Indiscriminate firing charges vs 4 Caloocan men junked

A+
A
A-

Stray bullet victim Stephanie Nicole Ella (rigthmost) poses for a photo with other children on New Year’s Eve. Complimentary photo

MANILA, Philippines–After having been absolved by the police as suspects in the death of stray bullet victim Stephanie Nicole Ella, four men who admitted to taking turns in firing a gun on New Year’s Eve got another reprieve of sorts from the Caloocan Prosecutor’s Office.

This, after Caloocan Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Nida C. Gravino on Friday afternoon junked charges of illegal discharge of firearms and negligence against gun owner and army reservist Juan Agus, and Arcadio Gulmatico, Eddie Magtubo, and Feliciano Cercano, who were his drinking buddies on New Year’s Eve.

Instead, Gravino approved of charges of alarm and scandal only against the four.

In a telephone interview, Gravino said she dismissed the charge of illegal discharge of firearms against the four because there was no sufficient proof of their acts.

“There was no proof to the effect that when the gun was fired, it was aimed at a person. There was no witness who declared to the effect that these people fired the gun,” Gravino said.

The charge of negligence against Agus for letting his drinking buddies take turns in firing his .45-caliber gun was also junked.

A P1,000 bail has been recommended for the temporary liberty of the four suspects.

However, despite having only one out of three charges filed against them, the four suspects will still face preliminary investigation for the case of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.

“Our City Prosecutor, Ferdinand Valbuena, ordered me to conduct a preliminary investigation to determine if there is probable cause to file charges of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide in Nicole’s case against the four suspects,” Gravino said.

The hearing will be conducted next week, she said, and the police can submit additional evidence for the case.

Meanwhile, the Caloocan Police are looking at 45 gun owners in the Malaria district in North Caloocan who could have fired bullets which led to the death of Ella.

“This is the number of people who own a .45 caliber gun in the  area,” Superintendent Jackie Candelario, Caloocan Police assistant chief for operations and concurrent spokesman, said in a telephone interview.

The police narrowed it down to .45 cal. guns after finding out that the bullet which hit Ella on her head came from a gun of similar caliber.

Candelario added that the bullet which hit Ella came from about 50 meters away from her, or about as long as the long side of an Olympic-sized swimming pool, or about half of a football pitch.

“After our reenactment on Thursday night, we found out that the bullet was fired from just 50 meters away. And based on the way the bullet hit Nicole, we can say that it was fired from her back,” he said.

Candelario said they are looking into all .45 cal. gun owners in Malaria as there is a possibility that the gunman was just visiting in Ella’s neighborhood that night.

“The next step for us is to compare the ballistic signatures of the gun owners in this area with that of the signature left on the bullet which hit Nicole,” he said.

Inquirer Viber

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/H4INAGLB7BOCJ4EVP3ZWJQRQ74 itsumo

    Ehh anong mangyayari noong umamin na nagpaputok sila nang baril during new years eve? WALA? mukhang may butas yata ang batas natin. Unless if this happen to other countries tiyak kulungan ang papuntahan mo.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PM6JHCFR2KT2AURMWRDUXBNLQY Darwin

      It’s called right against self incrimination. There is no problem with the law, its the mindset of the mob which does not think.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/H4INAGLB7BOCJ4EVP3ZWJQRQ74 itsumo

        Kaya nga may butas dapat ayusin. So ibig mong sabihin legal talaga magpaputok ng baril every new year kahit kaligtasan ng mamayan ang nakasalalay?
        Sa ngayon @darwin sang ayon ka sa batas, pero darating din ang araw kapag ikaw o kamag anak mo ay maging biktima doon muna masasabing inutil ang batas sa pinas.

