Criminal law – Page 117 – marichulambino.com

Marc Chagall. The Falling Angel (La chute de l’angle). 1923-33-47. Oil on canvas. 148 x 189 cm. Private collection. Right-clicked from www.abcgallery.com

The Pakistan Musharraf-led government, which had been supported by the U.S. government (but with demand to liberalize) issued a statement before dawn Manila time, as reported by CNN, that Benazir Bhutto was killed when she hit her head on the lever of the sun roof of the vehicle she was riding on.

The spokesperson, the Minister of the Interior, did not offer any basis for the conclusion, except to say that there were no foreign objects found inside the body of Benazir Bhutto. It means that there were no bullets or bullet fragments or shrapnel found in her body according to the Minister of the Interior. He didn’t say however whether or not there were entry wounds and exit wounds . No foreign objects does not mean no gunshot wounds. That would have been a good question to ask, and for which he would have been incompetent to answer.

What could have been an acceptable basis for the conclusion would have been the following: any forensic evidence found on the vehicle which might support such a conclusion; or any medical report from the physicians who attended to the victim (with waiver of confidentiality from the family). Absent any such offer of basis for the conclusion, the statement is propaganda. (But for what? To change the characterization of the incident from murder to homicide of course, silly. Or to lessen her martyrdom? At this point, would anything the Musharraf government say diminish the rage on the streets of Karachi, Islamabad, and other cities?)

(Update: an hour ago, the Associated Press reported that according to the Musharraf government, quote”Bhutto was not killed by gunshots or shrapnel as originally claimed. Instead, it said her skull was shattered by the force of a suicide bomb blast that slammed her against a lever in her car’s sunroof.” closed-quote.) The amended version of the statement “clarifies” that it was the force of the suicide bomb blast that shattered her skull and which caused her to hit her head on the lever of the sunroof.This is consistent with their government’s Al Qaeda-suicide-bombing theory.

I hope the statements are being given in English and nothing is being lost in the translation. “her skull was shattered by the force of the bomb blast” is different from: the force of the bomb blast slammed her against the lever of the sunroof which shattered her skull, etc.. If her skull was shattered by the force of the bomb blast, what was the effect on the skulls of all her closed-in security and all those standing close to her? It did not have that effect on those standing close to her but it killed 23 others so maybe the direction of the bomb blast was both scattered and precise, maybe there’s such a thing, maybe, perhaps, possibly, i guess, that was some job wasn’t it, can you demonstrate it.

Meanwhile, the available evidence are in the form of footage and testimonies. CNN showed a full view footage of the vehicle then zoomed in at the rear portion of the car and froze it frame by frame: the stills showed a man who was able to wade through the security and climb up the back of the vehicle and point a handgun at Benazir Bhutto and apparently fire it.

It would probably be useful to piece all the available footage to reconstruct the sequence of events. Apparently, based on the various testimonies and statements and footage, the following can be established: there was a gunman at the rear of the vehicle who was able to shoot in her direction; then there was a bomb detonated a few meters from her vehicle killing the suicide bomber and 23 persons; she either ducked or fell or the bomb blast shattered her skull and slammed her against the sun roof, bullets or fragments may or may not have hit her, she may or may not have hit her head on the lever of the sun roof; her skull may have been shattered by either the bomb blast or bullets. The medico-legal report would show the entry wounds and exit wounds if any or the nature of the fractures; which could tell us the approximate distance of the shooter or the bomber (if from shrapnel or “force of the blast”), if any; and the approximate direction, again if any.

At least, policemen in the NCR (our NCR) offer evidence in the form of tortured confessions, i.e., they pick up “suspects” or individuals in their file or rouges’ gallery, then beat them up and electrocute them to sign confessions. But at least, our Mamang Pulis makes an eyfort (effort) to produce evidence.

David Teniers the Younger. Guardsroom. 1642. Oil on panel. 69 x 103 cm. The Hermitage, St. Petersburg, Russia. Right-clicked from http://www.abcgallery.com

TV and on-line news outfits reported that convicted rapist Romeo Jalosjos flew in and arrived in Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norter at about 5 pm this afternoon. He granted interviews but there were no visuals and no reporters with him, so we have to take his word for it and that of the local officials quoted.

If true, he can be validly arrested without warrant, on sight, by anyone. Since he is a prisoner still serving his sentence, as the Department of Justice had stated, he is considered to have escaped such lawful detention. Here’s the pertinent provision:

“Rules of Court. Rule 113. Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: “(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; “(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and “(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)” (right-clicked from lawphil.net underscoring supplied).

If true, In addition, he can be charged with evasion of sentence punishable with prision correccional medium to max, or four years and two months to six years; if found guilty thus, the penalty is in addition to his unexpired prison term (and if i were the prosecution i would oppose concurrent service of terms.). Here’s the pertinent provision:

“Revised Penal Code. Article 157. Evasion of service of sentence. – The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any convict who shall evade service of his sentence by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment. However, if such evasion or escape shall have taken place by means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, floors, or by using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation, or through connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its maximum period.”

If true, his custodians in Muntinlupa, the warden and the guards, can be charged with conniving with or consenting evasion, punishable with prision correccional medium to max with additional perpetual (since the convict is serving final judgment) special disqualification. The following the pertinent provision:

“Revised Penal Code. Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. — Any public officer who shall consent to the escape of a prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished: 1. By prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty.”.

If true, those who provided him with transport, whether they were paid or not, all those who chartered a plane for him or who gave him plane tickets, and the flight staff and crew who knew who he was, and all those local officials who gave him a place to sleep or stay, can be charged with harbouring, concealing, facilitating the escape of any person he knows or has reasonable ground to believe has committed an offense, etc., or “obstruction of justice” punishable with six years imprisonment, under the following provision:

“PD 1829. Section 1) c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction; xxx”