Disbandment of private armed groups

“[T]he presence of several assailants does not ipso facto indicate an abuse of superior strength. Mere superiority in numbers is not indicative of the presence of this circumstance” (G.R. 203435, April 11, 2018).

Premeditation should be evidenced in the execution of a criminal act; it should be “[p] receded by cool thought and reflection… to carry out the criminal intent, during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. The premeditation to kill must be plain and notorious, and thereafter proven by evidence of outward acts showing such intent to kill” (G.R. 227504, June 13, 2018).

“It is imperative to prove that the accused indeed underwent a process of ‘cold and deep meditation, and a tenacious persistence in the accomplishment of the criminal act.’

“Accordingly, there can be no evident premeditation when the determination to commit the crime was immediately followed by execution” (G.R. 227504, June 13, 2018).

“Evident premeditation cannot be presumed in the absence of evidence showing when and how the accused planned, and prepared for the crime, and that a sufficient amount of time had lapsed between his determination and execution… [a] bsent any clear and positive evidence, mere presumptions and inferences…, no matter how logical and probable, shall be deemed insufficient” (G.R. 227504, June 13, 2018). In the Grabador case, the prosecution failed to identify the time at which Alex decided to kill Dennis.

Instead, the prosecution randomly concluded that there was evident premeditation from the fact that Rodolfo left and came back after 15 minutes with Alex, and thereafter killed Dennis (G.R. 227504, June 13, 2018).

“[A] lapse of 15 minutes preceding the attack is not sufficient to conclude that evident premeditation attended the commission of the offense.”

In People v. Illescas, “the Court ruled that a 15-minute interval cannot be deemed as sufficient time for the accused to coolly reflect on his acts…” (cited in G.R. 227504, June 13, 2018).

Another qualifying circumstance for murder is that the killing was in consideration of a price, reward or promise.

A mastermind and a hired gunman or assassin who kills a victim are both guilty of murder. An example of this is a husband who hires a gunman to kill his wife to be able to collect a life insurance policy wherein he is the beneficiary.

Murder is also committed “by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.” them as it sees fit, and has sought to impose rules that serve its own interests in the name of upholding a ‘rules-based international order.’”

The killing of victims by throwing a hand grenade at them is murder qualified by explosion (Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review citing People v. Tayo [1980]).

Cruelty, a qualifying circumstance, is defined as deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim. (see Article 248, Revised Penal Code).

“The gagging of the mouth of a three-yearold child with stockings, dumping him with head downwards into a box, and covering the box with sacks and other boxes,… causing slow suffocation, is cruelty” (People v. Lora, G.R. L-49430, March 30, 1982).

“Where the victim was already dead and the body aside from being stabbed on the face several times, was still subjected to further beatings on the head with the Thompson submachine gun causing the brain to scatter, is an example of outraging and scoffing” (Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review citing People v. Orzamme [1966]).

“It is an elementary rule in criminal law that each of the qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the Information, and must be proven as clearly as the crime itself.

“Every element of the offense must be shown to exist beyond reasonable doubt and cannot be the mere product of speculation. In the absence of a qualifying circumstance, the crime committed is homicide, and not murder” (G.R. 227504, June 13, 2018).

“In the crime of murder, the qualifying circumstance raising the killing to the category of murder must be specifically alleged in the information.

Further, Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure require both the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be specifically alleged in the information to be appreciated as such” (G.R. 203435, April 11, 2018).

Political Hegemony — Throwing Its Weight

Around: “The United States has long been attempting to mold other countries and the world order with its own values and political system in the name of promoting democracy and human rights.

“Instances of US interference in other countries’ internal affairs abound.

“In the name of ‘promoting democracy,’ the United States practiced a ‘Neo-Monroe Doctrine’ in Latin America, instigated ‘color revolutions’ in Eurasia, and orchestrated the ‘Arab Spring’ in West Asia and North Africa, bringing chaos and disaster to many countries.

“The US exercises double standards on international rules.

“Placing its self-interest first, the United States has walked away from international treaties and organizations, and put its domestic law above international law.”

Military Hegemony — Wanton Use of Force:

“The history of the United States is characterized by violence and expansion.

