fe Republic ofthe Philipines DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY REGIONAL OFFICE Tr Diosdado P Macapagal Repional Government Cente, Maimpis ‘Ci of San Femande Email add: bmpro3 ebjmp gov ph Tel No. (045) 455-3901 / 0909-110-0289 MEMORANDUM To Provincial Jail Administrators District, City and Municipal Jail Wardens SUBJECT REITERATION ON THE “USE OF FORCE AND WEAPONS” DATE October 27, 2021 1. Reference: Memorandum from JSSUPT JOHNSON M CALUB, DM, Director for Operations, BIMP-NHQ re above-cited subject dated October 26, 2021 2. In connection with the above-cited reference, you are hereby directed to adhere to the following rules on the “Use of Force” when confronted with situations requiring the use of the same: an 22 23 24 The use of force shall be applied only in cases of “Self-Defense,” “Defense of Stranger,” or “Fuffillmentof Duty” particularly under the following instances: . acting in self-defense or defense of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury; b. preventing the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave danger to life and to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority; ©. preventing his/her escape (referring to persons arrested or detained). Provided, that only when less extreme means is insufficient to achieve these objectives. Provided, further, that in situations of extreme and imminent danger requiring split-second decision on the part of the personnel confronted with such situation, resort to use of firearms may be justified. As jail officers in charge with the custody and safekeeping of Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDL), itis our duty to guard, protect and prevent them from escaping from jail or custody of the law. As such, reasonable acts and proportionate use of force and weapons to prevent the escape of a PDL are part of the fulfillment of our duty: When appropriate and possible under the circumstances, use of force continuum shall be observed. This refers to an escalating level of force commencing from ne force, to non-deadly force and ultimately, to deadly force;' The decision on the appropriateness of the level of force to be used in a given situation depends entirely on the judgement of the Warden or his duly authorized representative, and other jail personnel confronted with a situation requiring the use of force? &25 26 27 28 TBIMP Opera 2 bid When still appropriate under the given circumstances and there is ample time to react and pacify the situation without peril or danger to PDL or personnel, no force continuum shall be applied. Negotiation, persuasion, and exercise of maximum tolerance shall be applied: Resort to non-deadly force when the negotiation or dialogue do not serve to control the situation and the use of deadly weapon is inappropriate. Authorize the use of non-deadly force in cases where PDL are non- compliant despite verbal containment or the gravity of the situation dictates that verbal containment is not appropriate: Authorized use of non-deadly force shall be used only to temporarily incapacitate PDL. It must be performed by personnel adequately and appropriately trained for the purpose;” The Warden or his superior shall resort to use of deadly force only after failure of negotiation or non-deadly force intervention.® Employ deadly force only in defense of life or if there is reasonable ground to believe that there is grave and imminent danger to the life of the jail officer himself, fellow jail officers, inmatefinmates and innocent civilians;® Specific guidelines’ are provided for the following particular situations: a. Riot in open field a.1_ Deadly force shall be used if PDL are armed and uncontrollable or; b.2 When negotiation fails and lives are in grave and imminent danger; and ©.3. Shall be used only after non-participating PDL are properly isolated and secured. b. Riot in closed field 6.1 Deadly force may be used only if despite the use of non-deadly force, PDL remain non-compliant; b2 Prior to use of deadly force, the authorities should have properly identified the PDL involved in the riot. ©. Noise Barrage Deadly force shall be employed in case the situation escalates into a serious condition or other PDL resort to violence and pose grave and imminent danger to the lives of PDL and jail personnel. ions Manual Revised 2015, pg. 137 3g. 140, tis ‘tod = tei, pg 143 © iid pg. 144 iidd. Hostage Taking 4.1 Deadly force may be used if there is total failure or negotiation and the PDL remail non-compliant despite the use of non- deadly force. 