ASG Law

Tag: Fulfillment of Duty

  • When Duty and Danger Collide: Justifiable Homicide in the Line of Duty

    The Supreme Court, in this case, acquitted SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig of homicide, reversing the Sandiganbayan’s decision. The central issue revolved around whether Cabanlig was justified in shooting a detainee, Jimmy Valino, who grabbed a policeman’s M16 Armalite and attempted to escape. The Court found that Cabanlig’s actions were justified under the doctrine of fulfillment of duty, given the imminent danger posed by Valino’s possession of a deadly weapon. This decision underscores the difficult balance law enforcement officers must strike between protecting the public and upholding the law, especially when faced with immediate threats. It clarifies the circumstances under which lethal force may be deemed necessary in the performance of duty, providing crucial guidance for law enforcement in similar high-pressure situations.

    Did Police Officer’s Deadly Force Exceed the Bounds of Duty?

    The case stems from an incident on September 28, 1992, when SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig and other police officers were escorting Jimmy Valino, a robbery suspect, to recover stolen items. During the transport, Valino suddenly grabbed an M16 Armalite from one of the officers and attempted to escape. Cabanlig, without issuing a verbal warning, shot Valino, resulting in his death. Cabanlig was subsequently charged with murder, later reduced to homicide by the Sandiganbayan, which convicted him. The central legal question is whether Cabanlig’s actions constitute justifiable homicide under the premise of fulfillment of duty.

    Building on the principles of self-defense and fulfillment of duty, the Supreme Court had to distinguish between these related but distinct concepts. Self-defense hinges on the principle of self-preservation from mortal harm, requiring unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation from the defender. Fulfillment of duty, conversely, is rooted in the lawful exercise of a right or office, where the resulting injury or offense is a necessary consequence. A crucial distinction lies in the absence of the unlawful aggression element in fulfillment of duty cases, potentially justifying actions that might otherwise be deemed aggressive. However, a policeman is never justified in using unnecessary force or in treating the offender with wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could be affected otherwise.

    The Court weighed the facts carefully, especially the threat posed by Valino’s actions. While the Sandiganbayan emphasized that Cabanlig exceeded his duty by not issuing a warning before shooting, the Supreme Court differed. The Court argued that the imminent danger created by Valino possessing an M16 Armalite, a formidable assault rifle, justified Cabanlig’s immediate use of force. Given that Valino had not just escaped but also armed himself with a weapon capable of inflicting mass casualties, the Court deemed a warning impractical and potentially fatal to the officers involved. By suddenly grabbing the M16 Armalite from his unsuspecting police guard, Valino certainly did not intend merely to escape and run away as far and fast as possible from the policemen. It also needed the policemen to recapture Valino but also to recover the loose firearm. Therefore, Cabanlig fulfilled his duty as a police officer.

    The Supreme Court also considered the location of Valino’s gunshot wounds. The Sandiganbayan argued that the wounds on Valino’s back indicated he was fleeing when shot. The Supreme Court, however, highlighted the significance of a gunshot wound on Valino’s chest, suggesting he had turned to face the officers at some point. This crucial detail supported Cabanlig’s claim that he acted to protect himself and his colleagues from imminent danger. The verbal warning need not come from Cabanlig himself.

    Again, it was in the lawful performance of his duty as a law enforcer that petitioner tried to 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.

    The ruling clarifies the scope and limits of the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty. This case implies that the imminent threat to law enforcers’ lives superseded the ordinary requirement to issue a warning and to employ less drastic measures. While the Supreme Court acquitted Cabanlig, it also recommended an administrative case against the police officers for gross negligence, faulting them for failing to secure Valino properly during transport, leading to the dangerous situation. Valino’s cooperative demeanor should not have lulled the policemen to complacency. The policemen should have tightly bound Valino’s hands with rope or some other sturdy material.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether a police officer was justified in using deadly force against a detainee who grabbed a firearm and attempted to escape.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling? The Supreme Court acquitted the police officer, SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig, finding that he acted in fulfillment of his duty given the imminent danger.
    On what grounds was the acquittal based? The acquittal was based on the justification of fulfillment of duty, considering the threat posed by the detainee’s possession of a deadly weapon.
    What is the difference between self-defense and fulfillment of duty? Self-defense requires unlawful aggression, while fulfillment of duty does not, focusing instead on the necessity of the action in performing a lawful duty.
    Was the police officer required to issue a warning before using force? The Court found that issuing a warning was not feasible given the immediacy of the threat and the potential danger to the officers’ lives.
    What role did the type of weapon play in the Court’s decision? The fact that the detainee possessed an M16 Armalite, a powerful assault rifle, underscored the imminent danger and justified the officer’s actions.
    What administrative action was recommended by the Court? The Court recommended an administrative case against the police officers for gross negligence in failing to properly secure the detainee during transport.
    What is the main takeaway from this case for law enforcement? Law enforcement officers may use necessary force, including deadly force, when faced with imminent danger in the performance of their duty, but they must also exercise due diligence in preventing such situations from arising.

