mannix, plus 1..

well as one of my friend always says, "it not what people think its what they can proved"

i really admire our gentelmans here and i am learning a lot from the discussions, maybe ill be becoming more rationalize on things around me..

hot topics / issues + cool minds = fruitfull discussion....

i hope we can get on track of the hearing in the court and somebody here could feed some feedbacks on the hearing so well know what will happen and basically learn form it..while we have a healthy discussions here and exchanges of our opinions.

what ever the court decides i hope it is base on facts and not mere allegations (both fair to the accused and victims)

god bless them both (they both got bad faith (two got untimely deaths and one being accused / prosecuted) both in bad shape im sure di rin sya nakatulog..

just me.

peace bro's

MRV_G17
10-09-2007, 19:33
Originally posted by 9MX
exactly. for so as long as the GT rules aren't violated, its democracy at work.
+1 bro. :thumbsup:

our democracy here does not include lashing on somebodys post/comments. kanya kanya naman tayo panininiwala eh.

itong case na ito medyo sensitive kasi influencial yung suspect. honestly speaking, i have a feeling na hindi totoo na "unlinced" daw yung 9mm. who knows, baka meron contact sa loob yung uncle ng suspect para mawala yung record. no record + no weapon = no case :supergrin:

hehehe pero bakit nga kaya homicide lang???
bakit sa Pasig yung hearing? di ba teritoryo nung suspect yung? di ba dapat sa neutral place ex: QC, P'que etc.

just my 2 petots :banana:

may the victims soul rest in peace

choi_tan2000
10-09-2007, 19:50
nice input sir catsmeow

KevlarSix
10-09-2007, 20:01
Dummy account or not. The post of Frontsight007 has good points.

CatsMeow
10-09-2007, 20:27
Originally posted by MRV_G17
+1 bro. :thumbsup:

our democracy here does not include lashing on somebodys post/comments. kanya kanya naman tayo panininiwala eh.

itong case na ito medyo sensitive kasi influencial yung suspect. honestly speaking, i have a feeling na hindi totoo na "unlinced" daw yung 9mm. who knows, baka meron contact sa loob yung uncle ng suspect para mawala yung record. no record + no weapon = no case :supergrin:

hehehe pero bakit nga kaya homicide lang???
bakit sa Pasig yung hearing? di ba teritoryo nung suspect yung? di ba dapat sa neutral place ex: QC, P'que etc.

just my 2 petots :banana:

may the victims soul rest in peace

Murder vs. homicide

Let me put it this way: you shoot somebody in front, that's generally homicide. Shoot him in the back, lalo na if he did not see it coming, that's murder, or a killing with treachery. Shoot an able-bodied man, generally homicide; shoot a child or a cripple, murder, that is, easy to do so because they could not defend themselves. Shoot someone, generally homicide; put an M203 round through his chest thus blowing him in half, murder, that is, killing with the use of explosives. Sniper, definitely murder, that is, killing an unsuspecting victim from a great distance. The main difference is that in murder, means were used so as to ensure that the victims would be unable to defend themselves.

As to why the charge was downgraded, that's the call of the prosecutor, and sinong agrabyado can appeal said finding to the DOJ. As to why Pasig of all places, beats me...:supergrin:

Also, please, let's not get started in a flaming session against frontsight007, or anybody else for that matter, or we'll sound like those kanos elsewhere in GlockTalk, hokay?:hugs:

maskytrading
10-09-2007, 20:38
There are many versions to a criminal trial:
1. Version of accused
2. Version of victims (if they are alive and can talk)
3. Version of witness(es)
4. Version of defendant lawyer(s)
5. Version of defense lawyer(s)
6. Version of the jury(for U.S.A.)
7. Version of judge
8. Version of media
9. Version of the populace in general who are following the story

And the version that is more often than not, buried...
10.The real version...the TRUTH
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The truth will set you free". On the other hand this will cage the shooter...but the smoking gun and a credible witness better be on hand during trial

charlie-xray
10-10-2007, 01:49
There is no morally correct or wrong answer here, just the mindset of the Atty during that time-span, in tagalog haka-haka sa pag-iisip niya or WHAT IF's

This one I really want to hear everybody here speculate.

So let me start my take on it, it's very very probable that at the height of the shouting of the victim to the atty the lady could be shouting at the victim to either STOP or GET HIM GET HIM either of which it could not be translated correctly by the atty due to stress caused by the victim and could have just contrued it as the girl shouting at him as well.

