Lawyer cop explains: "maximum tolerance"
Read more: Reynold Villania (April 30, 2020). Maling gamit ng maximum tolerance. facebook.com/reynoldvillania/photos/a.1656997061233350/2546514845614896/.Reynold Villania is a well-known lawyer and police officer on Facebook. His goal is to empower police officers and citizens through legal education. He educates the public, especially his fellow policemen, through his informative social media posts and discussions.
Sa article ng isang pahayagan, tingnan sa baba, pinag-usapan ang maximum tolerance at reasonable force. Bilang retiradong pulis at abogadong humawak ng maraming legal na problema, alam ko na maraming naguguluhan dyan, lalong lalo na ngayong panahon. Klaruhin natin.
[In one news article, as shown below, maximum tolerance at reasonable force were mentioned. As a retired police officer and a lawyer who has handled many legal problems, I know that many people are confused about this, especially during this calamity. Let us clarify.]
Ang konsepto ng maximum tolerance ay nakasaad sa ilalim ng B.P 880 o Public Assembly Act na ginagamit natin kung mayroong public rally o demonstration. Ang ibig sabihin nito, ang tao ay may paglabag sa batas pero hindi natin aarestuhin (kahit na may legal na basehan) pagkat siya ay ating ito-tolerate sa abot ng ating makakaya. Halimbawa, minumura, ini-insulto, o kinukutya ang mga pulis. Hanggat walang panganib sa buhay o ari-arian, we must exercise maximum tolerance.[The concept of maximum tolerance is provided under Batas Pambansa (BP) No. 880 or the Public Assembly Act which we use in cases of public rallies or public administrations. This means that, even if there are [minor] violations, one should not be arrested (even if there is some legal basis) because s/he should be tolerated to the furthest extent possible. For example, even of the police are cursed, insulted or ridiculed, as long as there is no danger to life or property, we must exercise maximum tolerance.]
Ang maximum tolerance ay hindi aplikable ngayong panahon dahil ang intensyong ng PNP ay hulihin ang mga lumabag sa quarantine at hindi itolerate. Hindi rin ito aplikable sa ordinaryong pagpapatupad ng batas, halimbawa sa kalsada, maliban na lamang kung ito ay kaniyang personal na desisyon. Halimbawa, dinuro-duro at minura ang pulis at minabuti ng pulis na manahimik na lang at magpasensya, imbes na arestuhin.
[The concept of maximum tolerance is not applicable in these times (COVID-19 Calamity) because the intention of the national police is to apprehend violators of the quarantine policy, not to tolerate them. This does not apply in the ordinary implementation of laws, i.e. in roads unless it is a person decision. For example, a police officer may choose to stay quiet and forgive those who point fingers at him or curse him, instead of arresting them.]
Subalit, kung gusto niyang arestuhin ang tao, kahit pa ang paglabag ay menor na opensa, mayroon siyang karapatang gawin ito. Sa ganitong sitwasyon, ang dapat niyang gamiting konsepto ay hindi maximum tolerance kundi ang konsepto ng aresto sa ilalim ng Sec. 2, Rule 113, Rules of Court na nagsasabing: " No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest." Ibig sabihin, puwedeng gumamit ng puwersa basta kailangan at resonable.
[However, if the police officer chooses to arrest someone, regardless of the fact that it is a minor offense, he would have the right to do so. In such a situation, the concept of maximum tolerance cannot be used; what applies is Section 2 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court which says: "No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest." This means that reasonable and necessary force may be used in effecting the arrest.]
Sa bawat pag-aresto ng tao, ito ang dapat na itanong ng pulis sa kaniyang sarili:
[In every arrest, the following questions should be in the arresting police officer's mind:]
1. Paglabag ng batas - May paglabag bang ginawa ang tao; menor man o mayor ? If yes, go ahead and conduct an arrest.
[Violation of law. Was there an act in violation of law -- minor or grave? If yes, go ahead and effect the arrest.]
2. Pakilala - ang pagpakilalang pulis ay puwedeng bago , habang o matapos ang aresto, depende sa sitwasyon. Baka may baril o patalim, saka na ang pakilala. I-secure muna ang suspek.
[Self-identification as a police officer. The police officer may identify himself as an officer of the law before, during or after the arrest, depending on the situation. The possibility of possession of a gun, a bladed weapon, etc. may be considered and so self-identification may be done later.]
3. Walang paglaban ang suspek at kusang loob na sumama - huwag gumamit ng puwersa. Bawal at ilegal. Human rights violation.
[If the person arrested chooses to surrender himself without resistance, no force upon his person should be used. If force is used upon him, this is illegal -- a human rights violation.]
4. May paglaban at ayaw pa-aresto - gamitan ng tamang puwersa. Ang tamang puwersa ay naka-depende sa maraming sitwasyon.
[If the person arrested resists arrest, proper force must be used. The level of force depends on the situation.]
Read more: Reynold Villania (April 30, 2020). Maling gamit ng maximum tolerance. facebook.com/reynoldvillania/photos/a.1656997061233350/2546514845614896/.
Tandaan, magbigay muna ng verbal warning bago gamitan ng puwersa, maliban na lamang kung ang pagbibigay ng warning ay maglalagay sa panganib ng buhay ng pulis.
[It must be remembered that a verbal warning must first be given before use of force. This is unless such giving of verbal warming puts the police officer's life or limb in danger.]
A. Ayaw paarestong suspek na "hindi armado" - hanggat maaari, huwag gamitan ng armas gaya ng yantok, batuta o baril. Maliban na lamang kung kailangan, dahil halimbawa, delikado ang buhay ng pulis gaya ng nang-tangkang mang-agaw ng baril. Kung hindi naman, gamitan lang ng puwersang kailangan para maisagawa ang arresting techniques. Walang liability ang pulis kahit nasugatan ang suspek.