“Since it gained independence in 1776, the United States has constantly sought expansion by force: it slaughtered Indians, invaded Canada, waged a war against Mexico, instigated the

FOLLOWING the brazen assassination of Negros Oriental Governor Roel Degamo early this month, the government is now moving to dismantle private armed groups, particularly in areas where local government officials have been the target of armed attacks.

In fact, the National Task Force on Disbandment of Private Armed Groups (NTF-DPags) is now considering expanding its area of coverage and identifying hot spots where intense political rivalry at the local level has often led to violence.

Interior and Local Government Secretary and NTF-DPags Chairman Benjamin Abalos Jr. has emphasized that the “synergy of efforts” of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police is crucial in expanding the mandate of the task force across the nation.

Prior to the Degamo slay, government attention was focused on Mindanao; now its goal is to expand the scope of its work so that what has been done to restore peace in Mindanao can also be replicated in other parts of the country.

The national government’s program on DPags is being carried out through the security component of the Normalization

The bigger the stakes, the bigger the armed contingent and their arsenal of weapons

Track under the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro, the landmark peace agreement signed between the Government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in 2014.

For Defense Senior Undersecretary and NTF-DPags Special Adviser Carlito Galvez Jr., the mandate of the task force has become “more urgent” with the directive of President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. to solve the recent wave of attacks by lawless elements.

During the 11th Oversight Committee Meeting of the NTF-DPags recently, it was revealed there are no more active private armed groups operating in Western Mindanao as of the first quarter of this year.

How about in other areas where political dynasties intent on perpetuating themselves in office and thus wield enormous power and influence for as long as they can?

They will stop at nothing, even set up their own private armed groups, to intimidate and even liquidate their political adversaries and their supporters so they can rule their own fiefdoms in the provinces.

It is in the rural areas where politicians employ private armed groups to ensure that they remain in power or return to public office.

And recent news reports indicate former soldiers and police discharged dishonorably from the service are usually recruited as bodyguards by politicians.

These bodyguards form the core of a private armed group whose size depends on the specific security requirements of the politician.

The bigger the stakes, the bigger the armed contingent and their arsenal of weapons.

The result, as we have seen recently, is murder and mayhem one after another in various places, thus undermining the rule of law that’s supposed to be the foundation of a democratic system.

REMEMBER Melania Flores, the professor of the University of the Philippines in Diliman and her arrest last month in connection with her criminal case in a Quezon City court?

Flores was arrested by Quezon City police operatives on the strength of a warrant issued by Judge Maria Gilda Loja-Pangilinan of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

The criminal case against Flores was filed by her househelper for Flores’ alleged failure to remit employer’s contributions to the Social Security System account of the househelper.

Under the law, an employer’s failure to remit the required contributions is a criminal offense. That is one reason why many employers are hesitant to be part of the SSS.

At the time of Flores’ arrest, many noisy members of the UP Diliman community openly protested both her arrest and the police presence in the UP Diliman campus. Almost everyone who protested were radical elements known for their stubborn opposition to any administration of the national government. Police authorities have reason to believe these radical elements are either communists or red sympathizers. These radical elements chanted the usual mantras against the government, the police in particular.

Their mantras range from the usual vague accusations of police abuse, to unfounded allegations that a witchhunt in UP against its faculty has been supposedly sponsored by exPresident Rodrigo Duterte during his time, and by incumbent President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

In addition, the radicals sweepingly claim the arrest of Flores was an affront to UP’s academic freedom.

The radicals likewise denounced the country’s justice system, and even unfairly insinuated the judge was a puppet of the establishment.

What was immediately noticeable was the angry mob’s statement to news reporters that the presence of the police inside the UP Diliman campus violated a 1992 accord between UP and the government.

That accord purportedly requires policemen to seek the prior approval of UP officialdom just to enforce a judicial warrant of arrest inside the campus.

Suspiciously, the radicals conveniently kept quiet about the fact that the said accord has been long terminated by the government because the UP campus should not be entitled to special treatment not afforded other public places.

From the way he publicly comported himself, Nemenzo insists UP is entitled to special treatment, and that UP professors are a protected class which need not obey the law.

Nemenzo is running for re-election as UP Diliman Chancellor.