  • ryan andres

    Tangnang kabobohan yan… may admission ka na nga eh. Isn’t admission enough proof? Senior Assistant City Prosecutor ka pa man din… ayaw mo yata ng prosecution eh. Baka prostitution ang gusto mo?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PM6JHCFR2KT2AURMWRDUXBNLQY Darwin

      DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS
      The elements are:
      1. The accused shot at another with a firearm.
      2. He had no intent to kill. (Art. 254)
      If the firearm was directed at a person and the trigger was pressed but did not fire, the crime is frustrated discharge of firearm. (Dec. Sup. Ct. of Spain, Jan. 18, 1905) If the discharge is not directed at a person, the crime may constitute alarm or scandal. (Art. 155) If serious physical injuries resulted from the discharge, the crime committed is the complex crime of serious physical injuries with illegal discharge of firearm. (People v. Arquiza, 62 Phil. 611)
      Firing a gun at a person even if merely to frighten him constitutes illegal discharge of firearms. (People v. Ramirez, 10 Phil. 409).

      Admission or confession must be in writing and done in the presence of the lawyer of the accused. Kanto logic again.

      • ryan andres

        Good job, Mr. Armchair Expert… now go and tell that to the families of those that got injured.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PM6JHCFR2KT2AURMWRDUXBNLQY Darwin

        Your retort makes no sense.

      • ryan andres

        That’s because you’re not using any.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PM6JHCFR2KT2AURMWRDUXBNLQY Darwin

        You must have thought very hard to come up with that one. Anyway, good luck at your job at Jollibee. There are floors needing a lot of mopping.

      • ryan andres

        Actually that took me two minutes. This one took longer because I had to take into account your insult to Jollibee cleaners.

        Am sure somebody somewhere would read your insulting words and decide not to mop the floor in Jollibee. When that happens, I hope you slip and splatter your brains on the floor.

        THEN, I would be more than glad to mop the floor.

        By the way, it’s Mickey D’s, and not Jollibee. And you’re a  f u c k i n g  idiot.

  • lagotka

    Dapat nabigyan ng leksyon ang mga yan. Also they should have been made as an example to show that firing guns indiscriminately is not tolerated in a civilized society. Inamin na nila e bakit pinakawalan. Stupid!

  • batangsulpok

    Mukhang may katangahan itong Presecutor na ito, inamin na nagpaputok sila, absuwelto pa?  Saan ba nag-aral ng law ito, baka naman nakuha lang sa Recto ang diploma?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PM6JHCFR2KT2AURMWRDUXBNLQY Darwin

      DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS
      The elements are:
      1. The accused shot at another with a firearm.
      2. He had no intent to kill. (Art. 254)
      If the firearm was directed at a person and the trigger was pressed but did not fire, the crime is frustrated discharge of firearm. (Dec. Sup. Ct. of Spain, Jan. 18, 1905) If the discharge is not directed at a person, the crime may constitute alarm or scandal. (Art. 155) If serious physical injuries resulted from the discharge, the crime committed is the complex crime of serious physical injuries with illegal discharge of firearm. (People v. Arquiza, 62 Phil. 611)
      Firing a gun at a person even if merely to frighten him constitutes illegal discharge of firearms. (People v. Ramirez, 10 Phil. 409).

      In short, she is right. You are wrong.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PM6JHCFR2KT2AURMWRDUXBNLQY Darwin

    Before the others will comment based on ignorance, or as always, those who wish to comment based on kanto logic, the thinking process of those without brains or education, please be informed that the law itself states:

    DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS
    The elements are:
    1. The accused shot at another with a firearm.
    2. He had no intent to kill. (Art. 254)
    If the firearm was directed at a person and the trigger was pressed but did not fire, the crime is frustrated discharge of firearm. (Dec. Sup. Ct. of Spain, Jan. 18, 1905) If the discharge is not directed at a person, the crime may constitute alarm or scandal. (Art. 155) If serious physical injuries resulted from the discharge, the crime committed is the complex crime of serious physical injuries with illegal discharge of firearm. (People v. Arquiza, 62 Phil. 611)
    Firing a gun at a person even if merely to frighten him constitutes illegal discharge of firearms. (People v. Ramirez, 10 Phil. 409)

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PM6JHCFR2KT2AURMWRDUXBNLQY Darwin

      Her duty is not to be popular or follow the urgings of the stupid miron crowd. Her job is to follow the law regardless of the result.

    • JV Velarde

      The person concerned admitted firing a gun, to whom or to where it is directed, that needs to be proven or disproved. Going by the logic you’re bringing to this discussion, will the law spare gun owners from any liability, as long as it is not proven to be pointed to another person, as in this case the culprit apparently discharging the firearm to the canal??

