Valcorza v.

People
Facts: The deceased, Roberto Pimentel, was confined an June 4,
1960 in the municipal jail of Maramag, Bukidnon, as a detention
prisoner to answer a charge of stealing a chicken. At about 1:00
p.m. when appellant was the police guard on duty, Roberto
Pimentel escaped. The following day a police patrol team composed
of Police Sgt. Federico Daiton and Patrolmen Melquiades Cañas,
Pablo Lubido and the appellant himself went to a place called
Poultry Area where the accused had been reported to be hiding, for
the purpose of bringing him back to jail. Their efforts to locate and
apprehend Roberto Pimentel having been fruitless, they decided to
pass the night in the house of one Gavino Tirayosa intending to
return to town the following morning.

At about five o'clock in the morning of the next day Sgt. Daiton
went down from the house of Gavino Tirayosa to answer a call of
nature. He went to a nearby bridge and squatted thereon to
defecate. While he was in that position, he saw a person
approaching slowly and he ordered him to halt. The latter instead of
doing so, jumped down into the creek spanned by the bridge. He
yelled for his companions, saying that the person who jumped into
the creek could be their quarry. Patrolmen Cañas, Lubido and the
appellant rushed out of the house of Gavino Tirayosa, Cañas and
appellant going to the place at the creek where the person had
jumped down.

Sgt. Daiton stationed himself near the bridge and Patrolman Lubido
went to the other side of the creek. Appellant and Cañas followed
the course of the creek and after covering a distance of 100 meters
they came across footprints which they examined separately. While
they were doing so, Roberto Pimentel emerged suddenly from the
bushes and lunged at the appellant, hitting him with a stone at the
right cheek and causing him to fall to the ground. When appellant
Valcorza was on the ground, Roberto Pimentel again struck him with
a stone on the right arm. Fearing that Pimentel might grab his
service revolver, appellant Valcorza summoned Patrolman Cañas
who dashed towards the place but Pimentel ran away. Appellant
Valcorza regained his composure and immediately chased the
deceased, firing a shot into the air and ordering him to stop.

Deceased did not heed his order, appellant fired four times into the
air, at the same time pursuing the prisoner for a distance of about
100 meters. At that point, fearing that the patrol team might fail in
apprehending the deceased, appellant Valcorza fired a fifth shot at
Pimentel as the latter was in an act of again jumping down into
another part of the creek and when the distance between the two
was only three meters. Patrolman Cañas could not be of much help
in the chase because his revolver got entangled with some vines
and he dropped it. After recovering his revolver he joined Valcorza
but Pimentel had already jumped down into the water of the creek.

Members of the patrol team went down into the water to locate
Pimentel and they saw him floating, with a wound on his back. As
Pimentel was still alive, he was placed in the police jeep and taken
to the poblacion of Maramag for treatment, but he died a few
minutes after arrival in the municipal building.

The physician who examined the cadaver of the victim gave the
opinion that the missile from the gun fired against the victim
entered at the right side of the back but the slug was lodged inside
the body. The gray discoloration at the edge or rim of the wound of
entry showed the presence of powder burns which indicates that the
gun was fired at close range.

Elias Valcorza surrendered himself and his firearm to the Chief of

Police upon arrival in the municipal building of Maramag.

Contention: Appellant seeks to justify his firing the shot against

the deceased by stating that he tried to hit him only at the leg, after
he had disregarded his several warning shots and orders to stop
running away. He claims that he did so at the spur of the moment
because he feared that his patrol team might not succeed in
apprehending the deceased. He also claims that he only fired at the
deceased when the latter was in the act of jumping down into the
creek which had water of 8 feet deep. In brief the appellant conveys
idea that he had to fire at the deceased in order that he may not
continue escaping.

However, his claim that he aimed only at the leg of the deceased is
not consistent with what he said in his sworn statement given to the
Constabulary soldiers on the afternoon of the day of the incident.

Therefore, his first narration is more reliable because it was made

when there was yet no time for reflection so as to make his story fit
into the facts of the incident. After the lapse of two years during
which he could deliberate and analyze the occurrence and prepare
his defense, his testimony in court no longer jibed with what he said
shortly after the event.

Issue: Should the act of shooting, thereafter killing Pimentel, be

justified?

Held: YES. The act performed by petitioner — and which

unfortunately resulted in the death of the escaping detainee — was
committed in the performance of his official duty and was more or
less necessary to prevent the escaping prisoner from successfully
eluding the officers of the law.

The considered that the petitioner does not appear to be a trigger-

happy policeman as shown by the fact that he had fired five
cautionary shots into the air and decided to aim directly at the
escaping detainee only when he had already reasons to fear that
the latter would be able to elude him and his companions.

Ratio: To hold him guilty of homicide may have the effect of

demoralizing police officers discharging official functions identical or
similar to those in the performance of which petitioner was engaged
at the time he fired at the deceased Pimentel, with the result that
thereafter We would have half-hearted and dispirited efforts on
their part to comply with such official duty. This of course, would be
to the great detriment of public interest.

Petitioner is thus acquitted.

People v. Delima

Facts: Lorenzo Napilon had escaped from the jail where he was
serving sentence.

Some days afterwards the policeman Felipe Delima, who was

looking for him, found him in the house of Jorge Alegria, armed with
a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance, and demanded
his surrender. The fugitive answered with a stroke of his lance. The
policeman dodged, it, and to impose his authority fired his revolver,
but the bullet did not hit him. The criminal ran away, without
parting with his weapon. The peace officer went after him and fired
again his revolver, this time hitting and killing him.

The policeman was tried and convicted for homicide. He appeals

from that judgment which must be reversed.

Issue: Should Delima be acquitted?

Held: YES. That killing was done in the performance of a duty. The
deceased was under the obligation to 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.

Felipe Delima committed no crime, and he is hereby acquitted with

the costs de oficio. So ordered.
Cabanlig v. People

Facts: Cabanlig, Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado and Esteban were

charged with murder. On 15 December 1993, the accused police
officers Cabanlig, Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado and Esteban pleaded
not guilty.

Version of Prosecution: a robbery occurred in the Municipality of

Penaranda, Nueva Ecija. Four days later or on 28 September 1992,
the investigating authorities apprehended three suspects: Jordan
Magat ("Magat"), Randy Reyes ("Reyes") and Jimmy Valino. The
police recovered most of the stolen items. However, a flower vase
and a small radio were still missing. Cabanlig asked the three
suspects where these two items were. Reyes replied that the items
were at his house.

Cabanlig asked his colleagues, Padilla, Mercado, Abesamis and

Esteban, to accompany him in retrieving the flower vase and radio.
Cabanlig then brought out Reyes and Magat from their cell,
intending to bring the two during the retrieval operation. It was at
this point that Valino informed Cabanlig that he had moved the vase
and radio to another location without the knowledge of his two
cohorts. Cabanlig decided instead to bring along Valino, leaving
behind Magat and Reyes.

Five fully armed policemen in uniform - Cabanlig, Padilla, Mercado,

Abesamis and Esteban - escorted Valino to Barangay Sinasahan,
Nueva Ecija to recover the missing flower vase and radio. The
policemen and Valino were aboard a police vehicle, an Isuzu pick-
up jeep. The jeep was built like an ordinary jeepney. The rear
end of the jeep had no enclosure. A metal covering separated the
driver's compartment and main body of the jeep. There was no
opening or door between the two compartments of the jeep. Inside
the main body of the jeep, were two long benches, each of which
was located at the left and right side of the jeep.

