One dead over LED headlight argument

[Ardand_1973]

The news article was a basis of double hearsay. Firstly, because it was written based on the statement of the CoP of Caloocan who were not in the scene when the shooting incident happened this makes it a hearsay. Second, the writer of the Inquirer article was also not there making the news article as double hearsay. Now, before everyone of you will give judgement and conclusion about the suspect, please read on the attachment why the shooting happened. This was a statement of one of the eye witnesses that was in the scene and saw why this has transpired. This was an unfortunate incident which was not expected. It happened which requires a person to defend his life. Everyone may not agree on what had happened but you will not understand unless you become a victim of such unfortunate incident that has been happening in our country.

[Ardand_1973]

Another, there has been no Gun Duel as theorized by the Police that was written in the INQ7 news article. But there was an aggression on the part of the deceased because he was aggressively attacking the engineer who where inside hi car. As shown, on the attachment, this collaborate with the statement of the eye-witness that the deceased went out of his vehicle and was aggressively moving towards the engineer while firing his gun as he was approaching the engineer's position. As investigation shows, this was not written in the news article, the deceased position was around 15 meters away from his vehicle while he was around 5 meters closer to the engineer's position. On the attachment, take note of the black object in the ground (this will indicate the position of the engineer) in reference to the position of the body of the deceased. Again, this was not shown or written in the article. These attachment were marked up evidence of the defense in the court and you may verify the authenticity of such documents. To note, all of these pictures were captures from a video taken from the dashcam of the engineer's vehicle. Self defense can be proven if you will view the dashcam video. Unfortunately, I cannot able to share it right now, dahil nagtatahi pa ng kwento ang mga lawyers ng prosecution.

Also, if you will refer into the other photos about the engineer's car, lahat ng tama nito ay nagmula sa likuran.


Anyway, I respect all the comments of other members here but I am just hoping for people to understand the matter much better as they implied that they are more educated members of this forum. I dont think that judging a person based on the news write ups is fair especially to those who wish that the engineer should be the one who end up dead because you dont really understand what really happened on the unfortunate incident.

Lastly, for everyone's information, I am DIrector Ardy Cristobal, the one implicated on this incident.
I believed it would be fair for me to write on this post to respond on the article to shed light of the incident which was maligned by the news article written by the Inquirer. Libel case is seriously being prepared to the newspaper together with its writer and editor as well as the CoP of Caloocan who was a known associate of the deceased (Atty Belen). Remember, the deceased own a bar in Caloocan city with the protection of the police community covering it.

[DannyJr]

Thanks for sharing one of the eye witness statements. Your previous post implies other witnesses. What were their statements and do they support or contradict the witness statement you posted? We only have your version of the incident and a cherry-picked witness statement.

Sorry if that comes a bit harsh, but you must understand that we can't just take your side of the events. Unfortunately, the dead tell no tales. So we must make do with what dispassionate witnesses (not just one) have to say. I do agree that the physical evidence (the pictures) may help you prove your case.

As for my thinking that a duel occurred, it is because of what I read from the news article. Do keep us posted if the INQ withdraws their story or corrects it, of if you shall prevail in court.

[Ardand_1973]

Right now, I cannot divuldge the statement of other witnesses as these are critical on the case at hand. But to note, these statements are collaboraring with the one posted here in the forum. To clarify, I do not cherry pick the information to influence people in the forum but illustrated a eye witness statement with facts as shown on the picture file. Lastly, I guess you missed an important point on my response that there was a video evidence from a dashcam where the pictures has been taken and submitted as court evidence. Unfortunately, this video cannot be disclosed right now since the other party are still fabricating story about this case.

My point here is to inform other members to be critical on what they comment because a news article is not enough as a basis to judge a person.

Also, as I divulge these informations for other see the other side of story does not mean I am trying to get sympathy from others but rather trying to balance what has been written with information which the news article in the Inquirer does not have. I have spoken with the Inq7 writer Jodee Agoncillo, and her defense was that this was written based on what the CoP of Caloocan had inforn her. This means the news article was written on a basis of speculation and not by factual evidences.

[vinj]

The news article was a basis of double hearsay. Firstly, because it was written based on the statement of the CoP of Caloocan who were not in the scene when the shooting incident happened this makes it a hearsay. Second, the writer of the Inquirer article was also not there making the news article as double hearsay. Now, before everyone of you will give judgement and conclusion about the suspect, please read on the attachment why the shooting happened. This was a statement of one of the eye witnesses that was in the scene and saw why this has transpired. This was an unfortunate incident which was not expected. It happened which requires a person to defend his life. Everyone may not agree on what had happened but you will not understand unless you become a victim of such unfortunate incident that has been happening in our country.

