MAMANGUN V PEOPLE

11 Feb

GR No. 149152 | February 2, 2007 | J. Garcia

Fulfillment of Duty/Lawful Exercise of Right

Facts:

Policeman (PO2) Rufino Mamangun was responding to a robbery-holdup call, with his fellow
police officers, at Brgy. Calvario, Meycauayan, Bulacan. A certain Liberty Contreras was heard
shouting, which prompted residents to respond and chase the suspect, who entered the yard and
proceeded to the rooftop of Antonio Abacan.  Mamangun, with PO2 Diaz and Cruz, each armed
with a drawn handgun, searched the rooftop and saw a man who they thought was the robbery
suspect. Mamangun, who was ahead of the group, fired his gun once and hit the man, who turned
out to be Gener Contreras (not the suspect) – Contreras died of the gunshot wound.

According to the lone witness Crisanto Ayson, he accompanied the policemen to the lighted
rooftop. He was beside Mamangun when he (Ayson) recognized the deceased. According to
Ayson, Mamangun pointed his gun at the man, who instantly exclaimed “Hindi ako, hindi ako!”
to which Mamangun replied, “Anong hindi ako?” and shot him.

The defense rejects this testimony, alleging that they were the only ones at the dark rooftop when
Mamangun noticed a crouching man who suddenly continued to run. Mamangun shouted “Pulis,
tigil!” whereupon the person stopped and raised a steel pipe towards Mamangun’s head. This
prompted Mamangun to shoot the person. The three police claim that Contreras only said “Hindi
ako, hindi ako” only when they approached him. Mamangun then asked “Why did you go to the
rooftop? You know there are policemen here.” Mamangun reported the incident to the desk
officer who directed investigator Hernando Banez to investigate the incident. Banez later on
found a steel pipe on the roof.

Issue:

W/N the death of the victim was the necessary consequence of the petitioner’s fulfillment of his
duty

Held:

No. The Court denies the instant petition and affirms Sandiganbayan’s decision after finding the
petitioner’s testimony to be nothing but a concocted story designed to evade criminal liability.
Per Sandiganbayan’s observations, the defense was self-serving for the accused and biased with
respect to his co-policemen-witnesses because:

1. After supposed introductions and forewarnings uttered allegedly by Mamangun, it is contrary to

human experience for a man (who is not the suspect) to attack one of three policemen with
drawn guns
2. Mamangun’s admission that he did not ask the victim “Why did you try to hit me, if you are not
the one?” clearly belies their claim
3. The location of the entry of bullet belies their claim because it appears that the victim
instinctively shielded himself instead

Additionally, petitioner’s pretense that Contreras struck him was not initially reported to the desk
and was only conveniently remembered when the investigator found a pipe in the crime scene.

Acts in the fulfillment of duty and self-defense does not completely justify the petitioner’s firing
the fatal gunshot. The element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim was absent, which
leads to the failure of the petitioner’s plea. Also, there can only be incomplete justification (a
privileged mitigating circumstance) in the absence of a necessary justifying circumstance the
injury was caused by necessary consequence of due performance of duty.