Cabanlig, Mercado and Esteban were seated with Valino inside the
main body of the jeep. Esteban was right behind Abesamis at the
left bench. Valino, who was not handcuffed, was between
Cabanlig and Mercado at the right bench.

Just after the jeep had crossed the Philippine National Railway
bridge and while the jeep was slowly negotiating a bumpy and
potholed road, Valino suddenly grabbed Mercado's M16
Armalite and jumped out of the jeep. Valino was able to grab
Mercado's M16 Armalite when Mercado scratched his head and tried
to reach his back because some flying insects were pestering
Mercado. Mercado shouted "hoy!". Cabanlig, who was then facing
the rear of the vehicle, saw Valino's act of taking away the M16
Armalite. Cabanlig acted immediately. Without issuing any
warning of any sort, and with still one foot on the running
board, Cabanlig fired one shot at Valino, and after two to three
seconds, Cabanlig fired four more successive shots. Valino did
not fire any shot.

The shooting happened around 7:00 p.m., at dusk or "nag-aagaw

ang dilim at liwanag." Cabanlig approached Valino's body to check
its pulse. Finding none, Cabanlig declared Valino dead. Valino
sustained three mortal wounds - one at the back of the head, one at
the left side of the chest, and one at the left lower back.

Version of the Defense: Cabanlig admitted shooting Valino.

However, Cabanlig justified the shooting as an act of self-defense
and performance of duty. Mercado denied that he told Lacanilao
that he and his co-accused "salvaged" Valino. Cabanlig, Mercado,
Abesamis, Padilla, and Esteban denied that they conspired to kill
Valino.

Sandiganbayan: The Sandiganbayan acquitted Padilla, Abesamis,

Mercado and Esteban as the court found no evidence that the
policemen conspired to kill or summarily execute Valino. Since
Cabanlig admitted shooting Valino, the burden is on Cabanlig to
establish the presence of any circumstance that would relieve him
of responsibility or mitigate the offense committed.

The Sandiganbayan held that Cabanlig could not invoke self-defense

or defense of a stranger. The only defense that Cabanlig could
properly invoke in this case is fulfillment of duty. Cabanlig,
however, failed to show that the shooting of Valino was the
necessary consequence of the due performance of duty. The
Sandiganbayan found no circumstance that would qualify the crime
to murder. Thus, the Sandiganbayan convicted Cabanlig only
of homicide.

Issue: Should Cabanlig be acquitted?

Held: YES. A policeman in the performance of duty is justified in

using such force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain
the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape,
recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily
harm. In case injury or death results from the policeman's exercise
of such force, the policeman could be justified in inflicting the
injury or causing the death of the offender if the policeman
had used necessary force. Since a policeman's duty requires him
to overcome the offender, the force exerted by the policeman may
therefore differ from that which ordinarily may be offered in self-
defense.14 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.

Unlike in self-defense where unlawful aggression is an element, in

performance of duty, unlawful aggression from the victim is not a
requisite.

In this case, Cabanlig, Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado and Esteban

were in the performance of duty as policemen when they escorted
Valino, an arrested robber, to retrieve some stolen items. We
uphold the finding of the Sandiganbayan that there is no evidence
that the policemen conspired to kill or summarily execute Valino. In
fact, it was not Valino who was supposed to go with the policemen
in the retrieval operations but his two other cohorts, Magat and
Reyes. Had the policemen staged the escape to justify the killing of
Valino, the M16 Armalite taken by Valino would not have been
loaded with bullets. Moreover, the alleged summary execution of
Valino must be based on evidence and not on hearsay.

Undoubtedly, the policemen were in the legitimate

performance of their duty when Cabanlig shot Valino. Thus,
fulfillment of duty is the justifying circumstance that is
applicable to this case. To determine if this defense is complete,
we have to examine if Cabanlig used necessary force to prevent
Valino from escaping and in protecting himself and his co-accused
policemen from imminent danger.

Fulfillment of Duty was Complete: In this case, Valino was

committing an offense in the presence of the policemen when Valino
grabbed the M16 Armalite from Mercado and jumped from the jeep
to escape. The policemen would have been justified in
shooting Valino if the use of force was absolutely necessary
to prevent his escape. But Valino was not only an escaping
detainee. Valino had also stolen the M16 Armalite of a
policeman. The policemen had the duty not only to recapture
Valino but also to recover the loose firearm. By grabbing
Mercado's M16 Armalite, which is a formidable firearm,
Valino had placed the lives of the policemen in grave danger.

Had Cabanlig failed to shoot Valino immediately, the policemen

would have been sitting ducks. Facing imminent danger, the
policemen had to act swiftly. Time was of the essence. It would
have been foolhardy for the policemen to assume that Valino
grabbed the M16 Armalite merely as a souvenir of a successful
escape.

On Warning: A warning in this case was dispensable. Valino

knew that he was in the custody of policemen. Valino was also very
well aware that even the mere act of escaping could injure or kill
him. The policemen were fully armed and they could use force to
recapture him. By grabbing the M16 Armalite of his police escort,
Valino assumed the consequences of his brazen and determined act.
Surrendering was clearly far from Valino's mind.

At any rate, Valino was amply warned. Mercado shouted "hoy" when
Valino grabbed the M16 Armalite. Although Cabanlig admitted that
he did not hear Mercado shout "hoy", Mercado's shout should have
served as a warning to Valino. The verbal warning need not come
from Cabanlig himself.

Cabanlig is thus not guilty of homicide. At most, Cabanlig,

Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado and Esteban are guilty only of
gross negligence. The policemen transported Valino, an
arrested robber, to a retrieval operation without handcuffing
Valino. That no handcuffs were available in the police precinct is a
very flimsy excuse.
People v. Peralta
Facts: After watching a basketball game in Pasig City in the
evening of July 2, 1991, Louise Rimando together with Crizaldo
Esguerra, Delfin Soriano and Danillo Gaa, proceeded to Quezon City
"to pick up" prostitutes. When they reached the Aberdeen Court
Hotel along Quezon Avenue in Quezon City, Rimando alighted from
their owner type jeep that was being driven by Esguerra and talked
to a gay pimp named Roberto Reyes. Rimando introduced himself
as an agent of the National Bureau of Investigation apparently to
avail of a discount for the services of the prostitutes. Reyes agreed
to introduce certain young girls to Rimando and proposed to pick
them up in front of the Aberdeen Court Hotel. When the jeep
reached the hotel. Reyes together with two (2) of the girls and
another gay named Sandro Lim suddenly boarded the jeep. Reyes
told Rimando, "Mamang NBI, tulungan ninyo kami. Andiyan iyong
CAPCOM na nanghihingi sa amin ng pera." Upon Rimando's
instructions, the jeep sped away with eight (8) persons on board.

While driving along Quezon Avenue in Quezon City, one of the

pimps noticed that they were being followed by appellant in a taxi
cab. Rimando instructed Esguerra to park the jeep in front of
Dunkin Donuts. Rimando ordered the two gays to alight from the
jeep. Meanwhile, the taxi parked behind the jeep. One of the ladies
also got off the jeep for fear of being arrested. The appellant who
was holding a .38 caliber firearm alighted and approached Rimando
who was then seated beside the driver's seat. Appellant inquired if
they were policemen, but Rimando replied in the negative. Rimando
stated that he was an agent of the National Bureau of Investigation
and showed the appellant his NBI Identification Card.