      One thing more, the PNP had a strict directive to it’s men & women in uniform not to fire any shots from their guns during the New Year celebration, even covering the gun tip to make sure nothing is fired from it. The reason behind this was to avoid any stray bullets from harming anybody. What then excuses private gun owners from firing theirs? 

      Would it be a dangerous precedent sparing private gun owners from any liability, particularly discharging their firearms as part of the holiday celebration?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PM6JHCFR2KT2AURMWRDUXBNLQY Darwin

        You cannot be punished for something that not all the elements of the crime is not backed up by evidence. You cannot go you court on speculation. The evidence must support the charge. Neither can a mere prosecutor change the law. This is not a case of establishing precedent. The law is there and has been applied. If the law is problematic. Then change the law. That is not the job of a prosecutor but a lawmaker.

      • Carlos_Iho

        We have become a country of morons who define the laws their own way.  Even the president does that.

    • ryan andres

      DARWIN:
       
      Bakit napakasugid ng pagdefend mo kay assistant prostitutor? Abugago ka ba talaga, or bayaran ka or staff ka ni Gravino?
       
      If you think the people here are enforcing mob mentality, ano naman pakelam mo? Do you really have that kind of moral ascendancy over everyone that you feel the need to correct the mentality?
       
      If you’re a lawyer, then bring your tactics elsewhere. This ain’t a courthouse, pendejo!

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PM6JHCFR2KT2AURMWRDUXBNLQY Darwin

        it’s a legal case. I presented the facts. Insisting on your stance despite glaring facts showing how ignorant or uninformed you are only shows this forum, that you, Ryan andres, are a dimwit.

      • ryan andres

        Better a dimwit than a wannabe lawyer, which am sure you are.

        Like I said, this ain’t a courthouse. You said it yourself, this is a forum. Either you bring your tactics where they belong, or you stick em up your arse. Am sure you’d like that.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PM6JHCFR2KT2AURMWRDUXBNLQY Darwin

        Wannabe? You have no idea, janitor.

      • ryan andres

         Janitor is right. I clean up and take out trash like you. How many times have you failed the bar exams, wannabe?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PM6JHCFR2KT2AURMWRDUXBNLQY Darwin

        Never, actually. Passed first try here. Passed the New York State bar too.

      • ryan andres

        Ok, so that explains your discriminate behavior towards cleaners. That would also probably explain your mediocrity as a lawyer and as a person. Too bad, so sad.

        Good luck with your “law” practice, wannabe. Hope your clients get what they pay for.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PM6JHCFR2KT2AURMWRDUXBNLQY Darwin

        Pays very well, thank you. Just paid another tranche on my ICon residences unit with my last case.

      • ryan andres

        Wow! Good for you!

        Now, imagine the kind of money you can earn if you stop being a mediocre liar, i mean, lawyer…

  • ryan andres

    DARWIN:

    Bakit napakasugid ng pagdefend mo kay assistant prostitutor? Abugago ka ba talaga, or bayaran ka or staff ka ni Gravino?

    If you think the people here are enforcing mob mentality, ano naman pakelam mo? Do you really have that kind of moral ascendancy over everyone that you feel the need to correct the mentality?

    If you’re a lawyer, then bring your tactics elsewhere. This ain’t a courthouse, pendejo!

  • lagotka

    ANG DAMI NYO LAHAT SATSAT. ANG TANONG LANG E “TAMA BA NA MAG LASING KA AT MAGPAPUTOK KA NG BARIL?”  DAPAT MAY PARUSA YAN GINAWA NYA KASI IPAPAKITA NYO SA LAHAT NG GUNG G UNG NA OK LANG YAN GANYAN GAWAIN.

    BAN GUNS! NO TO GUNS!

    THOU SHALL NOT KILL

  • ztefertilizerscam9

    PULIS PATOLA.MARAMI PA KAYONG BIGAS NA KAKAININ..U L O L

  • ryan andres

    Maraming satsat yang baklang si Darwin, nagmamarunong na naman, abugado kuno… abugago!

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94


editors' picks

advertisement

popular

advertisement

videos