Where is Humanity?

Let me just share to you what the Civil Code says about humanity. Highlighted texts were given some "thoughts" by the owner of this site, and is solely my two cents on this particular issue.

Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

* Did they really act with just justice in the exercise of their rights and in the performance of their duties? Did they give the men what is due them? Were they in good faith when they killed them?

It was not justice! They were not even condemned as such, they were supposed to be heard before they were killed, they were supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. But they're dead now, who can cry out to the heavens and hear them out and listen to what they have to say. For Pete's sake, it was something else, ahhh, murder?

Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

*Let's say they willfully caused damaged to other people, must they be indemnified just like that?

Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.

Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.

*Okey, they got the car, they were carnappers, so they must pay. Is killing a form of payment? Call me very humane when it comes to them, but this is very troublesome. I had my eyes glued on the TV for the whole time it was aired and I am just so disappointed at what the police have done to them, I'd call the police so heartless, they had to shoot once, ok, I guess to stop the car and warn the suspects, but to pull them out of the car and shoot them outrightly is one thing close to murder.

Art. 23. Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited.

Art. 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.

Art. 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution.

Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:

(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence:

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.

Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against he latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.

Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage.

Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.

If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.

Art. 30. When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of.

Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

(1) Freedom of religion;

(2) Freedom of speech;

(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;

(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;

(5) Freedom of suffrage;

(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;

(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;

(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;

* The Law provides that, we all have the equal protection of the law. Or NOT. They were simple shot. Without. Any. Hearing.

The policemen involved in this case were supposed to protect, but they were the ones who sabotaged this law. They were not protectors in this instance. They were exterminators.

(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;

(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;

(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;

(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law;

(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances;

(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;

(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;

(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;

* Enough said, of course, they can be heard no more. They won't have the benefit of being informed of the accusation against them, they no longer will get any speedy trial. They're dead.

(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness;

(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and

(19) Freedom of access to the courts.

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence.

The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.

Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.

Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.

* They better reason right, or else, justice be upon them too. If killing other people as a means of revenge is what you call justice, then, I don't know what JUSTICE will mean to younger generations.

See, they were supposed to render aid or protection. In this case, the policemen were the dangers closing in on the victims.


*****

Somebody please enlighten me on this one, but I just think this was JUST NEVER RIGHT!

Comments

kg said…
I was able to watch this on the news last night. horrible!
pag pinagsama-sama + and -

sa panahon ngayon iisipin mo kung ang bawat isa may proteksyon pa ba? ayun sa batas!
Garando said…
Excellent arguments Sheng. Juan dela Cruz can't even follow simple traffic rules... So i won't wonder if that lack of discipline boils all the way down to our government & justice system. Buti na lang each one of us can still make a difference in our own little way.
Blue Rose said…
horrible that is! as in grabe talaga. makailang ulit kong napanood ang video footage. hindi na sya makatao.pero sabi ng isang pulis sa news kagabi, yong ganung case daw is part of the process para mapromote sila. what a @$$@?
prinsesamusang said…
oh my lord is this the constitution? LOL. sheng i just wanted to share good news - pasado na ko sa board exam! woohoo!
BlogusVox said…
We have all the laws needed to "protect" each individual and their property. But implementing those laws is another thing. In the Philippines, when it comes to "all is equal in the eyes of the law", some are more equal when they are in authority or connected to people in authority.

Hindi mo ba ako kilala?
REDLAN said…
Nakalimutan ko na ang business law ko noong college. Pero magaling talaga yung atty prof namin. May matutunan ka talaga. Galing niya magbigay ng example at patay ka kapag di ka makasagot. I need to learn more about law. Thanks for sharing this Sheng.
Rico said…
May point ka. Pwede ka nang maging lawyer.
Mike Peligro said…
There are really scalawags in the police force, those types who put the law in their hands like vigilantes. It's even worse because they are law-enforcers who should be aware of the rights of the accused, all the while conscious of the need to protect the innocent and apprehend criminals. These policemen should be tried in court as soon as possible.

I've visited Lanton jail recently here in General Santos City, and I learned that some of the inmates are former policemen, but abused their authority and committed criminal acts. "It's encouraging to know that the wheels of justice are indeed turning. Even if it turns real slow, at least it's turning (to quote from the Jean-Claude Van Damme movie "Hard Target").

To end on a positive note, there are policemen who fulfill their duty with honor and dignity, but are relatively unheard because the media would rather focus on sensational news. I would shamelessly mention that my girlfriend is one of them --> www.cops.ph

Popular posts from this blog

My First Attendance to a Muslim Wedding

Balot Island, Kalamansig Sultan Kudarat Exudes Naure's Best Promises

Service Deluxe at Elai Hotel and Resort in Kidapawan City