POP LAW: Superheroes and Vigilantism

Scene: Public market. A man exits a vehicle. As he steps towards a shop, he is shot in the head at close range by a masked assailant. The man drops on the pavement, as the shooter flees.

Onlookers then walk toward the downed man. Murmurs and whispers slowly replaced the ring of the two gunshots.

That may seem to be a visual straight from an action film, such as Erik Matti’s On the Job. But, no; that is straight from a recent real-life incident right at the heart of a busy commercial area, where many of us buy our everyday needs.

Just minutes after the killing, social media was abuzz with speculations as to the motive for the shooting, ranging from angles relative to the victim’s commercial activities, to the rather unsavory insinuations, in connection with recent national-level news headlines on alleged graft and corruption.

Regardless of the motive or intention for shooting and killing, however, such incident – no matter how cinematic it may seem – needs to be looked at from a more restrained point of view, such as that of the law.

After all, we are in a world that is supposedly governed by legislated codes and not by our basest desires. Sure, Batman’s and Wonderwoman’s exploits stir up our collective sense of satisfaction, as we see bank robbers, shady politicians, and general villains in cuffs, or get incinerated in their getaway cars. In fact, the Marvel and DC universes almost never had a bad day at the box office in recent memory, with superhero and vigilante prequels, sequels, and origin stories appealing to a broad spectrum of viewers – pulling moms, dads, and kids into malls – popcorn buckets and soda cups in tow.

But if this culture of rooting for superheroes and vigilantes tends to quench our thirst for delayed justice, especially in this country, where a court case could drag on for decades before a paper decision becomes final and executory, does it necessarily mean that we should altogether just deem our law books as library fillers? Should we now expect a Bat Mobile to aid us in a criminal or fiery emergency, instead of the mandated sirens from the patrol vehicles of the Philippine National Police and the water trucks of the Bureau of Fire Protection?

This writer’s position is to uphold the law – regardless of pop culture’s appeal towards our jaded faith in most, if not all of our public institutions.

Consider the Revised Penal Code’s (RPC) Article 248. The provisions states, among others, that any person who shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following circumstances: with treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity; in consideration of a price, reward, or promise; and/or with evident premeditation.

In our shooting scenario, a person was reportedly killed by an armed man, who apparently appeared out of nowhere and without provocation from the victim. These two factors per se, speak of treachery already. In addition, that the victim was shot without any warning, somehow shows premeditation, or in non-legalese: planning.

If convicted, the killer could face a minimum of twelve years and one day to a maximum of twenty years, in prison. The mastermind and any other person who may had something to do that resulted to the victim’s death, if any, could suffer the same fate, upon conviction. This is because the RPC, through its Article 16, identifies the following to be criminally-liable, if proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt: principals, accomplices, and accessories.

To be clear, principals in this context, do not necessarily refer to school heads in an educational setting. Likewise, accessories in this context, do not refer to your favorite wristwatch or jewelry. Accomplices, meanwhile, is hopefully self-explanatory.
In other words, regardless of the degree of participation in the crime under our present discussion, any and all of the people involved, would most likely suffer a very long time inside a closed facility with barbed wires, metal bars, unsavory food, unlimited lack of personal space, and other unimaginable horrors, given the rather sorry state of government prisons in the country.

This is because, the Philippine Supreme Court (SC) has consistently ruled that conspiracy or the community of design, motive, planning, and execution in a given crime among the perpetrators, gives rise to collective criminal liability.

In People v. Pepino; G. R. No. 174471, the SC ruled that conspiracy is a mode of incurring collective liability whether direct or implied. Express or direct conspiracy means, that the people behind a certain crime, knew of and concurred with the criminal design or plan against the victim(s), as held in Angeles v. CA; G. R. No. 101442; and People v. Maliao; G. R. No. 178058.

In other words, while there is no denying that it is quite cathartic to see Spiderman crush Sandman, as we envision the vilest person in our individual existence to be the villain, who gets caught in our web of jabs and kicks, there is also no denying that putting matters in our own unauthorized hands and feet, would, as rule, most likely result in costly and protracted litigation – not to mention time spent in smelly holding cells.

True, it may be disheartening, especially from the view of the perennially disadvantaged or marginalized, to hear someone who knows their plight, to insist on the rule of law, even when our casual observation of our society would readily show that certain legal processes are routinely used by some quarters to hinder or deprive the powerless of what is otherwise lawfully or morally due them, such as decent housing, living wage, and security from floodings. However, if we are to succumb to our intrusive thoughts and to unnecessarily bear arms, are we not ushering into reality the environs of Mad Max – sand dunes, monster trucks, and misogynistic outfits included?

The unfortunate but subsisting fact is, our belief in or our notion of superheroes and vigilantism – no matter how romanticized in fiction – is still generally frowned upon by the Courts of law.

Admittedly, Black Widow and Catwoman would get hurrahs from law enforcement people who could not beat the bad guys and gals in their respective plotlines. The not-so-alternate reality, however is that, superheroes and vigilantes still operate and live in a world where statutes and jurisprudence co-exist, with whatever hurt or wrong or cause that they may harbor behind their masks, or in the shadows of their lairs.* (The writer may be contacted via: atty.patrickjay.pangilinan@gmail.com)