Appellant said, "NBI ka pala" and suddenly grabbed Rimando's

identification card before he shot Rimando twice in the body.
Appellant went back to his taxi and left. (3) eyewitnesses had a
clear view of appellant's face inasmuch as there was a lamppost
that illuminated the area.

On cross and re-direct examination, prosecution witness Crizaldo

Esguerra testified that Rimando and the appellant had an argument
that lasted for two (2) to three (3) minutes before the appellant
shot Rimando.
Rimando was brought to the United Doctors Medical Center but was
later transferred to Santo Tomas University Hospital, where he was
pronounced dead afterwards.

Medical Examination: According to Dr. Alteza, the first gunshot

wound was fatal inasmuch as it hit the intestines and other vital
organs of the victim. On the basis of the location of the gunshot
wounds, he declared that the assailant must have been at the right
lateral side of the victim at the time of the shooting incident. He did
not find any injuries on the hands of the victim.

Defense: For the defense, appellant testified that he was a member

of the Central District Field Force, Intelligence Investigation Unit of
the Central Police District. Pursuant to a mission order, the
appellant was dispatched to Quezon Avenue near Aberdeen Court
Hotel in Quezon City concerning rampant prostitution in the area.
He was in a civilian attire and was carrying an authorized .38 caliber
gun.

While conducting police surveillance on board a taxi, he spotted

three (3) young girls sitting in front of the Aberdeen Court Hotel
along Quezon Avenue in Quezon City. Suspecting them to be
prostitutes, he instructed the taxi driver to stop in front of the hotel.
When a pimp named Roberto Reyes approached him and said,
"Mama, gusto mong chicks?" he identified himself as a police
officer. Reyes then shouted to warn the girls that the appellant was
a police officer. Reyes together with two (2) of the girls and another
gay boarded an owner-type jeep.

Appellant went back to the taxi and followed the jeep to effect an
arrest. When the jeep stopped, he alighted from the taxi and
approached its passengers. After identifying himself as a police
officer, Rimando arrogantly introduced himself by saying "E, ano
kung pulis ka, NBI naman ako." Appellant showed his identification
card to Rimando but the latter asked him what he wanted from
them. Appellant replied, "Pare, wala naman iyon," and informed
Rimando that the girls inside the jeep were subject to arrest. The
hot-tempered Rimando insisted that the ladies were the girlfriends
of his companions. Their heated discussion lasted for about two (2)
to three (3) minutes. The girls jumped off the jeep after hearing
that the, appellant was going to arrest them. Appellant tried to
pursue them but Rimando grabbed appellant's right forearm and
held appellant's .38 caliber gun.

However, the appellant maintained his hold of the gun with both of
his hands. As the companions, of Rimando were already
approaching, appellant accidentally pressed the trigger twice. After
the gun went off, appellant took cover behind a concrete post. After
the jeep had left toward the south, appellant proceeded to his
headquarters and reported the incident to the Officer-in-Charge of
the Intelligence Investigation Unit, Dante Yan.

The next day, Police Officer Dante Yan formed a team to conduct
follow-up operations regarding the incident; however, the team was
not able to find out the identity of the victim. It was only about one
and a half months after the shooting incident, that the appellant
was identified as the assailant of the deceased, victim, Rimando. In
his eleven (11) years in the police service, this was the first time
that appellant was charged with a criminal offense.

To corroborate the appellant's testimony, Roberto Reyes testified

that the appellant drove the taxi by himself. Reyes and Lim hid near
a parked car after alighting from the jeep. Appellant approached
Rimando who stood up and confronted the appellant face to face.
Rimando and the appellant had a heated argument. Rimando even
pushed the appellant. As Rimando tried to get something from his
back pocket, the appellant pulled out his hand gun and poked it at
the former. When Rimando was not able to get his weapon from his
waist, he grabbed the appellant's firearm. While the appellant and
Rimando struggled for  the possession of the gun, Reyes heard two
(2) gunshots. Thereafter, Reyes and Lim left the premises by
boarding a taxi.

RTC: The trial court rendered a Decision finding the appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.

Issue: Should the defense of performance of duty be appreciated?

Held: NO. Appellant claims that he shot the victim while he was in
the performance of his police duties. Two (2) requisites must concur
before this defense can prosper: (1) the accused must have acted in
the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office, (2) the injury caused or the offense committed should be the
necessary consequence of the due performance of duty. The Court
finds that the requisites are absent in the case at bar.
Appellant was not in the performance of his duties at the
time of the shooting for the reason that the girls he was
attempting to arrest were not committing any act of
prostitution in his presence. The only person he was authorized
to arrest during that time was Roberto Reyes, who offered him the
services of a prostitute, for acts of vagrancy.

The record shows that appellant shot the victim not once but twice
after a heated confrontation ensued between them. His duty to
arrest the female suspects did not include any right to shoot the
victim to death.

On Self-Defense: The fact that appellant killed the victim is not

disputed. However, the appellant invokes the justifying
circumstance of self-defense.

In the case at bar, the appellant's claim that his forearm was held
by the victim and even attempted to grab his gun cannot be
believed. There were no signs of injuries on the hands of the victim.
It was sufficiently proven by the prosecution that appellant shot the
victim while the latter was still seated beside the driver's seat inside
the jeep. The medical findings showed that the point of entry of one
of the bullets was at the right upper quadrant of the abdomen while
the point of exit was at the lower left portion of the abdomen. This
indicates that the trajectory of the bullet was downwards which
reinforces the prosecution's version that the victim was shot while
he was seated inside the jeep. Therefore, the testimony of Roberto
Reyes that the victim alighted from their jeep and stood up prior to
the shooting incident cannot be given credence for the reason that
it runs counter to the medical findings of Dr. Alteza who is a
disinterested and credible witness. There being no unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim, the claim of self-defense by
the appellant is not credible.

The plea of self-defense is also belied by the failure of the appellant

to immediately report to his superior officer on the night of the
incident that he shot somebody with his service firearm in self-
defense. In fact, the appellant testified in court that he did not know
he hit anyone after he allegedly fired his gun accidentally. Aside
from being inconsistent with his plea of self-defense, this feigned
ignorance of the appellant is not persuasive. Firstly it was
impossible for the appellant to have overlooked the reaction of the
victim who was just beside him during the shooting incident
inasmuch as the area was illuminated by a lamppost. Secondly,
there was no scuffle. Thirdly, the act of twice firing his service
firearm suggests that appellant was acting deliberately when he
pulled the trigger for the second time as he had full control of the
handle and the trigger of the gun.

On treachery: The shooting incident was a result of the heated

argument between the victim and the appellant. Hence, the
qualifying circumstance of treachery may not be appreciated. In the
case at bar, the victim provoked the appellant when the former
engaged the latter in a heated argument. It was not shown that
appellant deliberately or consciously thought of shooting the victim
prior to their confrontation. The victim was not therefore unaware of
the danger of being shot for the reason that appellant was already
brandishing his weapon while he was approaching the jeep.