4.2 Ifthe hostage takers are armed: d.3 Ifthe hostage or hostages had/have been killed; and 4.4 Immediate discontinuance on the use of deadly force if there are signs that the use of force is no longer appropriate such as when hostage takers already show signs of surrender. @. Rescue by Non-Friendly/Outside Forces ©.1 In case of rescue by non-friendly/outside forces or in any situation during rescue where lives of PDL and personnel are in grave and imminent danger, or when it is established that the rescuers are determined to conflict harm or injury; ©.2 _Ifpartof the facility is destroyed or ifthe jail security is severely jeopardized by rescue attempt; and 3. Never use firearms in case of rescue while on transit if it Possesses a grave and imminent danger to the lives of the people living in the area. f. Assault between/among PDL or against personnel Use of force is authorized to incapacitate the assaulting party and prevent him from attacking other people. 3. In addition to the foregoing, hereunder are instances wherein use of force was declared justified by the Supreme Court due to performance of duty. Justified Use of Force ] Title of the Case Pertinent Pronouncement of the Court's Decision People v. Delima, That killing was done in the performance of a GR. No. L-18660 duty. The deceased was under the obligation to December 22, 1922 surrender, and had no right, after evading service of his sentence, to commit assault and disobedience with a weapon in the hand, which compelled the policeman to resort to such an extreme means, which, although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the circumstances. Pomoy v. People, ‘Again, it was in the lawful performance of his GR. No. 150647 duty as a law enforcer that petitioner tried to ‘September 29, 2004 defend his possession of the weapon when the Victim suddenly tried to remove it from his holster. As an enforcer of the law, petitioner was duty- bound to prevent the snatching of his service weapon by anyone, especially by a detained person in his custody. Such weapon was likely to be used to facilitate escape and to kill or maim persons in the vicinity, including petitioner himself. Cabanlig v. However, the duty to issue a waming is not Sandiganbayan, absolutely mandated at all times and at all cost, foGR. No. 148431 July 28, 2005 the detriment of the life of law enforcers. The directive to issue waming contemplates a situation where several options are still available to the law enforcers. In exceptional circumstances such as this case, where the threat to the life of a law enforcer is already imminent, and there is no other option but to. use force to subdue the offender, the law enforcer’s failure to issue a warming is excusable. Unjustified Use of Force Title of the Case Pertinent Pronouncement of the Courts Decision People v. Lagata, GR. Nos. L-1940-42 March 24, 1949 Even if appellant sincerely believed, although erroneously, that in firing the shots he acted in the performance of his official duty, the circumstances of the case show that there was no necessity for him to fire directly against the prisoners, so as to seriously wound one of them and kill instantaneously another. While custodians of prisoners should take all care to avoid the latter's escape, only absolute necessity would authorize them to fire against them. Theirs is the burden of proof as to such necessity Yapeuco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 120744-46 June 25, 2012 Only absolute necessity justifies the use of force, and it is incumbent on herein petitioners to. prove such necessity. We find, however, that petitioners failed in that respect. Although the employment of powerful firearms does not necessarily connote unnecessary _force, petitioners in this case do not seem to have been confronted with the rational necessity to open fire at the moving jeepney occupied by the victims. ‘No explanation is offered why they, in that instant, were inclined for a violent attack at their suspects ‘except perhaps their over-anxiety or impatience or simply their careless disposition to take no chances. People v. Tabag, GR. No. 116511 February 12, 1997 In no way can Sarenas (Accused-Appellant in the case) claim the privileges under paragraphs 5 and 6, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, for the massacre of the Magdasals can by no means be considered as done in the fulfilment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of an office or in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose. Other than suspicion, there is no evidence that Welbino Magdasal, Sr., his wife Wendelyn, and their children were members of the NPA.4. Furthermore, Wardens are directed to conduct regular information drive on the use of force and other related guidelines and to conduct dry run of Operational Plans for the above-cited possible incidents to assure that personne! are aware and have understand the same, and to ensure readiness in case the contingency happens. 5. For guidance, widest dissemination and strict compliance. REBECOA B PAWID Jail Chief|Superintendent Regional Director of the Jail Bureau