Self-defense theory of Cadungog’s driver

By Atty. Ruphil F. Bañoc |August 09,2018 - 09:55 PM

BAÑOC

Can William Macaslang, driver of Barangay Councilman Jesselou Cadungog, validly invoke self-defense?

It depends. For now, the PNP and NBI admitted that they could not produce the CCTV footage of the actual shooting incident.

Let us evaluate the available evidence.

It is well to note that for self-defense to be invoked, according to the Revised Penal Code, the following requisites must concur: 1. there must be an unlawful aggression by the victim; 2. that the means employed to prevent such aggression was reasonable; 3. that there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

The available undeniable evidences are that: 1.PO3 Eugene Calumba was shot dead; 2. he was not able to fire a single shot as per paraffin test result; 3. William Macaslang, who is positive in the paraffin test, admitted to have shot Calumba first; 4. the front windshield of the FJ Cruiser has traces of two bullets being fired from inside.

On the first requisite alone, it is difficult for Macaslang to claim that there was an unlawful aggression by the policeman because of the traces of bullets in the front windshield being fired from inside of the FJ cruiser.

The traces of bullets would speak for themselves that the target, the victim-policeman, was positioned in–front of the moving vehicle driven by him.

It is contrary to human conduct for the policeman to be the first to draw his gun when he could not see his target behind the super black tinted windshield.

Instead, he was the one being seen clearly by Macaslang from inside the tinted vehicle. In effect, Macaslang had the advantage in position.

The policeman also could not get closer to his target because of the car’s hood that prevented him from doing so.

Remember that the firearm tucked in his waist is only a short firearm, not a rifle that can produce rapid automatic fire that can even by chance hit his target.

He would put his life in danger by being bumped by the moving vehicle approaching towards him if the driver lost control after being hit by chance or on purpose.

Instead it is easy to imagine that Macaslang sighted his innocent target positioned in-front of him and shot him just like a sitting duck.

He might contend also that he shot Calumba when he got closer at the driver’s side, but he needs evidence to support it.

Furthermore, the claim that Calumba was merely doing surveillance is supported by the fact that he did not have buddies to serve as spotters and backups.

As observed, that is not the way hitnen operate more so when it is state sponsored as others want to project.

Ergo, it is far-fetched and preposterous for Macaslang to invoke self-defense.

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

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.