Another, there has been no Gun Duel as theorized by the Police that was written in the INQ7 news article. But there was an aggression on the part of the deceased because he was aggressively attacking the engineer who where inside hi car. As shown, on the attachment, this collaborate with the statement of the eye-witness that the deceased went out of his vehicle and was aggressively moving towards the engineer while firing his gun as he was approaching the engineer's position. As investigation shows, this was not written in the news article, the deceased position was around 15 meters away from his vehicle while he was around 5 meters closer to the engineer's position. On the attachment, take note of the black object in the ground (this will indicate the position of the engineer) in reference to the position of the body of the deceased. Again, this was not shown or written in the article. These attachment were marked up evidence of the defense in the court and you may verify the authenticity of such documents. To note, all of these pictures were captures from a video taken from the dashcam of the engineer's vehicle. Self defense can be proven if you will view the dashcam video. Unfortunately, I cannot able to share it right now, dahil nagtatahi pa ng kwento ang mga lawyers ng prosecution.

Also, if you will refer into the other photos about the engineer's car, lahat ng tama nito ay nagmula sa likuran.


Anyway, I respect all the comments of other members here but I am just hoping for people to understand the matter much better as they implied that they are more educated members of this forum. I dont think that judging a person based on the news write ups is fair especially to those who wish that the engineer should be the one who end up dead because you dont really understand what really happened on the unfortunate incident.

Lastly, for everyone's information, I am DIrector Ardy Cristobal, the one implicated on this incident.
I believed it would be fair for me to write on this post to respond on the article to shed light of the incident which was maligned by the news article written by the Inquirer. Libel case is seriously being prepared to the newspaper together with its writer and editor as well as the CoP of Caloocan who was a known associate of the deceased (Atty Belen). Remember, the deceased own a bar in Caloocan city with the protection of the police community covering it.

This is a free space to share thoughts and ideas, and you're very much welcome to air your side.

[Ardand_1973]

This is a free space to share thoughts and ideas, and you're very much welcome to air your side.

Thank you very much to the owners of this group for allowing to air my side on the malicious news article.
I just need to respond on it to balance the story from my side.
There has been comments which were judgemental but I understand why it was stated bcoz on the basis of the news article.
It has been my initiative to explain my side of the story with people to whom I know and I can able to show them important evidences on this case. But since this is a public forum, I have already shared important information for people to see and judge for themselves.

Again, thank you very much for the opportunity but since I already aired my side of the story, then I am resting this case.

[compact]

The incident happened because of an argument with a LED headlight, in which case I really do hope that there is lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself, otherwise, the claim of self defense will not stand.

[Ardand_1973]

The incident happened because of an argument with a LED headlight, in which case I really do hope that there is lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself, otherwise, the claim of self defense will not stand.

Sorry Sir but I beg to disagree on your own understanding as you only based this on the news report. I would like to comment on your post but I would choose not to in order not to divulge more information about the case.

But for clarification, the headlight incident was already over when the shooting incident happened.
Also, the headlight incident took place on another location where the shooting incident happened. Magkaiba po ang lugar na pinangyarihan nung dalawa incident hindi po katulad na isinulat sa inquirer article.

Based on investigation which the inq7 did not write, the Atty after the headlight incident went home and took his gun and roamed around the village to hunt down the motorcycle rider. Fortunately for me, I was riding my SUV that time since it was midnight and I need to take a long route back home after my visit to my friend (gates at closes at 12MN). This is why I was on my SUV. This is when he identified me as the motorcycle rider, then he fired his gun multiple time towards me, then I got hit on my leg and foot.

Now, if you will be on the same situation, what will you do???????? Isn't this SELF DEFENSE???

[compact]

Sorry Sir but I beg to disagree on your own understanding as you only based this on the news report. I would like to comment on your post but I would choose not to in order not to divulge more information about the case.

But for clarification, the headlight incident was already over when the shooting incident happened.
Also, the headlight incident took place on another location where the shooting incident happened. Magkaiba po ang lugar na pinangyarihan nung dalawa incident hindi po katulad na isinulat sa inquirer article.

Based on investigation which the inq7 did not write, the Atty after the headlight incident went home and took his gun and roamed around the village to hunt down the motorcycle rider. Fortunately for me, I was riding my SUV that time since it was midnight and I need to take a long route back home after my visit to my friend (gates at closes at 12MN). This is why I was on my SUV. This is when he identified me as the motorcycle rider, then he fired his gun multiple time towards me, then I got hit on my leg and foot.

Now, if you will be on the same situation, what will you do???????? Isn't this SELF DEFENSE???

I am not concluding that you don't have sufficient provocation or otherwise because I am not aware of the whole picture.

My post is kind of a reminder that sufficient provocation should not come from you to be able to use self defense. That is why I used the word "I do hope." Well at least, according to you there is no provocation then I will take it as it is.

All the best on your case.