On Evident Premeditation: This Court also rules out the presence

of evident premeditation. In the case at bar, there was no proof of
the time when appellant allegedly determined to commit the crime
against the victim. The appellant did not even know the victim and
vice versa prior to their confrontation at the place of the shooting
incident. The Solicitor General correctly pointed out that appellant's
act of tailing the victim's group is not an overt act that reflects
appellant's determination to kill Rimando. Appellant followed the
jeep in order to effect an arrest of women whom he suspected to be
prostitutes.

As there is reasonable doubt on the alleged attendance of treachery

and evident premeditation in the case at bar, the crime committed
by the appellant was only homicide.
People v. Tan

Facts: In the morning of June 25, 1961, the appellant Donion Tan,
then a member of the municipal police force of Pambujan, Samar,
approached Jose Sosing, the maintainer of a "Paitik" game, and
asked for a peso. Jose Sosing replied that he did not have any and
offered, instead, forty centavos. Tan was not satisfied and asked to
be shown the permit to operate the game. Jose Sosing did so, but
soon after, Tan grabbed the coins and coconut shell used in the
game. A scuffle for the possession of the coconut shell thus ensued
between Tan and Sosing. In the process, Sosing was hit in the
mouth while Tan suffered bruises in the left forearm. Surprised at
the unexpected opposition of Sosing, Tan pulled out his service
pistol. Fearing for his life, Sosing took hold of the gun and they
wrestled for its possession. The gamblers and bystanders thereat
scampered for safety.

The melee attracted the attention of PC Sergeants Juanito Irigan

and Luis Amor who tried to separate the protagonists. Since neither
one of them released his hold on the gun, Sgt. Amor fired over their
hands and the pistol was released. Sgt. Amor then unloaded the
gun and gave it to the chief of police of Pambujan who, in turn,
gave it to police sergeant Jesusimo Lipata. Thereafter, Tan was told
to go home.

Upon being disarmed, Tan was heard to say: "You are very thankful
that soldiers arrived, if none, you are already dead now. Before
sunset or before the end of this month you will be killed."

The fracas also attracted the attention of Agueda Tiu, an elder sister
of Jose Sosing, who, upon being informed that her brother was
involved. lost no time in going to the "paitikan," arriving thereat
just in time to see PC Sgt. Amor separate Pat. Tan and her brother,
Jose. She and her brother- in-law Gaudencio Acero then brought
Jose Sosing to her house. On their way Agueda Tiu reproached her
younger brother for not giving the appellant the peso asked of him.

At about noontime, Jose Sosing asked permission to go home in

order to eat his lunch. Although Agueda had already prepared lunch
and had invited her brother to stay and eat with them, Jose was
insistent. So Agueda Tiu and Gaudencio Acero accompanied Jose
Sosing home. Halfway to Jose's house, they say Tan coming
towards them. Agueda advised her brother to keep silent and to go
on walking home. But, as Tan came closer, they saw Tan pull out
his pistol and aim it at Jose Sosing. Frightened, Jose Sosing turned
and ran up the house of Juan Tan. The accused pursued him there,
but his way was blocked by Conrada Tan who told the accused to go
down because her children might be scared.

Jose Sosing then went to the kitchen of the house and leaped to the
ground. Upon jumping, he stumbled and some of the occupants of
the house screamed. Upon hearing the outcry, the accused went
down and proceeded to the kitchen gate of the house, along Taft
Street, where he waited for Jose Sosing to come out.

Jose Sosing came out with hands upraised and knelt before the
accused, pleading that the latter spare his life saying: "Don't shoot
me." The accused shot him nonetheless. Jose Sosing fell, and when
he failed to rise, his assailant kicked him on the head, saying: "You
stand up and fight and let all your relatives come and I'll
exterminate them all." Agueda Tiu, who came to the side of her
brother, knelt before the accused saying: "Don't shoot me after
which, she fainted.

Upon hearing the shot, PC Corporal Serafin Estrella, then assigned

as escort of Rep. Balite and who was also at Pambujan at that time,
went to the place and saw the accused standing near the prostrate
body of Jose Sosing. With gun aimed at the accused, he told the
latter to surrender his gun. After the accused had given him the
gun, he arrested him and brought him to the municipal building of
Pambujan.

The lifeless body of Jose Sosing was likewise brought to the

municipal hall where the municipal health officer performed an
autopsy on the cadaver.

Medical Examination: The medical officer opined that from the

nature and location of the wounds is well as the trajectory of the
bullet, it, is possible that the assailant was standing and the victim
was kneeling down facing him.

Defense: The appellant does not deny having shot Jose Sosing
which caused the latter's death. In exculpation, he claims that he
acted in the fulfillment of his duty, in that, as municipal policeman,
he was merely trying to disarm the deceased and then shot the
latter because "he was in the poise of taking something, which he
thought was a pistol, from his pocket."

After this exchange of records, he saw Jose Sosing in the act of

taking something from his pocket which the accused tried to grab
but was unable to since Jose Sosing went up the house of Juan Tan.
Believing that Jose Sosing was armed with a pistol and should be
disarmed, he followed Jose Sosing, but his way was blocked by the
wife of Juan Tan who told him not to proceed as her children might
be scared. Upon the hearing the screams emanating from the
kitchen of the house, he went down the house and saw Jose Sosing
jump to the ground and go towards the gate at Taft Street, "He
(Jose Sosing) faced me and he was in the poise of taking something
from his pocket and so I shot him."

Issue: Should Tan be acquitted?

Held: NO. The statement of facts made by the accused and his
witness is lacking in truth; it is rather an afterthought and contrary
to human nature. But, even taking the same to be true, the attitude
adopted by the deceased in putting his hands in his pocket is not
sufficient to justify the appellant to shoot him. Appellant admitted
that the deceased does not own firearm so that he could have first
warned the deceased, as the latter was coming towards him, to stop
where he was, raise his hands, or do the things a policeman is
trained to do, instead of mercilessly shooting him upon a mere
suspicion that the deceased was armed. Appellant, therefore, had
no justification at all in shooting the deceased.

On Evident Premeditation: Indeed, We find that the crime is not

attended by evidence premeditation. The rule is settled that the
qualifying circumstance of evidence premeditation is satisfactorily
established if it is proved that the accused had deliberately planned
to commit the crime and had persistently and continuously followed
it, notwithstanding that he had ample and sufficient time to allow
his conscience to overcome the determination of his will, if he had
desired it, after meditation and reflection. In the instant case, there
is no doubt of the determination of the accused to kill the deceased,
as shown by this utterances soon after he was disarmed at the
"paitikan," but no sufficient time had elapsed from its inception to
its fulfilment for meditation and reflection to justify a finding of
evidence premeditation.

On Treachery: However, there is treachery because the accused

fired at the victim who, with hands upraised, was kneeling before
the accused and pleading that his life be spared. Treachery,
therefore, qualifies the crime to murder.

On Provocation: It can hardly be said that the utterances of the

deceased, that the appellant is strict, would constitute a sufficient
cause for the defendant to shoot the deceased. Besides, these
statements, if indeed said, did not immediately precede the criminal
act since the deceased was slain after he had fled to the house of
Juan Tan and thence to Taft Street where the accused was waiting
for him.

On Voluntary Surrender: Nor is the appellant entitled to the

mitigating circumstance of voluntarily surrender. The testimony of
PC Corporal Serafin Estrella is very explicit that he arrested the
accused and brought him to the municipal hall. Besides, in his own
spontaneous declaration, the appellant admitted that he "was
arrested by Cpl. ESTRELLA & Pfc BUGNA."
People v. Pinto, Jr.

