Armed men beat up four traffic enforcers

[bolantoy]

Armed men beat up four traffic enforcers

The Philippine Star 08/12/2006

Four traffic enforcers, accused of being mulcters, were beaten up by four armed men in Muntinlupa City last Thursday night.

SPO1 Ricardo Gomez said the incident happened at around 10:15 p.m. along the National Road in Barangay Tunasan while traffic enforcers Bayani Pagkalinawan, Raul Orallo, Noel Catabay and Lydia Voces were on duty.

He said the suspects, armed with handguns, accosted the four enforcers and ordered them to lie face down on the pavement. The gunmen divested the traffic enforcers of their cellular phones, handheld radios and wallets.

The suspects then proceeded to punch and kick the four enforcers.

They then dumped Orallo near a lamppost and placed on his neck a placard with the words "Huwag Pamarisan, Buwaya ng Lansangan." The note was signed "Juan dela Cruz."– Rhodina Villanueva

Hindi ko alam kung matutuwa ako o hindi dito sa mga binugbog na mga enforcers.

[squala]

Hindi nakakatuwa dahil hindi sa Makati MAPSA nagyari ito.

[jonski]

Hindi nakakatuwa dahil hindi sa Makati MAPSA nagyari ito.

yup yup! dapat MAkati MAPSa or yung mismong mayor ng makati.

[creepy]

yup yup! dapat MAkati MAPSa or yung mismong mayor ng makati.

Oo nga. Sana yung headline "Armed men beat up Makati mayor" na lang! Hahaha!

[the_wildthing]

Oo nga. Sana yung headline "Armed men beat up Makati mayor" na lang! Hahaha!

Syempre kung sino lang ang kaya nila...

[scarab]

...pati yung babaeng traffic enforcer ginulpi?

[v22]

probably they got what they deserve! dami ganyang mga enforcers na bullies... lalo na mga PNP traffic... sana matyempuhan din sila.


had a bad day....

[tsupermario]

probably they got what they deserve! dami ganyang mga enforcers na bullies... lalo na mga PNP traffic... sana matyempuhan din sila.

karma

[Galactus]

Hehehe...naka 9 posts na, pero walang pumanig sa mga traffic enforcers!

As for me, ho-hum....

[StraightSix]

Hehehe...naka 9 posts na, pero walang pumanig sa mga traffic enforcers!

Unfair naman yan sa ibang traffic enforcers!

Bakit isa lang ang sinabitan ng placard?

[empy]

i think it's sad that people feel like they have to take the law into their own hands. but who knows what happened? could it be:

(a) the guys were flagged down for a bogus violation and got extorted?
(b) the violation was legit but instead of getting a ticket they got extorted?
(c) the guys were flagged down for a legit offense and are just mad that they got caught?
(d) something else?

we can't tell for sure. after all, there are probably more barumbado drivers than corrupt traffic enforcers (but there are surely no shortages of both)...hmmmm... :confused:

[tsupermario]

Armed men beat up four traffic enforcers

The Philippine Star 08/12/2006

Four traffic enforcers, accused of being mulcters, were beaten up by four armed men in Muntinlupa City last Thursday night.

SPO1 Ricardo Gomez said the incident happened at around 10:15 p.m. along the National Road in Barangay Tunasan while traffic enforcers Bayani Pagkalinawan, Raul Orallo, Noel Catabay and Lydia Voces were on duty.

He said the suspects, armed with handguns, accosted the four enforcers and ordered them to lie face down on the pavement. The gunmen divested the traffic enforcers of their cellular phones, handheld radios and wallets.

The suspects then proceeded to punch and kick the four enforcers.

They then dumped Orallo near a lamppost and placed on his neck a placard with the words "Huwag Pamarisan, Buwaya ng Lansangan." The note was signed "Juan dela Cruz."– Rhodina Villanueva

i think the intention of the suspects would classify the crime done. if the intention was to rob, naturally it would be robbery. but if the victims were beaten because of their corrupt acts as lawmen, then it would something else.. assault most probably.

[niky]

Intentions?

The comission of the crime is what defines the act. Intentions only come into play when determining the seriousness and appropriate punishment.

The act itself is assault and battery. The obviously planned nature of the assault puts it under pre-meditated assault, which carries a heavier fine than merely aggravated assault, which would occur only if the assailant was taunted or pushed into fighting.

And stealing is still stealing, whatever the intent.