Or as per my previous question and a sensitive one at most, he is an atty and he shooting the victim he suddenly realized his actions/repercussions and circumstances and calculatedly decided to shoot the girl as well to remove as somebody here called the #1 witness, (now this is truly worthy of a dummy account here before answering) ANYBODY HERE with the RISK OF GOING TO JAIL and LOOSING YOUR FREEDOM, LOOSING YOUR LICENSE, LOOSING YOUR HARD EARNED FREE COMFORTABLE LIFE WOULD YOU HAVE NOT DONE THE SAME (just be true to yourself).

Moral question, not at all I'm not pointing out a morally right or morally wrong thing here. We are speculating and discussing so let's discuss lest we be judged of our opinions.

Just ASKING and SPECULATING.

Allegra
10-10-2007, 06:11
Originally posted by charlie-xray
There is no morally correct or wrong answer here, just the mindset of the Atty during that time-span, in tagalog haka-haka sa pag-iisip niya or WHAT IF's

This one I really want to hear everybody here speculate.

So let me start my take on it, it's very very probable that at the height of the shouting of the victim to the atty the lady could be shouting at the victim to either STOP or GET HIM GET HIM either of which it could not be translated correctly by the atty due to stress caused by the victim and could have just contrued it as the girl shouting at him as well.

Or as per my previous question and a sensitive one at most, he is an atty and he shooting the victim he suddenly realized his actions/repercussions and circumstances and calculatedly decided to shoot the girl as well to remove as somebody here called the #1 witness, (now this is truly worthy of a dummy account here before answering) ANYBODY HERE with the RISK OF GOING TO JAIL and LOOSING YOUR FREEDOM, LOOSING YOUR LICENSE, LOOSING YOUR HARD EARNED FREE COMFORTABLE LIFE WOULD YOU HAVE NOT DONE THE SAME (just be true to yourself).

Moral question, not at all I'm not pointing out a morally right or morally wrong thing here. We are speculating and discussing so let's discuss lest we be judged of our opinions.

Just ASKING and SPECULATING.



Hala fafa , you might have violent tendencies ha! hehe
My answer to your question is no
I wont shoot a witness kahit makulong ako because of her testimony
I'm not cold blooded as far as I know
I asked the same question to people who are cold blooded hehe they said they wont shoot the girl kasi madali naman takutin
They really think it was the girl ang una naka away ni hernandez
hehe kulang nalang beer sa kwentuhan dito

atmarcella
10-10-2007, 07:17
we are forgeting here that he is an attorney and he knows very well that the only credible witness is the girl, lahat uzi lang, madali sirain ang testimony nila... opinion ko is pinatay nya talaga ang girl kasi alam nya ang girl lang ang makapakulong sa kanya... very bad man:sad:

and maybe thats why he carries an unlicensed firearm bcos as an attorney he knows that he can just throw it away and deny everything, madali lang mag hugas ng kamay para negative ang paraffin test...suka lang ata sagot dyan...btw bakit walang paraffin test sa kanya?

3kings
10-10-2007, 07:27
oh i miss the days when suntukan lang sa kalsada ang ginagawa ng mga driver pag may ganyan nangyayari.

i remember one time when i was in a bus going to ortigas, there is no flyover yet in the intersection of ortigas and edsa. the bus driver argued with a taxi driver. they both went down. threw punches with each other till they are all blue and bruised. 10minutes later the traffic is already till shaw blvd.

charlie-xray
10-10-2007, 14:04
Violent tendencies hindi naman po, was just attacking the discussion from another angle.

As I read thru the pile of discussion I noticed nobody's asking the nasty questions that's why I decided to just know the mindset of any person or speculate ika nga what could have or could have not run thru the shooters head while in the act of it as I believe we stand to learn from this because pre-set mindset for every situation conceivable would save us from harm and come out unscathed.

And I agree with you beer and mani na lang kulang.


Originally posted by Allegra
Hala fafa , you might have violent tendencies ha! hehe
My answer to your question is no
I wont shoot a witness kahit makulong ako because of her testimony
I'm not cold blooded as far as I know
I asked the same question to people who are cold blooded hehe they said they wont shoot the girl kasi madali naman takutin
They really think it was the girl ang una naka away ni hernandez
hehe kulang nalang beer sa kwentuhan dito

atmarcella
10-10-2007, 19:00
First of all, I would like to get things straight. I am in no way siding with Atty. Hernandez.

im sorry but when you raised the points mentioned below it sure sounded like you did.... but then again maybe its just me:upeyes:



- Atty. Hernandez had just made a considerable withdrawal from a nearby bank when the incident happened. This may or may not have had an effect on his mindset at the time.