[If the person to be arrested resists, while being unarmed, as much as possible, there is no need to use any weapon against him (gun, baton, etc.). There are instances requiring use of weapons, e.g. when the life or limb of the police officer is put in danger when the arrested person attempts to take the police officer's gun. In other instances, only necessary force shall be used in order to properly implement arresting techniques. In case of proper execution of this, the police officer cannot be held liable even if the arrested person gets wounds or bruises.]
B. Ayaw paarestong suspek na "armado" - ano ba ang armas ng suspek? Wooden stick? Bato? Tubo? Itak? Baril? Nakakamatay ba o hindi?
[If the person to be arrested is armed and he resists, the nature of his weapon should be taken into consideration. Would it cause immediate death or not?]
Ang pagamit ng baril ay hindi agad agad dahil ang intensyong ng pulis dito ay mailigtas lamang ang sarili sa malinaw na kamatayan. Ibig sabihin, para magamit ang baril , dapat mayroong direkta at "malinaw" (imminent danger) na koneksyon ang pagamit ng suspek ng armas sa buhay ng pulis.
[The use of firearms should not be the first resort because the intention of the police officer is simply to save himself from any clear and imminent danger to his life. This means that use of firearms is only justified by a direct and imminent danger in connection with the arrested person's use of arms against the life or limb of the police officer.]
Halimbawa, ang armas ng suspek ay maliit na kahoy, na kahit tamaan pa ang pulis ay malayo namang makamatay, bakit gagamitan ng baril? Kaya nga po dapat na may baton ang pulis para sa ganitong sitwasyon.
[For example, if the arrested person's weapon is a small piece of wood, even if it hits the police officer, use of firearms has doubtful validity because threat to life is distant. This is why a baton is necessary in situations like this.]
Pero kung itak o kutsilyo at nagtangkang ibabalibag na sa pulis at mataas ang posibilidad na tamaan dahil sa magkalapit na distansya, puwede bang mamatay ang pulis? If yes, puwedeng gamitan ng baril, lalong lalo na kung inundayan ng saksak o taga ang pulis. Mas lalo naman kung baril ang armas.
[However, if the weapon of the arrested person is a machete or a knife and there is an attempt to throw the same at the police officer, and there is a high chance of it hitting the latter due to short distance, the police officer may die. Therefore, the police office would be justified in using his gun in this situation, especially if the is already an attempt to hit or hack the police officer. There is more justification if the arrested person is holding a gun.]
5. Kung naaresto na, posasan . Kung ayaw talagang gumalaw o maglakad sa kabila ng utos o paki-usap, pagtulungang buhatin sa patrol car. Kung hindi mabuhat, at wala ng ibang paraan, hatakin. Iwasan lang na sobrang masaktan ang suspek.
[After securing the person of the arrestee, he should be put in handcuffs. If he resists walking or moving despite order or request by the police officers, reinforcement must be requested to carry him into the patrol car. If this is not possible and there is no other way to do so, there is no choice but to drag the arrested person even if he gets hurt.]
6. Miranda warning - gawing habang ginagawa (during) o matapos (after) ang aresto depende sa sitwasyon. Puwede rin sa police station. The general rule, dapat basahan sa lugar kung saan inaresto, puwede rin sa police station, depende sa sitwasyon.
[The Miranda warning may be given during or after the arrest, depending on the situation. It may also be given in the police station. The general rule is that the arrested person must be read his rights in the place of arrest but there are exceptions to this.]
7. Crime scene - ideally and generally, ang taga SOCO, base sa POP, ang dapat na magproseso at magkolekta ng ebidensya. Pero, hindi naman agad agad na iregular pag ang nagproseso at nagkolekta ay mga pulis sa estasyon dahil limitado ang tao at resources ng SOCO. May mga pagkakataon na dapat i-secure kaagad ang ebidensya dahil baka mawala o ma-compromise ang ebidensya lalong lalo na sa lugar na napakaraming tao. Katunayan, marami pa rin na mga estasyon sa Pinas na mga pulis ang nagkokolekta ng ebidensya at hindi SOCO.
[Crime scene. Ideally and generally, SOCO operatives, based on POP, must process and collect evidence in the crime scene. However, the process and collection are not automatically rendered irregular if station police officers conduct the same because SOCO has limited personnel and resources. There are instances when there is a need to secure the evidence immediately because of the possibility of loss or deterioration of evidentiary value as when, for example, there are too many people around. In fact, there are still many situations in which the collection and processing are done by station police officers, not by SOCO operatives.]
To sum up: Mali ang gamit natin ng maximum tolerance sa ngayon. Mali sa legal at operational point of view ngayong Covid 19. Dapat Rules of Court on necessary and reasonable force.
[To summarize, it is wrong to use the term "maximum tolerance" in these times because the legal and operational point of view is different during this COVID-19 calamity. The applicable legal concept is that of necessary and reasonable force under the Rules of Court.]
Read more: Reynold Villania (April 30, 2020). Maling gamit ng maximum tolerance. facebook.com/reynoldvillania/photos/a.1656997061233350/2546514845614896/.
Reynold Villania is a well-known lawyer and police officer on Facebook. His goal is to empower police officers and citizens through legal education. He educates the public, especially his fellow policemen, through his informative social media posts and discussions.
Reynold Villania is a well-known lawyer and police officer on Facebook. His goal is to empower police officers and citizens through legal education. He educates the public, especially his fellow policemen, through his informative social media posts and discussions.