Facts: As an aftermath of the mission of the Legazpi City Police

Department to serve on Christmas day in 1970 a search warrant on
Francisco Bello who was allegedly training a private army,
patrolmen Daniel Pinto, Jr. and Narciso Buenaflor, Jr. were found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the then Circuit Criminal Court in
said city, of killing not only Bello but also 9-year-old
Richard Tiongson and Rosalio Andes and seriously wounding Maria
Theresa Tiongson.

The Legazpi City Police secured from the City Court of Legazpi a

warrant for the search of the house and premises of
Francisco Bello in Mariawa, Legazpi City on the ground that the
police had probable cause to believe that  Bello illegally possessed
a garand rifle, a thompson submachinegun and two automatic
pistols.

Upon receipt of the search warrant, the Chief of Police, Dr.

Solomon Adornado, called his officers to a "confidential conference"
at the residence of Mayor Gregorio Imperial.

The Chief of Police was assisted by Major Alfredo Molo, head of the

intelligence division of the city police, in briefing the group on how
to serve the search warrant and to arrest Bello as the latter had
been identified as the one who shot Salustiano Botin the night
before. At the time of the briefing, no warrant of arrest had yet
been issued against Bello.

The policemen were divided into three teams and around five
members of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) Team 3 was placed
under the charge of Sgt. Salvador de la Paz with a policeman
named Luna and appellants Buenaflor and Pinto as
members. Wilfredo Romero was the PC member assigned to the
team. Except for Romero and Pinto who were each armed with a
carbine, the policemen of Team 3 each carried a .38 caliber pistol.

Tiongson Incident: Loaded in four vehicles, the three teams

proceeded to barrio Homapon arriving there at around seven o'clock
in the evening.  The four vehicles met at the junction
of Homapon and the road to Mariawa.  They had decided to ride on
the way to Mariawa when one of the jeeps bogged down because of
the muddy road.  Hence, the three teams had to walk in single file
on the right side of the road with the teams maintaining a distance
of around ten meters between them.

Romero noticed the members of his team running.  He ran with

them and then he heard someone shout "Pondo!" (stop).  The shout
was followed by a shot and then a burst of gunfire.  The team had
by then deployed to the right side of the road. When Romero heard
the gunburst, he saw "flashes of fire" "just in front" of him or from
the place where Buenaflor was.

The area where the team deployed was lower in elevation than the
road but Romero heard the rumbling of a jeep going towards the
direction of Homapon when he heard the burst of gunfire and saw
the flashes of fire from the direction of Buenaflor.

On the jeep which passed by the deployed policemen were Fr.

Felix Capellan, Mrs. Zenaida Stilianopolous Tiongson, her six
children and the driver.  They had just come from a lechonada party
in the hacienda in Mariawa of Mrs. Purificacion Napal Anduiza, the
mother of Francisco Bello.

When Fr. Capellan decided to go back to his parish,

the Anduizas offered their jeep for his transportation.Seated on the
front seat of the "McArthur type" jeep which had only a canvass top
but no cover on the sides and back, were the driver,
Mrs. Tiongson with a child on her lap and
Fr. Capellan.Richard Tiongson was seated on the steel seat behind
the driver while his sister Maria Theresa was beside him. The three
other children were also seated at the back.

After crossing the creek on their way to Homapon and as the driver

"changed to high gear with a dual", Mrs. Tiongson saw blinking
lights some 300 yards ahead.Fearing that there might be "people
with bad intentions" or hold-uppers, Fr. Capellan told the driver to
go faster. Then Fr. Capellan heard one shot and after a few seconds
and around 50 meters ahead, there was rapid firing with some of
the bullets hitting the jeep. According to Mrs. Tiongson, the widow
of Col. Angel Tiongson of the PC, the rapid firing sounded
"automatic". The firing came from the left rear side of the jeep.

Before they were fired upon, Maria Theresa saw a man lying flat on
his stomach while holding a gun on the left side of the road just
ahead of the jeep. Through the light of the jeep, Maria Theresa
noticed that the man was wearing a jacket and a hat and he was on
the shoulder of the road. After passing the man, the rapid firing
ensued.  Richard said "ugh" and fell on the floor of the jeep.  Maria
Theresa was about to hold Richard when she felt herself hit at the
buttocks.  Then they all screamed.

The jeep continued its fast uphill climb until it reached a level area
and almost fell into a ditch were it not for a clump of banana
plants.  The jeep came to a full stop.  Fr. Capellan saw three men
with flashlights but he could not distinguish their faces as it was
dark.  Mrs. Tiongson saw a PC jeep and some cars and, believing
that one of the cars was that of the Mayor, she called Tia Citang,
the mother of the mayor, at the same time identifying herself. She
must have managed to take Richard from the jeep and was cuddling
him on the ground near the left rear end of the jeep when she
requested Fr. Capellan to administer extreme unction on
Richard.  As Fr. Capellan had no holy oil, he gave the boy
absolution.

Even after Mrs. Tiongson had identified herself as the widow of

Col. Tiongson to the men around, nobody listened to her appeal for
help.  When she approached Chief of Police Adornado, she hit him
and asked him why they shot her and her companions.  The Chief of
Police replied that the shooting was no longer his fault because
Mrs. Tiongson and her companions did not stop when told to do
so.  She requested the Chief of Police for a car in which to take
Richard to the hospital or for a driver and even for a walkie-talkie so
she could talk to Mayor Imperial but the Chief of Police did not heed
her pleas.

A few minutes later, a jeep driven by

Fernando Anduisa arrived.  Mrs. Tiongson and her children boarded
the jeep.  At the intersection of the road to Legazpi City proper and
the road to Mariawa, the area was brightly lighted and armed men
ordered them to put their hands up.  They were told to alight from
the jeep to be searched but Mrs. Tiongson begged the lieutenant
manning the area to let them pass so they could bring her two
children to the hospital.

Richard and Maria Theresa were brought to the Sacred Heart Clinic
in Legazpi City.  Thirteen-year-old Maria Theresa was treated for a
gunshot wound at the "right upper quadrant of the right buttocks"

The attending physician decided not to extract the foreign body as

Maria Theresa was not a "very good surgical risk". She was later
brought by an army plane to the PC Station Hospital in
Camp Crame, Quezon City for further treatment and
hospitalization but the foreign body was never removed from her
pelvic area. Richard sustained a gunshot wound at the back about
the level of the 5th lumbar vertebrae. Richard was operated at the
hospital but he died at 8:45 the following morning due to massive
hemorrhage caused by the gunshot wound.

Meanwhile, according to Chief of Police Adornado, after the shooting

incident involving the Tiongsons, the police pursued their mission to
serve the search warrant on Bello.  When they
reached Bello's residence in Mariawa, they were met by a "volley of
fire." Suddenly, the house was lighted and a certain Escober met
him.  Although Bello and his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Anduiza, were
not around, the police searched the area and found a Japanese
Springfield rifle, ammunition of a garand rifle, ammunition of a
carbine, live ammunition for a .38 caliber pistol and 380 bullets for
an automatic pistol. Thereafter, the Chief of Police declared the
search terminated and the entire searching party left for
headquarters.