- He was not "captured", as was reported, but actually surrendered on his own accord to the authorities.

- A lot of "witnesses" were "narrating" their eyewitness accounts to the media, but as of now there seems to be only one, the rest were simply "Uzi's".

- Atty Hernandez is not exactly a fit or otherwise athletic individual, as opposed to Mr. Canizares. And considering the latter's aggressive movements, which I'm sure a lot of us here would easily perceive as "hostile", the phrase "disparity of force" comes into play. Of course this is not palatable to the media compared to the more sensational narration that the perpetrator (defendant to some) simply got out of his car and shot the helpless victim (attacker to some). You get the point.

- Canizares did not simply "kick" Hernandez's car, causing "just" property damage (as viewed by some), but was part of the early stages of his escalating aggression. He was in physical contact with the latter, shoving his fingers and I.D. into Hernandez's face. And devoid of actual witness accounts of his verbal assaults (Hernandez has remained silent on the matter), his words could have been somewhat like "Halika, barilan tayo, meron ako dala dito (or sa kotse)", OR "Kukunin ko yang baril mo at sayo ko ipuputok" (assuming Hernandez had a gun), OR "Eto baril ko, tingnan natin kung kaya / marunong ka pumutok, kung hindi sayo ko ipuputok yan", OR "Eto I.D. ko, N_I or IS__P ako, kaya kita patayin pati buong pamilya mo", ETC, ETC. The list goes on as to what possibly could have been the dialogue. But the fact is none of us know for sure.

- Like someone earlier pointed out, the bullets that hit Palmero could have initially gone through Canizares, or Palmero being a participant in the heated verbal exchange (who, mind you, is not the legal wife of Canizares, you get the picture) may have appeared going for a weapon also (from the point of view of someone who is tunnel-visioned after having shot another human being). But like I said, who really knows.

Allegra
10-10-2007, 19:23
Originally posted by charlie-xray
Violent tendencies hindi naman po, was just attacking the discussion from another angle.

As I read thru the pile of discussion I noticed nobody's asking the nasty questions that's why I decided to just know the mindset of any person or speculate ika nga what could have or could have not run thru the shooters head while in the act of it as I believe we stand to learn from this because pre-set mindset for every situation conceivable would save us from harm and come out unscathed.

And I agree with you beer and mani na lang kulang.


Coffee muna , it's too early :)
A person who has not exhibited any psychopathic tendencies before , hindi basta makakapatay in cold blood. Cold blood as in killing an inocent person ( the girl )
But he can , in a fit of rage
My guess , kasama si girl sa away
Naks , BOGs investigating team :)

cznayr
10-10-2007, 19:42
Originally posted by 3kings
oh i miss the days when suntukan lang sa kalsada ang ginagawa ng mga driver pag may ganyan nangyayari.

i remember one time when i was in a bus going to ortigas, there is no flyover yet in the intersection of ortigas and edsa. the bus driver argued with a taxi driver. they both went down. threw punches with each other till they are all blue and bruised. 10minutes later the traffic is already till shaw blvd.

Oo nga, ilang beses na rin ako dati. One time, may nagcut sa kin sabay baba becasue of gitgitan. then baba, sinuntok yun gpintuan ng kotse ko, babain ko sana kaso kakatapos ko lang pumutok sa jethro, umuwi na lang ako sabay pagawa ng pinto. baka mabunot ko pa yung baril pag natalo ako sa suntukan :tongueout: sa kin pa rin yung belat, atleast di ko napatay

CatsMeow
10-10-2007, 20:34
There was this classic Supreme Court case where the guy came home to find his wife in bed with another man. In a fit of rage he went and borrowed an M16 from a constable, but when he returned the two lovebirds had flown the coop. He then chanced upon the guy in a store and opened up on him; thing was he was firing full auto and not only did he kill the guy, but he also wounded some other people. He was found not guilty of killing the guy (destierro or banishment only under the law), but was found liable for serious physical injuries on the other people he shot.

The things we do in a fit of rage....

