People vs.

Ulep
G.R. 132547 Sep 20, 2000
People vs. Ernesto UlepG.R. no. 132547September 20, 2000

FACTS:

SPO1 Ernesto Ulep is found guilty for the murder of Buenaventura Wapili. The case is inevitably subjected
for review to the Supreme Court due to the imposed penalty of death.

The deceased was not feeling well and talking insensibly to himself inside the room. After a little while he
was smashing the furniture and acting like crazy. His brother in-law named Dario tried to pacify him but
he failed that is why he asked for some help from their neighbor – a policewoman. This policewoman
radioed SPO1 Ernesto Ulep, SPO1 Edilberto Espadera and SPO2 Crispin Pillo. The three responding
policemen were armed with M-16 rifles. SPO1 Ulep fired a warning shot and told the victim to put down
his weapon otherwise he will be shot. However, the victim refused and instead advanced towards the
police officers. SPO1 Ulep shot the victim. As the victim slumped to the ground, SPO1 Ulep came closer
and fired another bullet into his head. The case was filed against SPO1 Ulep through the office of the
Ombudsman for the Military. The accused argued that he was not guilty since he acted in self-defense.

Issues:

Whether or not the circumstance of fulfillment of duty should be appreciated in the case.

Ruling:

No. since the second requisite is absent which states that the injury caused or the offense committed is
the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
In this case, when SPO1 shot the victim in the head even the latter slumped to the ground is unreasonable
act. However, when the accused fired a warning shot, it shows that he has no motive and intention to kill
the victim. The court reiterated that the appellant’s decision to kill was made in an instant and the victim’s
helpless position was merely incidental to his having been previously shot. In this respect, there is an
incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty which is deemed as special or privileged
mitigating circumstance. Such circumstance reduces the penalty by one or two degrees than that
prescribed by law in accordance to Article 69 of the RPC. In addition, the court acknowledged the presence
of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

The Supreme Court held that SPO1 ERNESTO ULEP is found guilty of HOMICIDE, instead of Murder, and is
sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years, two (2) months and ten (10) days of prision
correccional medium as minimum, to six (6) years, four (4) months and twenty (20) days of prision mayor
minimum as maximum. He is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of Buenaventura Wapili in the amount
of P50,000.00, and to pay the costs.