Bello Incident: The mission was to keep peace and order in the
specified place and to determine the whereabouts of Bello. For a
"convenient tactical deployment," Sgt. De la Paz further divided
Team 3 into three groups with patrolmen Buenaflor and Pinto
composing Group II.

At noontime of December 26, 1991, Francisco Bello, more popularly

known as Paquito, arrived at the residence of Inocencia Malbas. He
was with Inocencia's brother, Francisco Andes, Francisco's
son Ananias, and Leoncio Mostoles. Bello requested Inocencia and
her husband that he and his group be allowed to spend the night
in Inocencia's house.

Inocencia woke up at around 5:00 o'clock in the morning of

December 27, 1991.  At the sala, on her way from her room to the
kitchen, she saw Bello sleeping alone.  From the
kitchen, Inocencia went to the balcony through the sala.  On her
way back to the kitchen, she noticed that Bello, who was wearing a
red shirt and an underwear, had awakened.  Bello opened the
window, spat out and went to the balcony.  He reentered
the sala and, saying that it was cold, Bello put on his clothes and
pants.  He also wore his jacket.  He went back to the balcony and
asked for water.  Inocencia's husband gave Bello a glass of
water.  After gurgling, Bello placed the glass on the window sill and
asked Inocencia's husband for a cup of coffee.

nocencia's husband was about to offer Bello a cup of coffee when

she heard a successive burst of gunfire.  Bello, who was on the
balcony facing the copra kiln ("agonan") with his back towards
the pili tree, gradually fell to the floor with his hands above his
head.  Then there was another burst of gunfire.  From the
kitchen, Inocencia rushed to the door from where she saw a man
holding a long firearm, whom she later identified as Pinto, near
the pili tree which was around eight meters from where Bello was,
and another man, also holding a gun, crouching near the stairs.

Inocencia, with her two-year-old child in her arms, was about to

rush to Bello when her husband pulled her.  Just then a man,
whom Inocencia identified as Buenaflor, came up the house, pointed
a gun at Inocencia and her husband and told them to lay flat on the
floor.  The man asked them where the gun was.  Inocencia told him
that there was no gun in the house but then, when she looked
around, she saw a long firearm with its muzzle pointed upward
leaning against the wall near the door around two meters from
where Bello laid flat on his back.  Bello himself had a gun but it was
in its holster tucked on his waist.

When Francisco Andes went up the house, he

told Inocencia that Rosalio was dead Inocencia went near
the pili tree where Rosalio's body was, knelt down and asked the
man with a long firearm why he killed Rosalio.  The man answered
that Rosalio fought back.  However, Inocencia did not notice any
weapon near Rosalio's body.

Bello's hands and feet were tied together and a bamboo pole was
inserted between them so that two men, one of them being
Francisco Andes, could carry the cadaver. Bello died because of
"shock secondary to massive hemorrhage due to multiple gunshot
wounds". A former pilot and 28 years old at the time of his
death, Bello sustained a gunshot wound at the left temple, an inch
above the highest point of the pinna of the left ear. Bello had three
gunshot wounds on his chest. Rosalio Andes, 23 years old, also died
of shock due to multiple gunshot wounds.  A bullet entered his right
temporal area, macerated the brain, fractured both parietal bones
and exited at the left parietal bone.

Defense: Defendants Pinto and Buenaflor both denied having fired

at the jeep bearing the Tiongson family. Pinto, who admitted
carrying a caliber .30 carbine during the incident, testified that the
shooting occurred because the Tiongsons' jeep "was going towards"
them.
According to Pinto, when they reached Mariawa, it was he who fired
one shot in the air. After the search had been conducted
in Bello's premises, Team 3 was instructed by a "superior officer"
"to remain and maintain peace and order in (the) vicinity
including Mariawa". While he and Buenaflor were patrolling the
area, at around midnight, they "chanced upon a house"
wherein Bello and his group were staying.  They captured four
of Bello's bodyguards and tied them to a pili tree with the torn shirt
of one of the captives.
At daybreak, Pinto saw Bello smoking at the porch.  Buenaflor, who
was behind him, called Bello.  Then a single shot coming from the
house rang out.  It was answered by a burst of fire which Pinto
"presumed" came from Buenaflor.  By reflex action, Pinto
transferred from the pili tree to a nearby coconut tree.  But before
he reached the coconut tree, he saw a man with a bolo in his hand
running towards him.  As the man was menacingly near him, Pinto
shot him.

After a lull in the firing, he went up the house to look for Bellos'

other companions.  He saw the body of Bello on the porch and
"near" it was a garand which he took.  He also got Bello's short
firearm "from a holster." He turned over both the garand and the
short firearm to Buenaflor.Thereafter, the two dead person were
carried by the captured bodyguards to Mariawa.

On cross-examination, Pinto stated that he did not know that they

found Bello in an area which was beyond the jurisdiction
of Legazpi City.  He admitted that while they were instructed to
patrol the area, they were also told to effect the arrest of Bello even
if no complaint had been lodged against him.According to Pinto, of
the fifteen bullets in the magazine of his carbine, only two
remained.  He fired "most" of the thirteen shots during the
"Bello incident".

Pinto shot the man later identified as Rosalio Andes when he was at

a distance of around three meters.  Rosalio was "face-to-face" with
him when Pinto shot him.  As Rosalio did not fall from the first shot,
Pinto continued shooting him. When he went up the porch he saw
the garand "lying on the floor" but the gun tucked on Bello's waist
was still in its holster.

Contention: On the Tiongson incident, Pinto asserted that he did

not fire his carbine. When he saw the headlight of the Tiongsons'
jeep, he also saw a flashlight being waved.  A little later, he heard a
shout ordering the jeep to stop. For his part, Buenaflor declared
that during the mission to serve the search warrant on Bello, he
carried the ".38 caliber revolver Tel." (sic) which had been issued to
him by the Legazpi City Police Department.  He did not fire his gun
at the Tiongsons and, "as a matter of fact," he surrendered his
firearm for ballistic examination.

Like Pinto, on cross-examination, Buenaflor also asserted that he

did not fire his gun at the jeep carrying the Tiongsons. While
admitting that the person who led them to Bello had told them that
the latter was in Talahib, Buenaflor did not know that Talahib was a
barrio of Daraga, Albay and not of Legazpi City. He reiterated that
he shouted at Bello urging him to surrender but he was not able to
fire a warning shot or identify himself as a member of the police
force "because after the second shot there was already a burst of
gunfire".

As a result of this series of events, four

separate informations were filed against Pinto
and Buenaflor.