Don't let your distaste or hatred of the victim color your judgement. Like I said, if somebody shot someone for any real or imagined offense, however slight... like, oh say... cutting them off in traffic... would you empathize with the shooter? Or how about if they shot him and took his car? Surely taking the car is just revenge for him denting your own...

[tsupermario]

The comission of the crime is what defines the act. Intentions only come into play when determining the seriousness and appropriate punishment.

imho its the other way around. the act committed defines the crime done and one of the possible elements of a crime is the intent of the perpetrator. in robbery, there must be intent to gain. minus that, no robbery is committed.

The act itself is assault and battery. The obviously planned nature of the assault puts it under pre-meditated assault, which carries a heavier fine than merely aggravated assault, which would occur only if the assailant was taunted or pushed into fighting.

the assault i was thinking carries a more serious penalty than just a fine. in fact, it can carry a penalty of imprisonment and it can go as high as 6 years if i i'm not mistaken.

Don't let your distaste or hatred of the victim color your judgement.

hehe it didn't. sabi ko nga lang baka karma

Like I said, if somebody shot someone for any real or imagined offense, however slight... like, oh say... cutting them off in traffic... would you empathize with the shooter? Or how about if they shot him and took his car? Surely taking the car is just revenge for him denting your own...

would i empathize with the shooter? of course not. why should i? he just committed 2 crimes right there.

[Galactus]

imho its the other way around. the act committed defines the crime done and one of the possible elements of a crime is the intent of the perpetrator. in robbery, there must be intent to gain. minus that, no robbery is committed.

That is incorrect.

As Niky said, the mere commission of a crime is all that is needed for a case to prosper, the intent will only be a mitigating circumstance as to the gravity of the offense. In this particular case (based on the news item), the primary charge would be serious physical injuries. Secondary charges na lang ang grave threats (may baril kasi, and it would be logical to presume na they used it to threaten their lives) and robbery.

But it could be upgraded to attempted/frustrated homicide, depending on the facts (which have yet to be ascertained).

Simply put, kinuha ang gamit without their consent, and under threat = robbery.

[Bogeyman]

in robbery, there must be intent to gain. minus that, no robbery is committed.

If there was no intent to gain, why were the communications equipment taken, which were paid for by our taxes? And the victims' personal effects, why were they taken as well? If they wanted to prevent the victims from calling for backup, they could have just incapacitated them. After all, they managed to tie one of them up.

Does taking someone's wallet really help in the crusade against corruption?

[tsupermario]

before anybody here gets the wrong idea, lemme just clear things up: i'm not defending the acts of those vigilantes. heck they they be punished for what they did. i agree that taking the law into your own hands does not promote the common good. mine is only an opinion on the possible criminal liabilities of those offenders since there was a confusion as to the charges that may be bought against them.

If there was no intent to gain, why were the communications equipment taken, which were paid for by our taxes? And the victims' personal effects, why were they taken as well? If they wanted to prevent the victims from calling for backup, they could have just incapacitated them. After all, they managed to tie one of them up.

Does taking someone's wallet really help in the crusade against corruption?

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.

That is incorrect.

As Niky said, the mere commission of a crime is all that is needed for a case to prosper, the intent will only be a mitigating circumstance as to the gravity of the offense. In this particular case (based on the news item), the primary charge would be serious physical injuries. Secondary charges na lang ang grave threats (may baril kasi, and it would be logical to presume na they used it to threaten their lives) and robbery.

But it could be upgraded to attempted/frustrated homicide, depending on the facts (which have yet to be ascertained).

Simply put, kinuha ang gamit without their consent, and under threat = robbery.

it's like this. let say you are the prosecutor. before you charge somebody with a crime, you have to know all the acts that was committed by the offender. it is only after knowing these acts that you can prescribe the proper crime which you can charge against the offender. why? because it is those acts that will constitute the basis of the charge.

in this case IMHO, there are two possible crimes - direct assault and robbery. i'm not saying also that it's one or the other because it can be both.

physical injuries is absorbed in direct assault. for homicide or murder to prosper there must be evidence of intent to kill. you would notice that intent is a crucial element in these crimes. what distinguishes physical injuries from homicide/murder is intent to kill. likewise in robbery, intent is an element. therefore your assertion that "kinuha ang gamit without their consent, and under threat = robbery" without intent to gain is no robbery, but it can be something else.