#Du30 needs to effect lawful arrests asap—this is Davao, he was a city prosecutor, it’s right up his alley
Some essential details first:
The President does not declare lawlessness.
He does not declare a state of lawlessness.
He does not declare a state of lawless violence.
This kind of sentence structure means he is imposing lawlessness, or that he is imposing a state of lawless violence, or that he is putting the entire country in state of lawless violence.
Rather, the President declares the existence of a state of lawless violence for which he exercises his Commander-in-Chief power of calling out the armed forces to suppress such lawless violence.
In essence, what he is declaring is his exercise of the Commander-in-Chief power of calling out the armed forces to suppress lawless violence.
To call out the armed forces is to command the armed forces, to order the armed forces, to deploy the armed forces. Etc. Only the Commander-in-Chief is authorized to do these (although he can delegate the operational details to his chief-of-staff.)
In other words, he is declaring that he is ordering the armed forces to suppress lawless violence by, for example, intensifying the hot pursuit of the Abu Sayyaf, the setting up of lockdowns and checkpoints in certain areas, etc.
Simply put: The President ordered increased military patrols and presence in the cities and crowded areas, etc.
Legally, it is not necessary for the Commander-in-Chief to expressly declare: “I am declaring the existence of a state of lawless violence…etc.”. He can simply deploy and order members of the armed forces to execute their mission.
But since he had in mind a whole set of measures such as lockdowns, checkpoints, etc. , he needed to declare the constitutional framework for what he was doing. That framework is the Commander-in-Chief calling out power.
In other words, he was putting military boots on city streets and tiled floors so he needed to declare his constitutional framework.
Amid all these huffing and puffing, what is the status of the investigation?
The President needs to order the speedy and careful conduct of the investigation so that criminal complaints of murder with ignominy, 14 counts, could be filed right away –- this is Davao and he was the top city prosecutor so he knows what to do. The suspects will not reply in the preliminary investigation so the reglementary periods could be fast-tracked – so that warrants of arrest could be issued right away. But if warrantless arrests would be made, the “suspects” can only be detained without charges for 36 hours only – make it count. THIS IS URGENT.
#Kidapawan #KidapawanShooting SWAT shooters wore “ski masks” under the hot sun and hid nameplates, get the frame-by-frame photos here
Shooters can be identified thru freeze-frames of the following videos here:
For investigative agencies, news organizations, concerned parties: Here are two unadulterated video clips of the fatal five minutes of shooting in Kidapawan City four days ago. For evidentiary purposes, the following must be done:
first: authenticate by identifying the videographer (Kilab Multimedia cameraman and crew) and asking the videographer to confirm that he/she took these videos;
second: establish the context thru more visual information before and after and thru testimonial and object evidence.
Videos are in the category of documentary evidence; documentary evidence is superior to testimonial evidence (“he-said-she-said”).
The Kidapawan shooting is not a he-said-she-said incident: there were actual shooters and fatalities and the identity of the perpetrators can be established by video evidence. (In the Boston Marathon Bombing investigation, the FBI relied on video and photo evidence to narrow down the suspects. )
From these video clips, freeze-frame the following: 1)All persons who are armed; 2)All persons who fired their guns; 3)All persons who are reloading their guns; 4)All persons who are pulling back the slide of their firearms (cocking their guns), etc. Jive the freeze-frames with the audio. The President, being a gun-enthusiast himself (albeit in a very controlled environment) would be able to analyze from these videos the following:
1)who were firing their guns; 2) who were reloading their firearms; 3)who were aiming with their fingers inside the trigger guard; 4)who have disengaged the safety latch of their firearm; who were pulling back the slide of their firearms (cocking their guns), etc. etc., and jive these with the audio of shots being fired. Here they are:
Photo from a freeze-frame by Kilab, published in Bicol Today, used here non-commercially for academic purposes
#KidapawanShooting @inquirerdotnet @ABSCBNNews Paraffin Test Unreliable accdg to Supreme Court, see cases here #JeSuisKidapawan #NousSommesKidapawan