The information charging Pinto and Buenaflor with having

murdered Bello contains basically the same allegations. On August
24, 1971 two other informations were filed against Pinto
and Buenaflor:  one for the murder of Richard Tiongson and another
for the frustrated murder of Maria Theresa Tiongson.  On
arraignment, Pinto and Buenaflor both pleaded not guilty to all the
charges.
After trial, the trial court rendered the aforementioned judgment of
conviction.  For the killing of Bello and Andes, the trial court
appreciated evident premeditation as a qualifying circumstance and
treachery, nighttime and use of public position as aggravating
circumstances.  For the incident involving the Tiongson children, it
considered the crimes as qualified by treachery and aggravated by
the use of public position.
Issue: Should Pinto and Buenaflor be acquitted due to performance
of duty?
Held: NO. Admittedly, the appellants and the rest of the police
force involved, originally set out to perform a legal duty:  the
service of a search warrant on Bello.  In the process, however, the
appellants abused their authority resulting in unauthorized and
unlawful moves and consequences.  Armed with only a search
warrant and the oral order to apprehend Bello, they went beyond
the ambit of their mission and deprived  Bello and two other
persons of their lives.
A propensity for rash judgment was likewise amply shown at
the incident involving the Tiongson children.  Since the jeep
coming towards them was owned by the Anduizas, the appellants
acted obviously in the belief that Bello was its passenger and
posthaste they fired upon it even without any reasonable inquiry as
to the identity of its passengers. Instead of directing
aimless gunburst at the jeep, the most that they could have done
was to render the jeep immobile by shooting its tires.  That way,
they could have verified the identity of the passengers.
Appellants' stark denial of firing their guns upon the Tiongson family
falls flat in the face of various circumstantial evidence which point to
their culpability.  There is the unflinching testimony of Sgt. Romero
that he saw "flashes of fire" from the direction of Buenaflor as the
jeep bearing the Tiongsons passed by.  Said testimony was
corroborated by that of Rafael Jacob, the PC member of team 2,
that while no one in his team fired his gun, the "sporadic firing"
came from team 3 after the first burst of fire which occurred while
the jeep was "abreast of team 2".
All these pieces of circumstantial evidence point to no other
inference than that Pinto and Buenaflor fired their guns in defiance
of their superior officer's order only "to find the whereabouts"
of Bello and to desist from using their weapons "without clearance
from the Chief of Police". Since there is more than one circumstance
and the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven, the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Mamangun v. People

Facts: On September 12, 1994, Rufino Mamangun, then a police

officer, was charged before the Sandiganbayan with the crime of
Murder. On arraignment, petitioner, as accused below, duly assisted
by a counsel de oficio, entered a plea of "Not Guilty."

It is not disputed that on July 31, 1992, at about 8:00 in the

evening, in Brgy. Calvario, Meycauayan, Bulacan a certain Liberty
Contreras was heard shouting, "Magnanakaw Magnanakaw."
Several residents responded and thereupon chased the suspect who
entered the yard of Antonio Abacan and proceeded to the rooftop of
Abacan's house.

At about 9:00 o'clock that same evening, the desk officer of the
Meycauayan PNP Police Station, upon receiving a telephone call that
a robbery-holdup was in progress in Brgy. Calvario, immediately
contacted and dispatched to the scene the crew of Patrol Car No.
601 composed of Team Leader SPO1 Andres Legaspi, with PO2
Eugenio Aminas and herein petitioner PO2 Rufino S. Mamangun.
With the permission of Abacan, petitioner Mamangun, PO2 Diaz and
PO2 Cruz went to the rooftop of the house whereat the suspect was
allegedly taking refuge.

The three policemen, i.e., petitioner, Diaz and Cruz, each armed
with a drawn handgun, searched the rooftop. There, they saw a
man whom they thought was the robbery suspect. At that instance,
petitioner Mamangun, who was walking ahead of the group, fired
his handgun once, hitting the man. The man turned out to be Gener
Contreras (Contreras) who was not the robbery suspect.

Medical Examination: Contreras died from the gunshot wound.

The autopsy conducted by Dr. Benito B. Caballero. The cause of
death was "Shock due to massive external and internal hemorrhage
due to multiple gunshot wounds in the left arm side of the thorax,
penetrating the left lung and vertebral column." There were several
wounds caused by one (1) bullet.

From a layman's appreciation of the sketch, the bullet entered the

outer, upper left arm of the victim, exited through the inner side of
the said upper left arm, a little lower than the left armpit and the
slug lodging on the victim's back where it was recovered at the
vertebral column.

Version of the Prosecution: According to Ayson, the lone

eyewitness for the prosecution, he accompanied the three
policemen (Mamangun, Diaz and Cruz) to the rooftop of Abacan's
house. He was following petitioner Mamangun who was ahead of the
group. They passed through the second-floor door of the house to
the rooftop. He was beside Mamangun when they saw, some four to
five arms-length away, a man whom he (witness) recognized as
Gener Contreras. Mamangun pointed his .45 cal. pistol at the man,
who instantly exclaimed, "Hindi ako, hindi ako!," to which
Mamangun replied, "Anong hindi ako?" Before he (Ayson) could say
anything, Mamangun fired his gun, hitting the man who turned out
to be Contreras.

Version of Defense: PO2 Mamangun, along with PO2 Cruz and

PO2Diaz, denied the presence of Ayson at the rooftop during the
shooting incident. Corroborating one another, the three testified
that they were the only ones at the scene of the shooting, and that
it was dark. They claimed that each of them, with Mamangun on the
lead, went on separate directions around a water tank. As they met
each other at the other side of the tank, PO2 Cruz pointed to a
person crouching at the edge of the roof of the garage. Thinking
that the person was the suspect they were looking for, Mamangun
chased said person. They announced that they were police officers
but the person continued to run in a crouching position until
Mamangun caught up with him and shouted, "Pulis. Tigil,"
whereupon the person suddenly stopped, turned around, faced
Mamangun, and raised a stainless steel pipe towards the latter's
head but Mamangun was able to evade the attack. This prompted
Mamangun to shoot the person on the left arm. All three claimed
that it was only at this point that PO2 Cruz and Diaz approached
Contreras who told them, "Hindi ako. Hindi ako." Mamangun went
near Contreras and asked, "Why did you go to the rooftop? You
know there are policemen here." Contreras was thereafter brought
to the hospital where he died.

Sandiganbayan: after due proceedings, the Sandiganbayan came

out with its decision finding the petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of only the crime of Homicide. In so finding,
the Sandiganbayan did not appreciate the presence of the
aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and
abuse of superior strength to qualify the killing to Murder.

Issue: Should Mamangun be exonerated for such an act in

performance of duty?

Held: NO. Concededly, the first requisite (acted in the performance

of a duty) is present in this case. Petitioner, a police officer, was
responding to a robbery-holdup incident. His presence at the situs
of the crime was in accordance with the performance of his duty.
However, proof that the shooting and ultimate death of Contreras
was a necessary consequence of the due performance of his duty as
a policeman is essential to exempt him from criminal liability.

As we see it, petitioner's posturing that he shot Contreras because

the latter tried to strike him with a steel pipe was a mere
afterthought to exempt him from criminal liability.

We see no plausible basis to depart from the Sandiganbayan's

findings that there was no reason for the petitioner to shoot
Contreras. The latter was unarmed and had already uttered, "Hindi
po ako, Hindi po ako" before the petitioner fatally shot him on the
left arm. Prosecution witness Ayson, who was then behind the
petitioner when the latter shot Contreras, testified that to the
victim's utterances, the petitioner even responded, "Anong hindi
ako," and immediately shot Contreras.

Sandiganbayan averred in this wise: Besides being self-serving

(with respect to the accused) and biased (with respect to his co-
policemen-witnesses), We find (1) the claim of the accused and his
co-policemen-witnesses that the victim (Contreras) attacked the
said accused and (2) their seemingly "positive" identification
of the stainless steel pipe (more of a rod) as his weapon, to
be of doubtful credibility.