    This case offers crucial insights into the application of justifiable homicide in law enforcement. It illustrates that a police officer’s reasonable assessment of imminent danger plays a significant role in determining whether the use of deadly force is warranted. While promoting public safety remains paramount, strict adherence to protocols and reasonable judgment can avoid casualties that may come about with gross negligence of the police officers involved.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148431, July 28, 2005

  • When Duty Turns Deadly: Examining the Limits of Police Use of Force in the Philippines

    n

    The Thin Blue Line: Understanding Justifiable Force and Homicide in Police Operations

    n

    TLDR: This landmark Supreme Court case clarifies that while police officers are authorized to use necessary force in the line of duty, this authority is not absolute. Excessive force, even in the heat of the moment, can lead to criminal liability. The case of People v. Ulep serves as a stark reminder that the right to use force is limited by the principles of necessity and proportionality, and that officers must exercise sound discretion, especially when an initial threat has been neutralized.

    nn

    [ G.R. No. 132547, September 20, 2000 ]

    nn

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine a scenario: a person is behaving erratically, causing public disturbance. Police arrive to restore order. In the ensuing confrontation, the police officer fatally shoots the individual. Was it a lawful discharge of duty, or an unlawful killing? This is not just a hypothetical situation; it reflects real-world incidents that demand rigorous legal scrutiny. The Philippine Supreme Court, in People of the Philippines v. SPO1 Ernesto Ulep, grappled with this very question, dissecting the delicate balance between a police officer’s duty to maintain peace and the fundamental right to life. This case provides critical insights into the legal boundaries of police use of force and the consequences when those boundaries are overstepped.

    nn

    LEGAL CONTEXT: JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY

    n

    Philippine criminal law recognizes certain circumstances that can justify or mitigate criminal liability. These are outlined in the Revised Penal Code. Crucially relevant to this case are two concepts: ‘fulfillment of duty’ and ‘self-defense.’ Article 11, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code exonerates an individual from criminal liability when they act “in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.” However, this justification is not automatic. Two requisites must concur:

    n

      n

    1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

      2. n

    2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.

      3. n

    n

    The second requisite is where many cases falter, including Ulep. The law does not grant police officers carte blanche to use lethal force. It must be demonstrably necessary. Similarly, self-defense, as defined in Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, requires:

    n

      n

    1. Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.

      2. n

    2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.

      3. n

    3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

      4. n

    n

    Unlawful aggression is the cornerstone of self-defense. Without it, this defense crumbles. Furthermore, even if unlawful aggression exists, the response must be proportionate – the force used must be reasonably necessary to repel the attack. Exceeding this reasonable necessity transforms justifiable defense into unlawful retaliation.

    n

    In the context of homicide and murder, the distinction is vital. Homicide, defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, is the unlawful killing of another person without qualifying circumstances like treachery or evident premeditation. Murder, penalized under Article 248, elevates homicide to a more serious crime when qualified by circumstances like treachery – meaning the killing is committed with means and methods ensuring its execution without risk to the offender from the victim’s defense. Understanding these legal nuances is crucial to analyzing the Ulep case.

    nn

    CASE BREAKDOWN: THE SHOOTING OF BUENAVENTURA WAPILI

    n

    The events leading to the death of Buenaventura Wapili unfolded in the early hours of December 22, 1995, in Kidapawan, Cotabato. Wapili, suffering from a high fever and exhibiting disturbed behavior, created a commotion in his neighborhood. His brother-in-law, Leydan, and neighbors attempted to restrain him, but Wapili, described as physically imposing, resisted. The situation escalated when Wapili damaged a neighbor’s vehicle, prompting a call for police assistance.

    n

    SPO1 Ernesto Ulep, along with two other officers, responded. Upon arrival, they encountered a naked Wapili allegedly armed with a bolo and a rattan stool (a detail disputed by the victim’s relatives). Ulep fired a warning shot and ordered Wapili to drop his weapons. Wapili allegedly dared them to shoot and continued advancing. When Wapili was just meters away, Ulep fired his M-16 rifle, hitting Wapili multiple times. As Wapili fell, Ulep approached and fired a final shot into his head at close range.

