JAQ

Case: RUFINO S. MAMANGUN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:
Mamangun (Petitioner) was charged for murder. A certain Liberty Contreras was heard shouting, “Magnanakaw…
Magnanakaw.” Suspect then entered the yard of Antonio Abacan and proceeded to his rooftop. The police were informed and upon
arrival, with the permission of Abacan, Petitioner and his co-officers, Diaz and Cruz went to where the suspect was allegedly taking
refuge. Petitioner, Diaz and Cruz, each armed with a drawn gun, searched the rooftop. Then they saw a man whom they thought was the
suspect. Petitioner fired his gun once, hitting the man but it turned out to be Gener Contreras (Contreras) who was not the robbery
suspect. Contreras died from the gunshot wound.
Ayson, the lone eye witness for the prosecution, claims to have been beside him when the petitioner pointed his gun at the man,
who exclaimed, “Hindi ako, hindi ako!” Then petitioner replied, “Anong hindi ako?” and shot Cantreras. However, petitioner, cruz and
diaz denied the presence of Ayson and avers that they were the only ones at the scene and it was dark. They claimed that Petitioner was
on the lead and went separate directions around a water tank. They saw a person crouching but ran. Petitioner in pursuit caught up and
shouted, “pulis tigil!” then the person stopped, turned around, faced petitioner, and raised a stainless-steel pipe towards petitioner’s head
but petitioner evaded the attack and shot Cantreras on the left arm. All three officers claimed that only at this part Cantreras exclaimed,
“hindi ako hindi ako”. Sandiganbayan ruled the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt with the crime of homicide and did not
appreciate the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength to qualify
the killing to Murder.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the shooting was justified by self-defense, and ruled instead that the crime of
Homicide was attended by an incomplete justifying circumstance of the petitioner having acted in the performance of his duty as a
policeman, and also appreciated in his favor the generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Petitioner raised the issue to
the Supreme Court alleging the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error in failing apply Article 11 par 5 of the RPC, which would
have absolved him from criminal liability on the basis of his submission that the shooting in question was done in the performance of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

ISSUES: Whether or not petitioner can claim the justifying circumstance of lawful performance of a duty.
DECISION:
No. The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty may be invoked only after the defense successfully proves that: (1) the
accused acted in the performance of a duty; and (2) the injury inflicted or offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due
performance or lawful exercise of such duty. Having admitted the fatal shooting of Contreras, petitioner is charged with the burden of
adducing convincing evidence to show that the killing was done in the fulfillment of his duty as a policeman. 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.
Self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated as a valid justifying circumstance in this case. From the
established facts, the most important element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim to justify a claim of self defense was
absent. Lacking this essential and primary element of unlawful aggression, petitioner's plea of self-defense, complete or incomplete,
must have to fail.
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. All told, we find 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.

1
UPC