MRV_G17
10-10-2007, 21:18
Originally posted by cznayr
Oo nga, ilang beses na rin ako dati. One time, may nagcut sa kin sabay baba becasue of gitgitan. then baba, sinuntok yun gpintuan ng kotse ko, babain ko sana kaso kakatapos ko lang pumutok sa jethro, umuwi na lang ako sabay pagawa ng pinto. baka mabunot ko pa yung baril pag natalo ako sa suntukan :tongueout: sa kin pa rin yung belat, atleast di ko napatay
i agree bro :thumbsup:

mahirap talaga mag-control kapag meron kang kargada. I know myself so i've decided not to get a PTC.

i really hope that the suspect, the 'bugok' Atty Hernandez, will be convicted. kasi im sure maraming magbabantay sa kasong ito. if the suspect get off the hook, maraming mag iisip na madali lang pumatay ng tao - para ka lang pumatay ng manok.

juice ko po! kung ganun lang kadaling bumaril ng tao siguro ang una kong nabaril yung masungit na doktok (kwak kwak) na nag-attend sa sister-in-law ko about dengue. well, instead of shooting doc kwak-kwak, i sued him for professional negligence. kung di lang nag areglo ipapa dyaryo ko sana eh para magtanda yung ibang doktor na hindi kinokonsider na delikado at nakakamatay ang dengue. I know you cannot prevent dengue but at least, do something to protect the patient. daming mga dengue victim na ang namatay eh tapos sasabihin ng doctor na "ah, thats normal. nothing to worry about. lets wait for another 3 days etc etc"

medyo mahaba na yata hehehehe :supergrin:

ok, back to the topic -

question: pano kung magplead ng 'insanity' yung suspect? saying nawala sya sa sarili after shooting the first victim?

New_comer
10-11-2007, 05:01
Originally posted by CatsMeow
There was this classic Supreme Court case where the guy came home to find his wife in bed with another man. In a fit of rage he went and borrowed an M16 from a constable, but when he returned the two lovebirds had flown the coop. He then chanced upon the guy in a store and opened up on him; thing was he was firing full auto and not only did he kill the guy, but he also wounded some other people. He was found not guilty of killing the guy (destierro or banishment only under the law), but was found liable for serious physical injuries on the other people he shot.

The things we do in a fit of rage....
I heard a different version of this same story. When he tried to vent his anger against his wife, the guy beat him up, as he was bigger.

Borrowed nga yung M16 and found the guy at a sari sari store, or was it mahjong table, bragging about his misadventure earlier. The husband opened fire and killed not only the guy but some others who were listening to his story. He was not found criminally liable on all counts, as the ruling "yata" was that the audience should not have been with the guy who was at the time, the object of the rage of a "temporarily insane" person, insanity being a legally accepted excuse to liability.

Pinag-pyestahan pa kasi yung tragedy ng iba eh, nadamay tuloy...

boni
10-11-2007, 10:29
Originally posted by MRV_G17

i really hope that the suspect, the 'bugok' Atty Hernandez, will be convicted. kasi im sure maraming magbabantay sa kasong ito. if the suspect get off the hook, maraming mag iisip na madali lang pumatay ng tao - para ka lang pumatay ng manok.

mas mahirap pa nga kumatay ng manok sir hahaha joke!

Originally posted by MRV_G17

juice ko po! kung ganun lang kadaling bumaril ng tao siguro ang una kong nabaril yung masungit na doktok (kwak kwak) na nag-attend sa sister-in-law ko about dengue. well, instead of shooting doc kwak-kwak, i sued him for professional negligence. kung di lang nag areglo ipapa dyaryo ko sana eh para magtanda yung ibang doktor na hindi kinokonsider na delikado at nakakamatay ang dengue. I know you cannot prevent dengue but at least, do something to protect the patient. daming mga dengue victim na ang namatay eh tapos sasabihin ng doctor na "ah, thats normal. nothing to worry about. lets wait for another 3 days etc etc"
sir, what possibly would you achieve by killing or having him killed? Hehe Dapat know your enemy pa rin. Dapat pag nagpakatay ka dapat flawless hehehe joke!
Originally posted by MRV_G17

question: pano kung magplead ng 'insanity' yung suspect? saying nawala sya sa sarili after shooting the first victim?
baka what you mean is he would claim insanity “before” he shot the guy siguro sir. but pupusta ako sir baka meron mag surface another shooter. Hehe

Originally posted by choi_tan2000
eh cool na cool parin..
yup coolmints lng sir. hehe

Originally posted by choi_tan2000
in fact, i am now imagining that this forum is like a little court, which now in debate, hearings, diff, pint of views..

your honor i rest my case. hehe

Originally posted by choi_tan2000
abangan................

mga sir pustaan na lng kaya tayo. What you think?hehe will the case prosper or will he walk? ako? pupusta ako that walang mangyayari sa kasong ito. he walks, he talks, he's full of chalk..... hehehe :)

crazy_hans
10-11-2007, 10:44
[
Some circumstances that will negate self-defense: multiple wounds (i.e. you were not content to just double-tap the other guy), wounds in the back, attacking when the other guy is already helpless and disarmed... A recurring scenario I have seen in jurisprudence is when one guy tries to stab another, who then takes away the knife, but then uses the knife against its former owner allegedly because the latter continued struggling for it. Not self-defense since the other guy was already disarmed. More often than not the stab wounds on the former owner are multiple, automatically negating self-defense anyway.