The Supreme Court has ruled in a line of cases that a paraffin test is unreliable in proving that a person had fired a gun. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that the handling of fertilizers, cosmetics, cigarettes, urine, and other nitrogenous compounds, or the handling of leaves or sprouts with nitrites or nitrates such as leguminous plants like peas, beans, and alfalfa, or the use of tobacco, will each result in a positive paraffin test. In People vs. Julian Mendoza, G.R. No. 67858, June 29, 1989, the Supreme Court held: (Justice Sarmiento): “xxx With respect to the paraffin test undergone by the appellant which yielded positive results for nitrates, we hold that this fact alone, uncorroborated by any other evidence, is not sufficient to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant. The prosecution insists that the finding was due to the firing of the firearm which was employed to kill the victim. The defense on the other hand attributes the positive finding to the appellant’s having applied fertilizer to his plantings and manufactured fireworks thereafter. It is submitted that both these activities could produce the same positive finding: Authorities on this subject seem to support the submission of the defense. “The (Diphenylamine or Parrafin) test is not conclusive as to the presence of gunpowder because fertilizers, cosmetics, cigarettes, urine, and other nitrogenous compounds with nitrates and nitrates will give a positive reaction. (citing medico-legal expert Pedro Solis, Legal Medicine, 380) (Underscoring supplied) “This (Diphenylamine or Parrafin) test has proved extremely unreliable in use. The only thing that it can definitely establish is the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrates on the hand. It cannot be definitely established from this test alone that the source of the nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a firearm. The person may have handled one or more of a number of substances which give the same positive reaction for nitrates or nitrites, such as explosives, fireworks, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals and leguminous plants such as peas beans and alfalfa. A person who uses tobacco may also have nitrate or nitrite deposits on his hands since these substances are present in the products of combustion of tobacco. As a result, the usefulness of this test as evidence is very small, although it does have some investigative value. (citing “American Jurisprudence, Proof of Facts Annotated”, Volume 5, 119-120).(Underscoring supplied). “In case of doubt, we have to rule in favor of the appellant and adopt the interpretation consistent with his innocence. A vital finding of fact which negates the prosecution’s insistence on the guilt of the accused is that no firearm was presented by the prosecution to corroborate its claim that Mendoza was the person who had fired the gun xxx xxx “The trial court held that the contention of the appellant that the positive finding of the parrafin test was the result of the application of fertilizers to his corn crop and in making firecrackers hardly deserves any modicum of consideration. If it is true, the trial court said, that the powder burns found in the hands of the victim were the result of the application of fertilizers, how come the appellant’s brother-in-law, Mauricio Ilao, who also applied fertilizers on that same day, was found negative for nitrates? “From the records we find that this expressed doubt of the trial court had been sufficiently explained. The appellant testified as follows: “Q: What were you doing in that land of yours in the mountain while you were there? “A: I was applying fertilizer, sir. “Q:How about your brother-in-law, was he also applying fertilizer in his landholding? “A:He was plowing the field, sir. “Thus it is not surprising that only the appellant was found positive for nitrates because his brother-in-law did not apply fertilizer, but only plowed the field.”
In the reverse, in People vs. Cajumocan, G.R. No. 155023, May 28, 2004, the Supreme Court also held that a person who had fired a gun and had washed his/her hand thoroughly would have a negative paraffin test: “Paraffin tests, in general, have been rendered inconclusive by this Court. Scientific experts concur in the view that the paraffin test has proved extremely unreliable in use. It can only establish the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand; still, the test alone cannot determine whether the source of the nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a firearm. The presence of nitrates should be taken only as an indication of a possibility or even of a probability but not of infallibility that a person has fired a gun, since nitrates are also admittedly found in substances other than gunpowder. “Appellant’s argument that the negative result of gunpowder nitrates from the paraffin test conducted on him the day after the crime was committed, thereby showing an absence of physical evidence that he fired a gun, is untenable. In the case of People v. Manalo,16 we stressed: x x x even if he were subjected to a paraffin test and the same yields a negative finding, it cannot be definitely concluded that he had not fired a gun as it is possible for one to fire a gun and yet be negative for the presence of nitrates as when the hands are washed before the test. The Court has even recognized the great possibility that there will be no paraffin traces on the hand if, as in the instant case, the bullet was fired from a .45 Caliber pistol.” In People vs. Ilisan, G.R. No. 179487 November 15, 2010, the Supreme Court held: “(P)araffin tests, in general, have been rendered inconclusive by this Court. Scientific experts concur in the view that the paraffin test has proved extremely unreliable. It can only establish the presence or absence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand; still, the test alone cannot determine whether the source of the nitrates or nitrites was the discharge of a firearm. The presence of nitrates should be taken only as an indication of a possibility or even of a probability but not of infallibility that a person has fired a gun. Conversely, the absence of gunpowder nitrates on petitioners hands, the day after the incident, does not conclusively establish that he did not fire a gun; neither are the negative results yielded by the paraffin test an insurmountable proof of his innocence.”