1. as claimed by accused PO2 Rufino Mamangun, that, as he was

about to catch up with said man, he shouted, "Pulis! Tigil!" With
all these introductions and forewarnings, it is utterly incredible
and contrary to human experience that, that man, later
identified to be Gener Contreras and admittedly not the person
they were looking for, purportedly armed only with a stainless
steel "lead" pipe (more of a rod) would suddenly stop, turn
around and attack one of the three policemen who were chasing
him.
2. When the victim (Gener Contreras) fell down after being shot by
accused PO2 Mamangun, and as the latter went near the fallen
victim, said accused asked, "Why did you go to the rooftop. You
know there are policemen here." He admits that he did not
ask the victim, "Why did you try to hit me, if you are not the
one?" This admission clearly belies the claim of the police-
witnesses that Gener Contreras attacked the accused policeman
with an iron pipe when he was shot, for the accused should have
asked the latter question.

3. The location of the entry of the bullet fired by accused

Mamangun which is at the outer left arm at about the
bicep of the victim and its trajectory as it penetrated his
body hitting his vital organs along the way belies the
claim of the accused that the victim was facing him and
had just missed his head with an iron pipe, as instead the
victim must have instinctively shielded his body with his left arm

Ratio: To be sure, acts in the fulfillment of a duty, without

more, do not completely justify the petitioner's firing the
fatal gunshot at the victim. True, petitioner, as one of the
policemen responding to a reported robbery then in progress, was
performing his duty as a police officer as well as when he was trying
to effect the arrest of the suspected robber and in the process,
fatally shoot said suspect, albeit the wrong man. However, in the
absence of the equally necessary justifying circumstance
that the injury or offense committed be the necessary
consequence of the due performance of such duty, there can
only be incomplete justification, a privileged mitigating
circumstance under Articles 13 and 69 of the Revised Penal
Code.

The Court finds no reversible error committed by the

Sandiganbayan in convicting the petitioner of the crime of Homicide
attended by the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete
justifying circumstance of having acted in the performance of his
duty as a policeman and the generic mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender.
Paera v. People

Facts: Petitioner was found guilty of three counts of grave threat.

As punong barangay of Mampas, Bacong, Negros Oriental,
petitioner Santiago Paera (petitioner) allocated his constituents’ use
of communal water coming from a communal tank by limiting
distribution to the residents of Mampas, Bacong. The tank sits on a
land located in the neighboring barangay of Mampas, Valencia and
owned by complainant Vicente Darong (Vicente), father of
complainant Indalecio Darong (Indalecio). Despite petitioner’s
scheme, Indalecio continued drawing water from the tank. On 7
April 1999, petitioner reminded Indalecio of the water distribution
scheme and cut Indalecio’s access.

The following day, petitioner inspected the tank after constituents

complained of water supply interruption. Petitioner discovered a tap
from the main line which he promptly disconnected. To stem the
flow of water from the ensuing leak, petitioner, using a borrowed
bolo, fashioned a wooden plug. It was at this point when Indalecio
arrived. What happened next is contested by the parties.

Prosecution: Paera without any warning, picked-up his bolo and

charged towards Indalecio, shouting "Patyon tikaw!" (I will kill
you!). Indalecio ran for safety, passing along the way his wife,
Diosetea Darong (Diosetea) who had followed him to the water
tank. Upon seeing petitioner, Diosetea inquired what was the
matter. Instead of replying, petitioner shouted "Wala koy gipili,
bisag babaye ka, patyon tikaw!" ("I don’t spare anyone, even if you
are a woman, I will kill you!"). Diosetea similarly scampered and
sought refuge in the nearby house of a relative. Unable to pursue
Diosetea, petitioner turned his attention back to Indalecio. As
petitioner chased Indalecio, he passed Vicente, and, recognizing the
latter, repeatedly thrust his bolo towards him, shouting "Bisag
gulang ka, buk-on nako imo ulo!" ("Even if you are old, I will crack
open your skull!").

Defense: It was Indalecio who threatened him with a bolo, angrily

inquiring why petitioner had severed his water connection. This left
petitioner with no choice but to take a defensive stance using the
borrowed bolo, prompting Indalecio to scamper.

Except for Vicente, who was seriously ill, the Darongs testified
during trial. Petitioner was the defense’s lone witness.

MCTC: The 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Valencia-Bacong,

Negros Oriental (MCTC) found petitioner guilty as charged.

RTC: The RTC affirmed the MCTC, sustaining the latter’s finding on
petitioner’s motive.

Issue: whether petitioner is guilty of three counts of Grave Threats.

Held: YES. Article 282 of the RPC holds liable for Grave Threats
"any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the
person x x x of the latter or his family of any wrong amounting to a
crime[.]" This felony is consummated "as soon as the threats come
to the knowledge of the person threatened."

Applying these parameters, it is clear that petitioner’s threat to kill

Indalecio and Diosetea and crack open Vicente’s skull are wrongs on
the person amounting to (at the very least) homicide and serious
physical injuries as penalized under the RPC. These threats were
consummated as soon as Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente heard
petitioner utter his threatening remarks. Having spoken the threats
at different points in time to these three individuals, albeit in rapid
succession, petitioner incurred three separate criminal liabilities.

On petitioner’s theory: Petitioner’s theory fusing his liability to

one count of Grave Threats because he only had "a single mental
resolution, a single impulse, and single intent" 13 to threaten the
Darongs assumes a vital fact: that he had foreknowledge of
Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente’s presence near the water tank in
the morning of 8 April 1999. The records, however, belie this
assumption. Thus, in the case of Indalecio, petitioner was as much
surprised to see Indalecio as the latter was in seeing petitioner
when they chanced upon each other near the water tank. Similarly,
petitioner came across Diosetea as he was chasing Indalecio who
had scampered for safety. Lastly, petitioner crossed paths with
Vicente while running after Indalecio. Indeed, petitioner went to the
water tank not to execute his "single intent" to threaten Indalecio,
Diosetea, and Vicente but to investigate a suspected water tap.

On Justifying Circumstances: There is likewise no merit in

petitioner’s claim of having acted to "defend[] and protect[]
the water rights of his constituents" in the lawful exercise of his
office as punong barangay. The defense of stranger rule under
paragraph 3, Article 11 of the RPC, which negates criminal liability
of –

[a]nyone who acts in the defense of the person or rights of a

stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in
the first circumstance of this article are present and that the person
defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil
motive.1avvphi1

requires proof of (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;

(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
it; and (3) absence of evil motives such as revenge and
resentment. None of these requisites obtain here. Not one of
the Darongs committed acts of aggression against third
parties’ rights when petitioner successively threatened them
with bodily harm. Indeed, all of them were performing
ordinary, peaceful acts – Indalecio was standing near the water
tank, Diosetea was walking towards Indalecio and Vicente was
standing in the vegetable garden a few meters away. With the
element of unlawful aggression absent, inquiry on the
reasonableness of the means petitioner used to prevent or repel it is
rendered irrelevant.

Lastly, the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty or exercise

of office under the 5th paragraph of Article 11 of the RPC lies upon
proof that the offense committed was the necessary consequence of
the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of
office. Arguably, petitioner acted in the performance of his
duty to "ensure delivery of basic services"  when he barred
the Darongs’ access to the communal water tank.
Nevertheless, petitioner exceeded the bounds of his office
when he successively chased the Darongs with a bladed
weapon, threatening harm on their persons, for violating his
order.