sir catsmeow pa post naman ng title ng case it was the exact opposite with what i read kasi i forgot the title but will exert dilligent effort to find it again anyway it went like "the unlawful aggression does not seize when you take the weapon from the aggressor coz he may be able to take it again from the supposed victim and by then the latter will be at the mercy of his aggressor. so in that case they decided in favor of the person who pleaded self defense. what i don't know is which case was decided first.thanks po sir!

CatsMeow
10-11-2007, 19:33
Okay I will look for my old Revised Penal Code textbook; haven't touched it since 2004, I'm no longer a fiscal, you see.:supergrin: Will also research; if there is something the Supreme Court is not, it's consistency, to the consternation of working lawyers.:supergrin:

frontsight007
10-11-2007, 20:57
Originally posted by atmarcella
.... but then again maybe its just me:upeyes:

Maybe it is.:upeyes:

atmarcella
10-11-2007, 21:50
mga sir pustaan na lng kaya tayo. What you think?hehe will the case prosper or will he walk? ako? pupusta ako that walang mangyayari sa kasong ito. he walks, he talks, he's full of chalk..... hehehe

feeling ko he'll walk....the coup de grâce was killing the girl w/c means no reliable witness, mahirap talaga kaaway abugado:sad:

bikethief
10-11-2007, 22:39
"When all you have is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail."

If the Atty. had other means to deal with the situation such as negotiation skills, defensive driving, hand to hand training, baton or arnis, then maybe he could have resolved the situation in a less tragic manner.

I won't join the Monday Morning Quarterbacking on this thread because after almost an hour of reading your posts I feel that all the legit points and opinions have already been raised.

My only input is let this be a lesson to all of us. I won't be a hypocrite and say that I drive around with a halo on my head. I also suffer a lot from road rage. I also admit to being a hothead. This is something inherent in my personality. I know that even if I try to keep a cool head, my temper will always get the better of me. This is why I invest time and money into TRAINING. I train to shoot to give me more trigger discipline and skill to effectively use my FA if necessary. I train to fight with knife and stick if I'm caught without a firearm or if the use of deadly force isn't justified. Lastly, I train hard in hand-to-hand for the times that only EGOS are at stake.:upeyes:

Point is, fellow bogs, we have committed ourselves to the protection of our lives and the lives of our loved ones. Let's put some extra effort into training for appropriate responses for different threats so we can stay within the reasonable bounds of justice. Iwas pusoy at tago ang alas kung baga.

MRV_G17
10-11-2007, 23:08
Originally posted by atmarcella
feeling ko he'll walk....the coup de grâce was killing the girl w/c means no reliable witness, mahirap talaga kaaway abugado:sad:

i also have a feeling he'll walk. :sad: :sad:
my reason is: well, he's a lawyer (plus a powerful 'coach' uncle from Sandiganbayan). he/they know the IN & OUT of our law plus of course with some help from their "connections".

OK, OK, instead of pustahan (hehehe), gawa na lang tayo voting-list. wag na lagyan ng reason why you vote for it para hindi mahaba :supergrin:


"Suspect will be found GUILTY / NOT-GUILTY"
--------------------------------------------
NOT GUILTY:
1. mrv_g17
2. atmarcella
3.
4.
5.

--------------------------------------------

GUILTY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

--------------------------------------------
*copy and paste the list to your post-reply

mistahglock17
10-12-2007, 04:16
Sad to say but i also 'think' the suspect will walk away with the help of his uncle who is a Sandiganbayan Justice.

They definitely has some connection and probably cooking something now.

Just like the saying: "Its not what you know, Its whom you know".

I just can't believe he is carrying an unlicense 9mm. He knows better what law says about carrying unlicensed FA. I wonder if he thought that its the best way to do it.

What the heck, I'm joining this list anyway :animlol:


"Suspect will be found GUILTY / NOT-GUILTY"
--------------------------------------------
NOT GUILTY:
1. mrv_g17
2. atmarcella
3. mistahglock
4.
5.