    n

    The autopsy revealed five gunshot wounds, including a fatal headshot described as causing “evisceration of brain tissues.” Crucially, the medical examiner concluded that the headshot was inflicted while Wapili was “in a lying position.”

    n

    Initially charged with murder, Ulep pleaded self-defense and fulfillment of duty. The trial court convicted him of murder and sentenced him to death, highlighting the excessive force used, particularly the final headshot after Wapili was already incapacitated. The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review due to the death penalty.

    n

    The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Justice Bellosillo, acknowledged the initial justification for Ulep’s actions. The Court stated:

    n

    “Up to that point, his decision to respond with a barrage of gunfire to halt the victim’s further advance was justified under the circumstances. After all, a police officer is not required to afford the victim the opportunity to fight back.”

    n

    However, the Court drew a line at the final, fatal headshot. It reasoned:

    n

    “Sound discretion and restraint dictated that accused-appellant, a veteran policeman, should have ceased firing at the victim the moment he saw the latter fall to the ground. The victim at that point no longer posed a threat and was already incapable of mounting an aggression against the police officers. Shooting him in the head was obviously unnecessary.”

    n

    The Court downgraded the conviction from murder to homicide. It found no treachery, as Wapili was warned before being shot. However, it rejected both self-defense and fulfillment of duty as complete justifications due to the excessive force. The Court considered the ‘incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty’ and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, leading to a reduced penalty. The death penalty was overturned, and Ulep was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term for homicide.

    nn

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND LIMITS OF FORCE

    n

    People v. Ulep carries significant implications for law enforcement and citizen interactions in the Philippines. It underscores that police authority is not unchecked. While officers are empowered to use force to maintain order and protect themselves and others, this power is constrained by law and principles of proportionality and necessity. The case serves as a cautionary tale against excessive force, especially after a threat has been neutralized.

    n

    For law enforcement agencies, Ulep reinforces the need for rigorous training on the lawful use of force, emphasizing de-escalation techniques and the importance of restraint once a situation is under control. It highlights that split-second decisions made in the field are subject to later judicial scrutiny, and officers will be held accountable for actions deemed excessive or unnecessary.

    n

    For the public, Ulep affirms that even in encounters with law enforcement, fundamental rights are protected. It clarifies that citizens have recourse when police actions exceed legal bounds. This case contributes to a legal landscape where police are empowered to do their duty, but also held responsible for upholding the law in their methods.

    nn

    Key Lessons from People v. Ulep:

    n

      n

    • Necessity is Paramount: Use of force, especially lethal force, must be demonstrably necessary and proportionate to the threat.

      • n

    • Duty is Not Absolute Immunity: Acting in the line of duty does not automatically justify all actions. Excessive force negates this justifying circumstance.

      • n

    • Post-Threat Restraint: Once a threat is neutralized, continued use of force is unlawful. The ‘final blow’ on an incapacitated individual is particularly scrutinized.

      • n

    • Accountability Matters: Police officers are accountable for their actions and will be subject to criminal liability for excessive force.

      • n

    • Homicide vs. Murder: While excessive force may not always constitute murder (e.g., absence of treachery), it can still result in a conviction for homicide.

      • n

    nn

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    np>Q: What is ‘unlawful aggression’ in the context of self-defense?

    n

    A: Unlawful aggression refers to an actual physical assault, or an imminent threat thereof. It must be real, not just imagined, and must pose an immediate danger to life or limb.

    nn

    Q: Can a police officer claim ‘fulfillment of duty’ if they kill someone?

    n

    A: Yes, but only if the killing is a necessary consequence of their duty. If excessive force is used, or if the killing was not truly necessary, this justification will not stand.

    nn

    Q: What is the difference between homicide and murder in the Philippines?

    n

    A: Homicide is the unlawful killing of another person. Murder is homicide qualified by specific circumstances like treachery, evident premeditation, or cruelty, making it a more serious crime with a higher penalty.

    nn

    Q: What does ‘reasonable necessity’ mean in self-defense and fulfillment of duty?

    n

    A: Reasonable necessity means the force used must be proportionate to the threat faced. It’s not about using the exact same weapon, but about using force that is objectively reasonable to repel the unlawful aggression or fulfill the duty without excessive harm.

    nn

    Q: What should I do if I believe a police officer has used excessive force against me or someone I know?

