Monday, June 02, 2008 Rama: Digging the roots of imminent danger By Karlon N. Rama Stage Five
HERE is a summary of a decision issued by the Supreme Court (SC) in 2006 over a shooting case involving two security officers and an armed man who was causing a ruckus inside a bar.
I used the ruling as a stimulus activity in a talk I gave as part of the advanced firearm course given by my friend Ray Abad, grandmaster-class shooter of the United States Practical Shooting Association.
The first part is the criminal case information and it contains the material allegation and the specific cause of action. The second is the presentation the prosecution made on record. The third is the recorded argument of the defense and the last is the court’s ruling.
Read the first three parts first and formulate a ruling of your own. Take into account justifying circumstance and equal or reasonable force (Stage Five, May 26, 2008). Then see if your ruling fits with that of the High Tribunal.
As background, Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez penned the ruling. It came after a review of the Court of Appeals’ June 20, 2002 decision upholding the Feb. 18, 1993 murder conviction issued by the Regional Trial Court against Otello Santiano and Rolando Dagani.
THE INFORMATION. “That on or about Sept. 11, 1989, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery, attack, assault and use of personal violence upon one Ernesto Javier by then and there shooting him with a .38 caliber revolver, thereby inflicting upon the said Ernesto Javier mortal gunshot wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.”
THE PROSECUTION. At about 4:45 in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 1989, a group composed of Ernesto Javier, Lincoln Miran, and two other individuals had been drinking at the canteen located inside the compound of the Philippine National Railways (PNR) along C.M. Recto Avenue, Tondo, Manila.
All of a sudden, appellants, who were security officers of the PNR and covered by the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, entered the canteen and approached the group.
Appellant Dagani shoved Miran, causing the latter to fall from his chair. Dagani then held Javier while Santiano shot Javier twice at his left side, killing the latter.
THE DEFENSE. Appellants testified that they were ordered by their desk officer to investigate a commotion at the canteen. Upon reaching the place, Santiano ordered his co-accused, Dagani, to enter, while he secured the perimeter.
Dagani approached Javier who had been striking a bottle of beer on the table. Javier then pulled out a .22 caliber revolver and attempted to fire at Dagani, but the gun failed to go off.
Dagani, who had previously cross-trained with the Special Weapons and Tactics team of local police, grappled Javier for the weapon.
Guarding the perimeter, Santiano didn’t know what was going on inside until, suddenly, he heard the sound of gunfire. He moved from his previous position and, from a vantage point, saw Javier and Dagani grappling for a firearm.
During the course of the struggle, the gun went off. According to Santiano, this forced him to fire a warning shot.
But instead of compliance, he heard Javier’s gun go off again. So he decided to rush into the canteen, with Dagani and Javier still grappling. Santiano saw an opening and, feeling that his partner’s life was in danger, shot Javier from a distance of less than four meters.
THE RULING. “Appellants invoked the justifying circumstances of self-defense and lawful performance of official duty as PNR security officers. They also argued that the prosecution failed to establish treachery and conspiracy.
“Unlawful aggression, a primordial element of self-defense, would presuppose an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person—not a mere threatening or intimidating attitude—at the time the defensive action was taken against the aggressor.
“To invoke self-defense successfully, there must have been an unlawful and unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused, who was then forced to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist the attack.”
According to the SC, Dagani’s act of grappling for the gun eliminated whatever imminent danger existed. Hence the shooting was unjustified. Santiano is, thus, guilty. The court exonerated his co-accused.