--------------------------------------------

GUILTY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

--------------------------------------------
*copy and paste the list to your post-reply

crazy_hans
10-12-2007, 05:47
Originally posted by CatsMeow
[; if there is something the Supreme Court is not, it's consistency, to the consternation of working lawyers.:supergrin: [/B]

hahahahaha!!!!! super agree ako dyan!. stare decisis applies to lower courts lang talaga lalo na sa field nyo sa labor!(kaya i salute you for choosing that field sir!)short law but a lot of DO and conflicting decisions that does not mention the other so don't know which to follow. at meron pa super haba ng case yun agabon vs. nlrc G.R. No. 158693.

boni
10-13-2007, 10:12
"Suspect will be found GUILTY / NOT-GUILTY"
--------------------------------------------
NOT GUILTY:
1. mrv_g17
2. atmarcella
3. mistahglock
4. boni
5.

--------------------------------------------

GUILTY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

--------------------------------------------
*copy and paste the list to your post-reply

charlie-xray
10-13-2007, 12:01
Agree :thumbsup:

Originally posted by bikethief
"When all you have is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail."

If the Atty. had other means to deal with the situation such as negotiation skills, defensive driving, hand to hand training, baton or arnis, then maybe he could have resolved the situation in a less tragic manner.

I won't join the Monday Morning Quarterbacking on this thread because after almost an hour of reading your posts I feel that all the legit points and opinions have already been raised.

My only input is let this be a lesson to all of us. I won't be a hypocrite and say that I drive around with a halo on my head. I also suffer a lot from road rage. I also admit to being a hothead. This is something inherent in my personality. I know that even if I try to keep a cool head, my temper will always get the better of me. This is why I invest time and money into TRAINING. I train to shoot to give me more trigger discipline and skill to effectively use my FA if necessary. I train to fight with knife and stick if I'm caught without a firearm or if the use of deadly force isn't justified. Lastly, I train hard in hand-to-hand for the times that only EGOS are at stake.:upeyes:

Point is, fellow bogs, we have committed ourselves to the protection of our lives and the lives of our loved ones. Let's put some extra effort into training for appropriate responses for different threats so we can stay within the reasonable bounds of justice. Iwas pusoy at tago ang alas kung baga.

mc_oliver
10-13-2007, 17:23
sigh...

There really are a lot of jerks on the road. So if you start acting like one be prepared to take what's definitely coming your way.

Tejeron
10-13-2007, 18:25
Originally posted by cznayr
Oo nga, ilang beses na rin ako dati. One time, may nagcut sa kin sabay baba becasue of gitgitan. then baba, sinuntok yun gpintuan ng kotse ko, babain ko sana kaso kakatapos ko lang pumutok sa jethro, umuwi na lang ako sabay pagawa ng pinto. baka mabunot ko pa yung baril pag natalo ako sa suntukan :tongueout: sa kin pa rin yung belat, atleast di ko napatay

Siguro itong patay ang sumuntok sa kotse mo :supergrin:

Sa tingin ko the atty would narrate na naagaw niya lang yun baril galing sa napatay niya :sad:

"Suspect will be found GUILTY / NOT-GUILTY"
--------------------------------------------
NOT GUILTY:
1. mrv_g17
2. atmarcella
3. mistahglock
4. boni
5. tejeron

--------------------------------------------

GUILTY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

--------------------------------------------
*copy and paste the list to your post-reply

vega
10-13-2007, 22:03
Originally posted by Tejeron
Sa tingin ko the atty would narrate na naagaw niya lang yun baril galing sa napatay niya :sad:

And I bet na lalabas yung pistol sa babae galing, pinasa kay Canizares bago naagaw ni Hernandez.

New_comer
10-13-2007, 22:29
A witness is crucial in this case. If there is only one, he might be bought off, or suddenly suffer from strategic forgetfulness. Dead bodies cannot a correct conviction make, we have Ninoy's case to thank for that.

There is no gun to tack the atty to the shooting. It can be argued that a drive-by shooting occurred, felling the victims. I never read anywhere that the atty already admitted to the shooting in his affidavit. If the witness were a sidewalk vendor or a vagrant, his credibility might be suspect. A lot of alternative scenarios can be concocted to cast doubt, which makes for a long trial ahead. All that time, the atty is as free as a bird for a measly 80K. In the end, he might just walk scot free

JM2C

CatsMeow
10-14-2007, 19:32
Originally posted by crazy_hans
[
Some circumstances that will negate self-defense: multiple wounds (i.e. you were not content to just double-tap the other guy), wounds in the back, attacking when the other guy is already helpless and disarmed... A recurring scenario I have seen in jurisprudence is when one guy tries to stab another, who then takes away the knife, but then uses the knife against its former owner allegedly because the latter continued struggling for it. Not self-defense since the other guy was already disarmed. More often than not the stab wounds on the former owner are multiple, automatically negating self-defense anyway.

sir catsmeow pa post naman ng title ng case it was the exact opposite with what i read kasi i forgot the title but will exert dilligent effort to find it again anyway it went like "the unlawful aggression does not seize when you take the weapon from the aggressor coz he may be able to take it again from the supposed victim and by then the latter will be at the mercy of his aggressor. so in that case they decided in favor of the person who pleaded self defense. what i don't know is which case was decided first.thanks po sir!

