Armed men beat up four traffic enforcers

[Bogeyman]

Here's the problem, if the intent was not gain, then where are the radios and cellphones?

Don't forget the wallets.

the 1st two questions is probly answered by your 3rd sentence, yet i can only speculate on the wisdom of their actions, kaya who knows? if there was indeed intent to gain, it is the evidence that will shed light. or the perpetrators themselves if they ever get caught.

The fact that something of value was taken, regardless of motive, is itself evidence of intent to gain.

Again, where's the justice in divesting someone of his/her valuables, done ostensibly in the crusade against corruption? For all we know, they were just common bandits out to make a spectacle of something as simple as robbery.

[tsupermario]

Here's the problem, if the intent was not gain, then where are the radios and cellphones?

To clarify: If the intent was to prevent their calling for backup, the radios would have been taken and then dumped a few meters from the scene. Much like a car used for a getaway. If it is found abandoned beyond the crime scene, then there is no robbery with regards to the car, but if items are missing, then that can be considered robbery. The non-return of the radios signifies an implied intent to gain, and that is possibly how the judge would see it. Even if the defendant denies intent, if they can't produce the items or point out where they dumped them, they're screwed.

Of course, the other charges would be more serious.

I don't think this would fall under homicide, although a local prosecutor would likely try to throw in attempted homicide to trump up the charges, since there was a firearm involved, then let the defense bargain down from there.

Peace nalang, pare... it seems I was the one who got a little too emotional up there...

no harm done po

i agree that there is an implied intent to gain. but i also agree with one observation posted here:

As for armed robbery, why would they want to steal communication equipment? If they have theft in mind, maybe ambushing a rich guy after a bank withdrawal would be more realistic.

also clearly they went beyond just robbing the victims, they punched and kicked them plus humiliated them - things that are clearly unnecessary if their intent was to just rob them. that is why i mentioned about intent. if the intent of the perpetrators was to rob, they could just have tied the victims and ran away with their loot or picked a victim that has more dough than those fellas. but instead they chose corrupt low-income law enforcers. to me they were not up for their cellfones or money but they wanted to rough up the victims. that imho is a case of assault. but it is possible that their intention is both to rob and assault the victims, in which case they committed "in essence" the 2 crimes. i'm just not too sure about the proper charge, it's not so easy as it may seem.


in the end, it's the prosecutor and the judge that will have the final say. whether its robbery or direct assault or both, the police will have to catch the culprits first.

The fact that something of value was taken, regardless of motive, is itself evidence of intent to gain.

generally yes but one has to consider the entirety of the circumstances. these circumstances may negate the presumption of intent to gain.

[niky]

Then, that is up to the prosecutors. Though nothing in the circumstances makes me doubt the intent. Like I said, in all probability, the charges levelled against these people would be trumped up anyway, with attempted homicide, armed robbery and the like. Which is probably only fair, as to keep them from being labelled vigilantes (a moral victory for them, I guess... if there's anything moral in that) and classify them under "petty criminals".

And be careful with your words. We cannot assume that these traffic enforcers were "corrupt" in the first place. As it was obviously the intent of the felons to make them appear corrupt (with the sign and the public display), such assumptions are very dangerous... and damaging to the enforcers, too.

Although I doubt the enforcers are saints, they too, are innocent until proven guilty.

[rollyms]

Traffic enforcers are not authorized to carry sidearms, only uniformed policemen can carry sidearms.

Bakit ang mga security guards sa Ortigas Center (na deputized daw ng MMDA) carry guns. Funny thing is that ang nag-deputize sa kanila walang baril.

[Bogeyman]

Maybe the act was intended as a general message of defiance and disobedience to established authority in the guise of 'justice', and the victims just happened to be unfortunate enough to be made examples of.

[tsupermario]

Maybe the act was intended as a general message of defiance and disobedience to established authority in the guise of 'justice', and the victims just happened to be unfortunate enough to be made examples of.

if this is the case, imho it will still fall under direct assault

[Galactus]

did i say that homicide and murder are the same thing? if i made that impression to you then i guess i'm sorry.

physical injuries is absorbed in direct assault. for homicide or murder to prosper there must be evidence of intent to kill.

This is quite clear in your post, it was simply not my impression.

Believe me, I know the Revised Penal Code, especially on robbery, there is no need to lecture me, and as I said, I don't think robbery was the suspect's primary motive, BASED ON THE NEWS ITEM, and my experience in law enforcement.

And regarding your issue on Robbery with Homicide, every prosecutor knows that it is STILL homicide, which carries a more severe penalty than plain robbery. That was my point, no need to split hairs about it. But I did check the RPC, and didn't find that specific provision though (Robbery with Homicide).

And re: grave threats, it is a separate provision in the RPC (Article 282), and if I were the prosecutor, I would include this charge, as common sense will tell us that this crime most likely happened. Contrary to your claim, as practiced here, it is NOT inherent in robbery charges, and in my opinion, is subject to the interpretation of the fiscal and judge who would handle the case.

Anyway, I think we all want justice to be done, and we're all civilized people here, so let's just hope the malefactors are caught asap. I'm signing out. Peace!

[tsupermario]

sorry sir i meant no disrespect. i merely wanted to straighten the things you just posted. regarding the issue on robbery with homicide, please check under Art. 294 of the RPC as amended by the Death Penalty Law. its clearly provided there, including physical injuries. as for grave threats in relation to robbery with violence or intimidation of persons, just look for relevant supreme court decisions on the matter. hope these helps.

like you i also want justice to be done.

[oldblue]

sana ulitin pa nila sa ibang lugar naman, para mag-send ng message sa lahat ng mulcters, ang magnanakaw kaayaw magnanakaw din.

who really cares if it's a crime or not. vigilantism is a crime. main implied reason why, kasi napapahiya mga pulis na dapat trabaho nila.

[niky]

The problem is, this assumes that all traffic cops are mulcters.

And while I've had my share of experiences with those blasted "kotong cops", I've also had good experiences with others.

I've been stopped two or three times where I was not given the same old song and dance. The officer told me directly what I'd done, then quickly said that I could claim my license at the LTO. No bulling around about how long it was going to take, no padding of "reckless" and whatnot on the ticket... they just wrote it quickly and sent me on my way.

Know what? Whenever a traffic cop does that, I say "Salamat po, sir!" and give my sincerest apology for violating the traffic rules of the area, whether I'd knowingly did so or not.

Now... if one of those cops happened to be one of the good guys... would it be just?

If we want to stop the kotongan... we should simply refuse to pay bribes, take their names, and complain regarding these enforcers.

And like I said in my previous post... don't assume that just because these enforcers were beaten up that they are corrupt. The motive of the so-called vigilantes is probably not what you think it is. These may be innocent enforcers picked just because they were easy targets.