    n

    A: Document everything, including dates, times, locations, officer names (if possible), and witness information. File a formal complaint with the Philippine National Police (PNP) Internal Affairs Service, the Commission on Human Rights, or directly with the Prosecutor’s Office. Seek legal counsel immediately.

    nn

    Q: Does this case mean police officers are always wrong when they use force?

    n

    A: No. This case clarifies the limits, not the illegitimacy, of police use of force. Police are authorized to use necessary force to perform their duties and protect themselves and the public. Ulep simply emphasizes that this authority has boundaries and must be exercised judiciously.

    nn

    Q: What is an ‘incomplete justifying circumstance’?

    n

    A: An incomplete justifying circumstance exists when most, but not all, elements of a justifying circumstance (like fulfillment of duty or self-defense) are present. It doesn’t fully exonerate the accused but mitigates criminal liability, leading to a reduced penalty.

    nn

    Q: How does ‘voluntary surrender’ affect a criminal case?

    n

    A: Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance that can lessen the penalty. It demonstrates remorse and cooperation with authorities, which the court considers favorably in sentencing.

    nn

    Q: Is this case still relevant today?

    n

    A: Absolutely. People v. Ulep remains a foundational case in Philippine jurisprudence on police use of force. It is frequently cited in contemporary cases involving allegations of police brutality and excessive force, providing enduring legal principles and guidance.

    nn

    ASG Law specializes in Criminal Law and Police Accountability. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

    nn

  • Police Use of Force in the Philippines: When is Homicide Justified?

    When Duty Turns Deadly: Understanding Justifiable Homicide by Law Enforcement in the Philippines

    TLDR: This landmark Supreme Court case clarifies the limits of justifiable homicide for police officers in the Philippines. While acting in the line of duty is a defense, it must be a necessary consequence of that duty. Learn when a police officer’s actions cross the line from justified force to criminal homicide, and what this means for law enforcement and citizen safety.

    [ G.R. No. 124670, June 21, 2000 ]

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a scenario: a late-night school event, a disturbance reported, and a police officer responding. Tragically, this situation can escalate to deadly force, raising critical questions about when a law enforcement officer’s use of lethal weapons is legally justified. The Philippine Supreme Court case of People vs. Belbes delves into this very issue, offering vital insights into the delicate balance between a police officer’s duty to maintain order and the sanctity of human life.

    In this case, Patrolman Domingo Belbes was charged with murder for fatally shooting a student during a school event. The central legal question was whether Belbes’ actions constituted justifiable homicide in the performance of his duty, or if he exceeded the bounds of lawful force. The Supreme Court’s decision provides crucial clarification on the limits of the ‘fulfillment of duty’ defense in Philippine criminal law, particularly for law enforcement officers.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE AND FULFILLMENT OF DUTY

    Philippine law, specifically Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, outlines circumstances where criminal liability is negated. One such circumstance is acting in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. This is known as a justifying circumstance. If proven, it means the act, though seemingly criminal, is actually lawful.

    Paragraph 5 of Article 11 states:

    “Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.“

    However, this justification is not absolute. The Supreme Court, in cases like People v. Oanis, has established two key requisites for this defense to stand:

    1. That the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
    2. That the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such right or office.

    The crucial element here is the ‘necessary consequence.’ It means that the resulting injury or offense must be an unavoidable result of performing the duty lawfully. If excessive force is used, or if the act goes beyond what is necessary, the defense of fulfillment of duty may fail, and the officer may be held criminally liable.

    It’s important to distinguish this from self-defense, another justifying circumstance. Self-defense arises from an unlawful aggression by another person, while fulfillment of duty concerns actions taken while performing one’s official responsibilities. Even when a police officer claims self-defense, the courts rigorously examine whether all elements of self-defense, such as unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of means, and lack of sufficient provocation, are present. The burden of proof to establish a justifying circumstance rests entirely on the accused.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: PEOPLE VS. BELBES

    The incident unfolded at a high school prom in Bacacay, Albay. Patrolman Domingo Belbes and Patrolman Jose Pabon were assigned to maintain peace and order. Around 9 PM, they were alerted to a disturbance. Responding to the report, they encountered Fernando Bataller, a student, who was allegedly destroying a bamboo wall of a temporary building while intoxicated.

    According to the prosecution’s witness, Carlito Bataller (the victim’s cousin), Patrolman Belbes and Pabon approached Fernando. Without warning, Belbes fired his armalite rifle, fatally wounding Fernando. The defense presented a different version. Belbes claimed that Fernando attacked Pabon with a knife, then attacked Belbes himself, causing a struggle for Belbes’ rifle, which accidentally discharged multiple times.

