Gun possession leads to tragedy
Red Bull—the energy drink, not the basketball team—is in trouble. A disgruntled former distributor, Energy Food and Drinks Inc. (EFDI), has filed a complaint of “misbranding” and “unfair competition” against its Thailand-based manufacturer, T.C. Pharmaceutical Industries Co. Inc. (TCPI) and its new distributor, Maryland Distributors Inc. (MDI). And an undersecretary of the Department of Justice has endorsed the complaint and ordered the filing of charges against TCPI and MDI.
Here is what happened. TCPI terminated the contract of EFDI as distributor of Red Bull products in the Philippines for just cause (failing to meet its obligations). It appointed MDI as its new Philippine distributor. EFDI did not take this sitting down and filed a case of “unfair competition through misbranding” against TCPI and MDI.
But there is no unfair competition, in the first place.
In its reply, TCPI asked: “How can we be in violation of the said law (Intellectual Property Code) when we are, in truth and in fact, the owners of the intellectual property right, which in this case is the Red Bull brand? … How can a manufacturer be sued for unfair competition for its very own product when there are no competing products to begin with?”
The Legazpi City Prosecutor’s Office, before which the complaint was filed, dismissed the case. EFDI appealed the case to the DOJ. The DOJ’s Task Force on Anti-Intellectual Property Piracy, as well as the Office of the Justice Secretary, upheld the Legazpi prosecutor and dismissed the case. Another case was filed with the City Prosecutor’s Office in San Fernando, La Union, which also issued a ruling that EFDI’s complaint was bereft of a legal leg to stand on. All said there was no unfair competition to speak of as the subject Red Bull products are genuine as certified by no less than the manufacturer itself, TCPI.
So it was a complete surprise when Justice Undersecretary Jose Vicente Salazar issued last June 21—when Justice Secretary Leila de Lima was said to be on leave—a resolution ordering the Legazpi City Prosecutor’s Office to set aside its earlier ruling dismissing EFDI’s complaint and to file criminal charges against TCPI and MDI. What’s going on here?
TCPI and MDI have filed a motion for reconsideration at De Lima’s office. The ball is now in her court.
* * *
The National Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa City is like a sieve. Prisoners come and go as they wish. Rolito Go’s absence was noticed only because he is a high-profile prisoner. It is possible that there are unknown prisoners who have escaped without anybody noticing.
That Rolito Go was kidnapped I find hard to believe, even with an alleged P1-million ransom demand. Why would anybody kidnap a prisoner with a long jail sentence? There are so many other victims to choose from. Why choose a prisoner?
The irony is that Go could have been released soon. He was due for parole for good behavior. Now all of that is gone. And more years will be added to his sentence.
* * *
The case of Go is a good example of the dangers of gun possession. I am sure Go had no intention of shooting anyone when he decided to get a handgun. Gun owners always say the gun is only for their protection. And I am sure that is really their intention.
But having a gun does something to a person. Ask any psychiatrist and he will tell you that it does. The gun owner becomes confident, cocky, aggressive, and easy to anger. After all, he has a gun.
There’s another thing. In a confrontation, there is the urge for the gun owner to get it out, not necessarily to shoot the other party, but to scare him. That’s what a gun is for, he thinks. That’s the point of no return. When the “enemy” does not back down and even taunts him with “Sige iputok mo” (Go ahead, pull the trigger), thinking he wouldn’t shoot, the gun owner thinks it would be a sign of cowardice and a loss of face if he himself backs down and doesn’t use his gun. Therefore, even if he doesn’t want to shoot he is forced by circumstances to pull the trigger “to preserve his honor.” It is his fault for taunting me, he reasons to himself.
And that’s the start of the ruin of his whole life, with a long trial and a long prison sentence only the beginning.
Look at Rolito Go. He was a successful businessman with a rosy future. Then one day he met Eldon Maguan on a one-way street in Greenhills.
There was an argument and because he had a gun, Go pulled it and shot Maguan. That was probably farthest from his mind when he got the gun. If Go didn’t have the gun, Maguan would still be alive today and Go would not be in prison. The worst that could have happened was fisticuffs, black eyes and sore muscles. Even if they sued each other, the sentence would most likely just be a fine. But because Go had a gun, look what happened to him and to Maguan.
The same thing has happened to many other people now in prison. I am sure each is now cursing the day he decided to get a gun—“to protect himself.”
The series of multiple killings in the United States was caused by the laxity of its rules on gun possession. The Maguindanao massacre here became possible because of the availability of many guns to the Ampatuans. The time is nearing when we will be like America, now called the murder capital of the world. It is time to wake up and pass laws that would tighten the rules on gun possession.