The UP Board of Regents should not re-elect a sitting chancellor who wants UP to be exempted from complying with the law. Nemenzo’s policy sets a bad example to the gullible among the UP students.

Last March 19, the RTC dismissed the criminal case against Flores after the parties reached a de facto settlement.

When news of the dismissal was disseminated by the media, the UP radicals, as expected, praised the court’s decision.

Without even familiarizing themselves with the case record, the radicals hollered that Flores was a victim of trumped-up charges.

As usual, they also chanted mantras about academic freedom and the alleged harassment of activists by state forces.

Two groups in UP, namely, the All UP Academic Employees Union and the Congress of Teachers / Educators for Nationalism and Democracy were among those involved in making those baseless, sweeping generalizations.

They were also silent about the fact that Flores was able to post bail and was released just a few hours after she was arrested.

UP Diliman Chancellor Fidel Nemenzo, fresh from his recent defeat in his bid to become UP President, was at the forefront of the fanfare surrounding Flores’ arrest.

He expressed disapproval over the arrest, and, like many of those present, mouthed all sorts of excuses against the enforcement of the law inside the UP campus.

Nemenzo ought to know the criminal case against Flores is a private domestic concern of the professor and, therefore, the same has nothing to do with academic freedom.

For the same reason, ex-President Duterte and President Marcos Jr. have nothing to do with the said arrest.

Equally unsettling is the news report that a member of the UP Board of Regents also denounced the criminal case of Flores without a prior, thorough legal understanding of the entire situation. I certainly hope the same is just an isolated incident.

At any rate, university academics should undertake a thorough study of all the pertinent facts surrounding a controversy before they announce their conclusions to the public.

As in any situation, it is unwise to engage in hasty judgments and conclusions.

What the radicals in UP have succeeded in so far doing is to encourage the youth to resort to bullying and to engage in misleading, antiestablishment propaganda to influence the justice system in their favor. That is a serious cause for alarm and concern for everyone.

American-Spanish War, and annexed Hawaii. “After World War II, the wars either provoked or launched by the United States included the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Kosovo War, the War in Afghanistan, the Iraq War, the Libyan War and the Syrian War, abusing its military hegemony to pave the way for expansionist objectives.”

Economic Hegemony — Looting and Exploitation: “After World War II, the United States led efforts to set up the Bretton Woods System, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which, together with the Marshall Plan, formed the international monetary system centered around the US dollar.

“In addition, the United States has also established institutional hegemony in the international economic and financial sector by manipulating the weighted voting systems, rules and arrangements of international organizations including ‘approval by 85 percent majority,’ and its domestic trade laws and regulations.”

Technological Hegemony — Monopoly and Suppression: “The United States seeks to deter other countries’ scientific, technological and economic development by wielding monopoly power, suppression measures and technology restrictions in high-tech fields...

“It monopolizes intellectual property in the name of protection.

“Taking advantage of the weak position of other countries, especially developing ones, on intellectual property rights and the institutional vacancy in relevant fields, the United States reaps excessive profits through monopoly. “

Cultural Hegemony — Spreading False

Narratives: “The global expansion of American culture is an important part of its external strategy.

“The United States has often used cultural tools to strengthen and maintain its hegemony in the world.

“The United States embeds American values in its products such as movies. American values and lifestyle are a tied product to its movies and TV shows, publications, media content, and programs by the government-funded non-profit cultural institutions.

“It thus shapes a cultural and public opinion space in which American culture reigns and maintains cultural hegemony.”

Conclusion: “While a just cause wins its champion wide support, an unjust one condemns its pursuer to be an outcast.

“The hegemonic, domineering, and bullying practices of using strength to intimidate the weak, taking from others by force and subterfuge, and playing zero-sum games are exerting grave harm…

“The United States must conduct serious soulsearching. It must critically examine what it has done, let go of its arrogance and prejudice, and quit its hegemonic, domineering and bullying practices.”

Given this official pronouncement, we ask:

Is it possible to work out a rapprochement or an easing of tensions between them?

To be honest, we really don’t know, given the wide gulf in their relations.

But at this point, we prefer to give the reader the option to make a conclusion.

We report, you decide.

(Email: ernhil@yahoo.com)