ALLEGED THIEF CHOKED OUT BY GUARD (July 2024 Video), Analysis by: James U. Sy Jr., Faculty Member, Technological University of the Philippines Visayas (TUPV)

A viral video (said to be from July 2024) have been making its “reincarnation” rounds in certain parts of Facebook yesterday, April 25, 2025. 96.7/90.3 XFM Bacolod picked up the “reincarnation” of this viral video and posted it on their Facebook account on April 25, 2025. CONTEXT: A rudimentary search of the Internet yielded no official report of this incident from Philippine mainstream media. However, it was gathered from fragmentary (and unconfirmed) information on Facebook that two individuals riding on a motorcycle caught up with a suspected thief who was supposed to have stolen from 711. The suspect (in white shirt) did not offer any resistance, demonstrating his intent to give up, but the pursuer in black, said to be a security guard, grabbed him and latched a rear naked choke on the suspect. It can be seen that the suspect did not resist and tapped out but the guard continuously applied pressure on the neck, placing it at an awkward angle, until the suspect went entirely limp by which time he was laid to the ground face down and handcuffed. It has been alleged that the suspect died of a broken neck/spinal damage and the guard as of press time was being hunted by the police, but certain comments on Facebook say that the suspect is actually alive. MORAL ISSUE: Causing harm to someone who had surrendered is seen as unnecessary and immoral. The harming a non-resisting individual (act) is considered immoral no matter the justification (intention, i.e. to take into custody). LEGAL ISSUES: The 1987 Philippine Constitution, ratified during the term of the 11th President of the Republic of the Philippines María Corazón “Cory” S. Cojuangco-Aquino (1933-2009), guarantees the restoration and protection of the freedom and rights of the Filipino people and the equality of all regardless of social status before the law, most notably in the Bill of Rights Section 1 where it states, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” Even petty or big-time criminals are afforded these rights under the Constitution. The person of interest (POI), after being arrested, is still considered a suspect, rather than outright as a thief following the legal principle “a person is deemed innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt” pending investigation and judgement. So it appears that his rights has been violated. Obviously, the security guard could not invoke self defense in this case as Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 3815) states that to do so without criminal liability requires three elements/conditions: 1. Unlawful aggression (real and immediate threat), 2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it (reasonable amount of force proportional to the severity of the attack), and 3. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself (no provocation from the defender). The act of choking the suspect does not meet any of the three elements required by Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. The suspect gave himself up, offering no resistance. Thus, there’s no unlawful aggression which follows that no force is necessary at that point. In case the guard “killed” the suspect he can be charged with murder or homicide since the first element is lacking. Ultimately, it is the court that will decide whether choking the suspect constitute self defense or not. However, based on the available evidence andbreakdown of the relevant law, we can see that the guard was beyond what is permitted by law. MEDICAL ISSUES: Holds on the neck can either be a choke or a strangle, restricting flow of the blood or the air. Properly applied, a choke will work within 1-3 seconds. A limp body would indicate that the receiver had already lost consciousness and that the hold has to be loosened to prevent any unnecessary injury or worse, brain damage and/or death. Due to its dangers chokeholds in Judo are normally taught to more advanced and matured practitioners since its use brings with it the responsibility to ensure the safety of the receiver. NOTE TO MARTIAL ARTISTS. It is obvious that the security guard has knowledge of the martial arts and it would appear that he wanted to show off his skills or at least try it out in a real situation. Teachers of the martial arts of the modern era had always taught that one’s skills are not to be indiscriminately demonstrated in public and for no justifiable reason. Those skills are meant to protect yourself, your loved ones, the weak, and the oppressed.