Let me get back to you later on that ok? I got hold of my old Reyes books (actually 2001 edition) but they cite ancient cases (ex. in rape cases the rapist and the victim were still wearing "drawers").:supergrin: A bit of updating is in order.

Anyway, IRA FUROR BREVIS EST (Anger is a brief madness).

CatsMeow
10-14-2007, 21:38
Ok here it is: People vs. de los Reyes, G.R. No. 140680, May 28, 2004:

"Assuming for the nonce, that the appellant’s testimony is the truth, nevertheless, he cannot invoke complete or incomplete self-defense. While the victim was inceptually the unlawful aggressor, the aggression ceased as soon as the appellant had managed to wrest the knife from him and no longer committed any overt act evidencing persistence to consummate the unlawful aggression. This is borne by the testimony of the appellant himself, viz:
Q Now, who has a bigger physical built, you or the victim?
A The victim has a bigger built.
Q Did I get it from you that after he made his second thrust, you moved your left foot and holding his right hand by clipping his right hand which was holding the knife as you demonstrated?
A Yes, Ma’am.
Q And when you were clipping his right hand under your armpit, the left of Felomeno Omamos did not do anything?
A Yes, Ma’am.
Q While you were clipping his right hand which was holding the knife, that was the time you were able to wrest the knife from him?
A Yes, Ma’am.
Q And when you were able to allegedly wrest the knife from him, that was the time you stabbed him, is that correct?
A Yes, Ma’am.
Q When you stabbed him, you were still clipping his right hand?
A No more, Ma’am.
Q You mean to say you loosen him from your grip (sic)?
A I released him already, Ma’am.
Q And when you released him, what did Felomeno Omamos do?
A When I released him, Felomeno Omamos was still standing.
Q In front of you?
A Yes, Ma’am.
Q And that is why you stabbed him in the chest?
A At first, he was hit at his forearm near his armpit.
Q He was hit at his forearm when you made the first thrust?
A Yes, Ma’am.
Q He was still standing in front of you after that?
A Yes, Ma’am.
Q And that was the reason why you were able to hit him in (sic) his chest?
A Yes, Ma’am.
Q And you testified that after Felomeno Omamos was hit for the second time, he was still standing, is that correct?
A Yes, Ma’am.
Q You mean to say, he did not fall down to the ground?
A He did not fall down, Ma’am.
Q Now, after you hit him for the second time in (sic) his chest, what did you do?
A When I hit Felomeno Omamos for the second time at his solar plexus, I ran away leaving the knife still embedded in his solar plexus.
Q And what was Felomeno do (sic) when you left him with embedded knife on his chest?
A When I left, I did not see anymore what happened to Felomeno Omamos because I was riding my bike.
Q But you said he was still standing when he was hit for the second time, is that correct?
ATTY. IMPROSO:
The question is already answered, Your Honor.
COURT:
Objection overruled.
A Yes, Ma’am, he was still standing.
Q By the way, can you describe the knife that Felomeno Omamos allegedly used in stabbing you, which eventually you were able to wrestle him (sic) and stabbed him in return?
A It was a stainless kitchen knife.
Q How long is (sic) it?
A It is (sic) about 5 to 6 inches.
COURT (to the Witness):
Q Excluding the handle?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q Is is (sic) a (sic) double-bladed or a single-bladed?
A It is a single-bladed knife.
Q Do you know where is the knife now?
A I do not know, Ma’am.
Q After you stabbed him and you said you ran, where did you go?
A I proceeded to the house of my mother, Francisca. [23]
The appellant was not defending himself; he stabbed the victim in retaliation for the latter’s inceptual unlawful aggression. Indeed, the appellant stabbed the victim, not only once, but thrice; once on a vital part of the body, the chest. The nature and location of the stab wounds sustained by the victim belie the appellant’s affirmative defense. [24] Hence, the appellant cannot invoke Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code to justify the killing.
In People vs. So, [25] we held that:
Even if we allow appellant’s contention that Tuquero was the initial unlawful aggressor, we still cannot sustain his plea of self-defense. After appellant successfully wrested the knife from Tuquero, the unlawful aggression had ceased. After the unlawful aggression has ceased, the one making the defense has no more right to kill or even wound the former aggressor. [26]