    Here’s a simplified procedural journey of the case:

    • Regional Trial Court (RTC): The RTC convicted Belbes of Murder, finding the prosecution’s evidence stronger and the defense of self-defense weak.
    • Appeal to the Supreme Court: Belbes appealed, arguing he acted in self-defense and in fulfillment of his duty.

    The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the evidence. The Court noted inconsistencies and improbabilities in Belbes’ self-defense claim. For instance, the alleged knife was mishandled as evidence, fingerprinting was not done, and the wound on Belbes’ shoulder was examined hours later, raising suspicion of self-infliction. Crucially, the timeline presented by a prosecution witness indicated a very short span between Belbes leaving his post and the gunshots, undermining the narrative of a prolonged struggle.

    The Supreme Court highlighted the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, stating: “When the issue boils down to the credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court deserve great respect since it is in a better position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in court, and to discern its dimensions, both verbal and non-verbal.”

    However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the RTC’s conviction for Murder. The Court found that treachery, a qualifying circumstance for murder, was not proven. The suddenness of the attack alone was insufficient to establish treachery. The Court stated: “There is no showing that the shooting was premeditated or that appellant, in shooting the victim, employed means, methods or forms to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended victim might make.”

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court modified the conviction to Homicide, recognizing the incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty as a mitigating factor. While Belbes was performing his duty to maintain peace and order, the Court held that “the killing need not be a necessary consequence of the performance of his duty. His duty is to maintain peace and order… But he exceeded such duty… when he fired his armalite without warning.”

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LIMITS OF POLICE AUTHORITY

    People vs. Belbes serves as a stark reminder that even for law enforcement officers, the defense of ‘fulfillment of duty’ has clear boundaries. It underscores that police officers are not given a license to kill in the name of duty. The force used must be proportionate and necessary to achieve a lawful objective.

    For law enforcement agencies, this case emphasizes the critical need for:

    • Proper Training: Officers must be thoroughly trained on the appropriate use of force, de-escalation techniques, and the legal limits of their authority.
    • Clear Protocols: Agencies should have clear guidelines on when firearms can be used, emphasizing warnings and less-lethal options whenever feasible.
    • Accountability: Incidents involving police use of force must be rigorously investigated to ensure accountability and maintain public trust.

    For the general public, this case highlights the importance of understanding the legal framework governing police actions. While respecting law enforcement authority is crucial, citizens also have the right to expect that force will be used judiciously and lawfully.

    Key Lessons

    • Fulfillment of Duty is Not a Blank Check: Police officers acting in the line of duty are not automatically justified in using lethal force.
    • Necessary Consequence is Key: The resulting injury or death must be a necessary and unavoidable consequence of lawful duty performance.
    • Excessive Force is Criminal: Using force beyond what is reasonably necessary can lead to criminal liability, even if initially acting in the line of duty.
    • Burden of Proof on the Accused: Police officers claiming fulfillment of duty must convincingly prove their actions were justified.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: What is justifiable homicide in the Philippines?

    A: Justifiable homicide is when killing another person is permitted by law, negating criminal liability. This includes instances of self-defense, defense of relatives, defense of strangers, and fulfillment of duty.

    Q: What does ‘fulfillment of duty’ mean for police officers?

    A: It means that a police officer may be justified in using force, even lethal force, if it is a necessary consequence of performing their lawful duty, such as preventing a crime or arresting a suspect. However, the force must be proportionate and necessary.

    Q: When is police use of force considered excessive?

    A: Force is excessive when it goes beyond what is reasonably necessary to achieve a lawful objective. This is assessed based on the specific circumstances, considering the threat faced, available alternatives, and proportionality.

    Q: What is the difference between homicide and murder?

    A: Homicide is the killing of another person. Murder is homicide qualified by circumstances like treachery, evident premeditation, or cruelty. Murder carries a heavier penalty than homicide.

    Q: What are the penalties for homicide in the Philippines?

    A: Homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal, which ranges from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years of imprisonment. The specific penalty within this range depends on mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

    Q: What should I do if I believe a police officer has used excessive force?

    A: You should immediately report the incident to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Internal Affairs Service, the Commission on Human Rights, or file a complaint with the prosecutor’s office. Document everything, including dates, times, locations, and witness information.

    Q: How does this case affect citizens’ rights?

    A: This case reinforces the principle that police power is not unlimited and that citizens are protected from excessive force. It emphasizes the accountability of law enforcement and the importance of due process.

    ASG Law specializes in Criminal Law and Police Misconduct cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.