|
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Threat, unlawful attack ‘a must’
By Karlon N. Rama
Sun.Star Staff Reporter
With Garry Cabotaje
When are police killings justified?
This question begs to be answered, with the media attention Cebu City Mayor Tomas Osmeña’s proposed police Hunter Team is getting.
Osmeña, in announcing the team’s creation, said its purpose was to seek and destroy criminals. The team, he said, will “whack” the perpetrators “if given reason.”
Days after the announcement, and while the police claims their Hunter Team is not yet ready, a man with an arrest record was found dead. At the end of three days, the body count reached seven.
Interviewed by Sun. Star yesterday, lawyer Democrito Barcenas, Integrated Bar of the Philippines Cebu City chapter president, said there is no hard evidence to suggest that Osmeña’s Hunter Team, which the mayor stressed is not yet operational, is actually behind the killing.
Probe on
For his part, Supt. Carmelo Valmoria, Police Regional Office (PRO) 7 community relations division chief, downplayed speculations that the proposed special “Hunter Team” could have a hand in a series of killings.
“We don’t know the assailants but I’m sure that it is being looked into by the Cebu City Police Office,” he said.
If proven that policemen or Hunter Team members are responsible for the killings, lawyer Homer Cabaral of the National Police Commission (Napolcom) 7 said they should face criminal and administrative charges.
“If that is the work of the policemen, then they can be charged criminally in court because that is plain and simple murder. The Napolcom can also investigate the administrative aspect,” he said.
But Barcenas said that if the PNP cannot investigate and find out who did the actual killings, then the public may be justified in its perception that Cebu now has an operational death squad.
Rules of engagement
Barcenas said the law allows police officials to neutralize a perpetrator without liability but explained that there are guidelines to be followed.
“There must be unlawful aggression and this is defined as threats to one’s life. It is not a simple threat. Threat here is defined as actual eminent danger to one’s life,” he said.
“This does not involve a known criminal who was shot while sleeping or one who is shot while running away. This involves a criminal who tries to attack a police officer who is trying to do his job,” Barcenas said.
Valmoria, for his part, said that the primary objectives of the rules of engagement are to avoid mis-encounter, use of deadly force and abuse of authority.
“If they’re going to comply with these rules, I doubt there will be violators of human rights,” Valmoria added.
A salient point in the rules, he said, is to apply only deadly force as a last resort, “when all other peaceful and non-violent means have been exhausted.”
The use of force, including firearms, is justifiable by virtue of the doctrine of self-defense, defense of a relative and defense of a stranger, he said.
Pro-gun
“That is if the police has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury,” he added.
Barcenas, who admits to being pro-gun, said the law allows even private firearm owners to use their firearms in self-defense. The criterion is basically the same: shoot only when there is unlawful aggression.
“I encourage law abiding citizens to lawfully acquire firearms and secure themselves in their homes. There is even a need to bring our firearms out of our residences because, right now, lawful citizens are outnumbered by criminals,” he said.
The Revised Penal Code lists “justifying circumstances and circumstances” that exempt persons from criminal liability and this is applicable in the defensive use of firearms.
Supreme Court (SC) jurisprudence, however, stringently governs shooting.
In its 1999 People vs. Real ruling, for example, the SC ruled that there must be an unlawful and unprovoked attack upon the person of the shooter and that he or she had to fire the shots as a “reasonable means” to resist the attack.
The definition of unlawful and unprovoked attack is better clarified in the 1998 People vs. Cario ruling: “Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or an imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.”
The shooter also cannot pick a fight with the other person and then, when the other guy gets worked up, claim that the shooting that resulted from the altercation was defensive in nature.
(December 28, 2004 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