But even if We assume that it was the deceased who attacked the accused with a knife, as the latter would make Us believe, We still hold that there was no self-defense because at that point when the accused was able to catch and twist the hand of the deceased, in effect immobilizing him, the unlawful aggression had already ended. Thus, the danger having ceased, there was no more need for the accused to start stabbing the deceased, not just once but five (5) times. [27]
We reiterated this ruling in People vs. Tampon [28] and People vs. Magallanes. [29]"

Also, taking off after the incident negates self-defense, for it is well-settled that flight is equivalent to guilt...

Hope this helps.

choi_tan2000
10-14-2007, 23:04
my opinion???

a long long hearing of the case, delays etc... etcc..

then areglo

hehee

cznayr
10-14-2007, 23:22
By the way, I've read this in guns and ammo way back in 2005. These concerns cases of self defense wherein the they are trying the defendants because the perps sustained gunshot wound at the back. Same accusations, the threat has been neutralized already then why did the perps have gunshot wounds at the back.

It took a gun expert and a simulation of reactions to being shot. The defense was that in shooting scenarios a gun advocate would be taking down BGs with double taps or three successive shots. Now, the reaction of the perps after attacking (at that time armed with a hammer, the perp was a robber) and getting hit once was turning away immediately. The defendant upon realizing the BG was down stopped but after firing three successive quick shots.

The gun toting defendants got off the hook.

Now back to the topic,

Baka di paareglo yan kasi may kaya din yung napatay unless multi-million settlement and depende rin sa pamilya nung namatayan.

crazy_hans
10-15-2007, 11:59
thank you po sir catsmeow for the help!

3kings
10-15-2007, 16:04
i think he will be found guilty of homicide.

CatsMeow
10-15-2007, 19:20
Originally posted by crazy_hans
thank you po sir catsmeow for the help!

Anytime.:)

quick
10-15-2007, 19:23
Originally posted by frontsight007

Also, the mere fact that we are on this forum entails (generally, with certain exceptions) some level of maturity as responsible Pinoy firearms owners. Being an open public forum, our views and comments will inevitably come under scrutiny by those who seek to subvert us, and I certainly would not want to be the one to give them any of my own ammunition to use against me.
[/QUOTE]

amen, panyero. :thumbsup:

theTactician
10-15-2007, 19:44
He (the suspect) probably forgot the "rules of engagement" which is never fire your gun unless fired upon. I mean, sinipa lang naman pala kotse niya eh, di naman siya napaano, it doesnt justify him killing the other guy, unless binunutan siya ng baril ng guy then there's imminent threat na papatayin siya talaga, dapat dun lang niya pinaputukan yung guy. am i right? anyway, its just my own opinion.
when confronted with such situation, i will just walk away unless nasaktan talaga ako or my loved ones were hurt by the altercation. then its a different story. barilan na pag-ganon.

CatsMeow
10-15-2007, 19:59
From case law on self-defense: after you shoot or stab another in self-defense, DON'T RUN. TURN YOURSELF AND YOUR WEAPON IN TO THE NEAREST COP OR PERSON IN AUTHORITY IMMEDIATELY. Failed defenses of self-defense always has the perp fleeing with the weapon.

choi_tan2000
10-15-2007, 21:01
+1 sir catsmeow

CatsMeow
10-15-2007, 23:59
Originally posted by crazy_hans
hahahahaha!!!!! super agree ako dyan!. stare decisis applies to lower courts lang talaga lalo na sa field nyo sa labor!(kaya i salute you for choosing that field sir!)short law but a lot of DO and conflicting decisions that does not mention the other so don't know which to follow. at meron pa super haba ng case yun agabon vs. nlrc G.R. No. 158693.

Labor law is better; less bloody, less heartbreaking.:supergrin: At least the Supreme Court has been consistent in applying the Agabon doctrine: P30k for lack of due process. As for the rest...sheeesh...that's why I visit the Supreme Court website every day.

I never regretted leaving the prosecution service; the hardest things I ever had to do was to apologize to the private complainant when the accused got acquitted... happened several times. I really poured my heart out building up a case, umamin pa naman ang accused of doing such illegal act but claimed good faith; the judge believed her so pffft...:sad:

The most open-and-shut case I ever handled was one who stabbed dead his nephew in front of the plaza Christmas tree on Christmas; he did it in front of two cops and a photographer... he pleaded guilty to homicide so off he went to Bilibid.:supergrin: