Yapyuco vs Sandiganbayan

Facts:
The accused-petitioners were Salvador Yapyuco, Jr. (Yapyuco) and Generoso Cunanan, Jr.
(Cunanan) and Ernesto Puno (Puno) who were members of the Integrated National Police (INP) stationed
at the Sindalan Substation in San Fernando, Pampanga; Jose Pamintuan (Pamintuan) and Mario Reyes,
who were barangay captains of Quebiawan and Del Carmen, respectively; Ernesto Puno, Andres Reyes
and Virgilio Manguerra (Manguerra), Carlos David, Ruben Lugtu, Moises Lacson (Lacson), Renato Yu,
Jaime Pabalan (Pabalan) and Carlos David (David), who were either members of the Civil Home Defense
Force (CHDF) or civilian volunteer officers in Barangays Quebiawan, Del Carmen and Telebastagan. They
allegedly received information concerning a reported presence of armed NPA members in Quebiawan. It
was so unfortunate that the Tamaraw jeepney conveying the victims would make an inevitable turn to which
the accused all await. Believing that the victims were the armed NPA members, the accused opened fire
to the passengers of the said Tamaraw. Such shooting incident on April 5, 1988 in Barangay
Quebiawan, San Fernando, Pampanga caused the death of Leodevince Licup (Licup) and injured Noel
Villanueva (Villanueva). The accused were all charged with murder, multiple attempted murder and
frustrated murder. Issue:
WON the theory of mistaken belief is applicable in the present case.
Ruling:
At this juncture, we find that the invocation of the concept of mistake of fact faces certain failure. In
the context of criminal law, a mistake of fact is a misapprehension of a fact which, if true, would have
justified the act or omission which is the subject of the prosecution. Generally, a reasonable mistake of fact Commented [RM1]: Concept of mistake of fact

is a defense to a charge of crime where it negates the intent component of the crime. It may be a defense
even if the offense charged requires proof of only general intent. The inquiry is into the mistaken belief of
the defendant, and it does not look at all to the belief or state of mind of any other person. A proper
invocation of this defense requires (a) that the mistake be honest and reasonable; (b) that it be a matter of
fact; and (c) that it negate the culpability required to commit the crime or the existence of the mental state
which the statute prescribes with respect to an element of the offense. Commented [RM2]: Mistake of fact requisites pero dapat
walag bad faith and negligence

Besides, as held in People v. Oanis and Baxinela v. People, the justification of an act, which is
otherwise criminal on the basis of a mistake of fact, must preclude negligence or bad faith on the part of
the accused. Thus, Ah Chong further explained that

The question then squarely presents itself, whether in this jurisdiction one can be
held criminally responsible who, by reason of a mistake as to the facts, does an act for
which he would be exempt from criminal liability if the facts were as he supposed them to
be, but which would constitute the crime of homicide or assassination if the actor had
known the true state of the facts at the time when he committed the act. To this question
we think there can be but one answer, and we hold that under such circumstances there
 is no criminal liability, provided always that the alleged ignorance or mistake of fact was
not due to negligence or bad faith.

CASE OF CALL OF DUTY

SALVADOR YAPYUCO y G.R. Nos. 120744-46

- versus -

HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and

FACTS:

The cases are predicated on a shooting incident on April 5, 1988 in Barangay Quebiawan, San Fernando,
Pampanga which caused the death of Leodevince Licup (Licup) and injured Noel Villanueva (Villanueva).
Accused were petitioners Salvador Yapyuco, Jr. (Yapyuco) and Generoso Cunanan, Jr. (Cunanan) and
Ernesto Puno (Puno) who were members of the Integrated National Police (INP) stationed at the Sindalan
Substation in San Fernando, Pampanga; Jose Pamintuan (Pamintuan) and Mario Reyes, who were
barangay captains of Quebiawan and Del Carmen, respectively; Ernesto Puno, Andres Reyes and Virgilio
Manguerra (Manguerra), Carlos David, Ruben Lugtu, Moises Lacson (Lacson), Renato Yu, Jaime Pabalan
(Pabalan) and Carlos David (David), who were either members of the Civil Home Defense Force (CHDF)
or civilian volunteer officers in Barangays Quebiawan, Del Carmen and Telebastagan. They were all
charged with murder, multiple attempted murder and frustrated murder in three Informations, the inculpatory
portions of which read:

Criminal Case No. 16612:

That on or about the 5th day of April 1988, in Barangay Quebiawan, San Fernando, Pampanga,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, all public
officers, being then policemen, Brgy. Captains, Brgy. Tanod and members of the Civil Home Defense
Force (CHDF), respectively, confederating and mutually helping one another, and while responding to
information about the presence of armed men in said barangay and conducting surveillance thereof, thus
committing the offense in relation to their office, did then and there, with treachery and evident
premeditation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with deliberate intent to take the life of Leodevince
S. Licup, attack the latter with automatic weapons by firing directly at the green Toyota Tamaraw jitney
ridden by Leodevince S. Licup and inflicting multiple gunshot wounds which are necessarily mortal on the
different parts of the body, thereby causing the direct and immediate death of the latter.

On the same day, and with the same intent to take life and attack Eduardo S. Flores, Alejandro R. de
Vera, Restituto G. Calma and Raul V. Panlican also, Noel C. Villanueva boarded on the same colored
green Toyota Tamaraw by using firing weapons; although three are all same criminal cases, they were
filed directly to the above-named accused. The criminal cases numbers; 16613 and 16614.

Yapyuco who was then allegedly adversed entered individual pleas of not guilty. A month later, Yapyuco
voluntarily surrendered to the authorities, and at his arraignment likewise entered a negative plea . In the
meantime, Mario Reyes, Andres Reyes, David, Lugtu, Lacson, Yu and Manguerra jointly filed a Motion for
Bail relative to Criminal Case No. 16612. On May 10, 1991, the Sandiganbayan granted bail in Criminal
Case No. 16612. Yapyuco likewise applied for bail on May 15, 1991 and the same was also granted on
May 21, 1991. Pamintuan, same as Pabalan who died earlier; died on November 21, 1992, and accordingly,
the charges against him were dismissed.

The prosecution established that in the evening of April 5, 1988, Villanueva, Flores, Calma, De Vera,
Panlican and Licup (victims) were at the residence of Salangsang as guests at the barrio fiesta celebrations
between 5:00 and 7:30 p.m.. The company decided to leave at around 7:30 p.m., shortly after the relig ious
procession had passed. As they were all intoxicated, Salangsang reminded Villanueva, who was on the
wheel, to drive carefully and watch out for potholes and open canals on the road. With Licup in the
passenger seat and the rest of his companions at the back of his Tamaraw jeepney, Villanueva allegedly
proceeded at 5-10 kph with headlights dimmed. Suddenly, as they were approaching a curve on the road,
they met a burst of gunfire and instantly, Villanueva and Licup were both wounded and bleeding profuse ly.

In open court, Flores executed a sketch depicting the relative location of the Tamaraw jeepney on the road,
the residence of Salangsang where they had come from and the house situated on the right side of the
road right after the curve where the jeepney had taken a left turn; he identified said house to be that of a
certain Lenlen Naron where the gunmen allegedly took post and opened fire at him and his companions.
He could not tell how many firearms were used. He recounted that after the shooting, he, unaware that
Licup and Villanueva were wounded, jumped out of the jeepney when he saw from behind them Pamintuan
emerging from the yard of Narons house. Frantic and shaken, he instantaneously introduced himself and
his companions to be employees of San Miguel Corporation but instead, Pamintuan corrected them for not
stopping when flagged. At this point, he was distracted when Villanueva cried out and told him to summon
Salangsang for help as he (Villanueva) and Licup were wounded. He dashed back to Salangsangs house
as instructed and, returning to the scene, he observed that petitioner Yu was also there, and Villanueva
and Licup were being loaded into a Sarao jeepney to be taken to the hospital. This was corroborated by
Villanueva who stated that as soon as the firing had ceased, two armed men, together with Pamintuan,
approached them and transferred him and Licup to another jeepney and taken to the nearby St. Francis
Hospital.

Flores claimed that all the accused in the case had not been known to him prior to the incident, except for
Pamintuan whom he identified to be his wifes uncle and with whom he denied having had any rift nor with
the other accused for that matter, which would have otherwise inspired ill motives. He claimed the bullet
holes on the Tamaraw jeepney were on the passenger side and that there were no other bullet holes at the
back or in any other portion of the vehicle.

Yapyuco only took stand for defense, narrated that in the afternoon of April 5, 1988, he and his men were
investigating a physical injuries case when Yu suddenly received a summon for police assistance from
David, who supposedly was instructed by Pamintuan, concerning a reported presence of armed NPA
members in Quebiawan. Yapyuco allegedly called on their main station in San Fernando for reinforcement
but at the time no additional men could be dispatched. Hence, he decided to respond and instructed his
men to put on their uniforms and bring their M-16 rifles with them.

Yapyuco continued that at the place appointed, he and his group met with Pamintuan who told him that he
had earlier spotted four (4) men carrying long firearms. As if sizing up their collective strength, Pamintuan
allegedly intimated that he and barangay captain Mario Reyes of nearby Del Carmen had also brought in a
number of armed men and that there were likewise Cafgu members convened at the residence of Naron.
Moments later, Pamintuan announced the approach of his suspects, hence Yapyuco, Cunanan and Puno
took post in the middle of the road at the curve where the Tamaraw jeepney conveying the victims would
make an inevitable turn. As the jeepney came much closer, Pamintuan announced that it was the target
vehicle, so he, with Cunanan and Puno behind him, allegedly flagged it down and signaled for it to stop. He
claimed that instead of stopping, the jeepney accelerated and swerved to its left. This allegedly inspired
him, and his fellow police officers Cunanan and Puno, to fire warning shots but the jeepney continued
pacing forward, hence they were impelled to fire at the tires thereof and instantaneously, gunshots allegedly
came bursting from the direction of Narons house directly at the subject jeepney.
Yapyuco recalled that Flores, exclaimed that they were employees of San Miguel Corporation. Holding their
fire, they searched the vehicle and found no firearms but two injured men whom they loaded them to jeep
and brought to hospital. From there he and his men returned to the scene supposedly to investigate and
look for the people who fired directly at the jeepney. They found no one; the Tamaraw jeepney was likewise
gone.

That night, he said, his group which responded to the scene were twelve (12) in all, comprised of Cunanan
and Puno from the Sindalan Police Substation, the team composed of Pamintuan and his men, as well as
the team headed by Captain Mario Reyes. He admitted that all of them, including himself, were armed. He
denied that they had committed an ambuscade because otherwise, all the occupants of the Tamaraw
jeepney would have been killed. He said that the shots which directly hit the passenger door of the jeepney
did not come from him or from his fellow police officers but rather from Cafgu members assembled in the
residence of Naron, inasmuch as said shots were fired only when the jeepney had gone past the spot on
the road where they were assembled.

Issue: Whether or not Yapyuco and his men and the offense committed is the necessary consequence of
the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right.

Whether or not they had deliberately ambushed the victims with the intent of killing them.

Held: The Sandiganbayan reduced the basic issue to whether the accused had acted in the regular and
lawful performance of their duties in the maintenance of peace and order either as barangay officials and
as members of the police and the CHDF, and hence, could take shelter in the justifying circumstance
provided in Article 11 (5) of the Revised Penal Code:

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL

Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal liability:

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

With the evidence in hand, it found Yapyuco, Cunanan, Puno, Manguera and Mario and Andres Reyes
guilty as co-principals in the separate offense of homicide for the eventual death of Licup (instead of murder
as charged in Criminal Case No. 16612) and of attempted homicide for the injury sustained by Villanueva
(instead of frustrated murder as charged in Criminal Case No. 16614), and acquitted the rest in those cases.
It acquitted all of them of attempted murder charged in Criminal Case No. 16613 in respect of Flores,
Panlican, De Vera and Calma.

The availability of the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office under
Article 11 (5) of the Revised Penal Code rests on proof that (a) the accused acted in the performance of
his duty or in the lawful exercise of his right or office, and (b) the injury caused or the offense committed is
the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or
office. The justification is based on the complete absence of intent and negligence on the part of the Commented [RM3]: Fulfillment of duty and lawful
accused, inasmuch as guilt of a felony connotes that it was committed with criminal intent or with fault or exercise of right or office
negligence. Where invoked, this ground for non-liability amounts to an acknowledgment that the accused
has caused the injury or has committed the offense charged for which, however, he may not be penalized
because the resulting injury or offense is a necessary consequence of the due performance of his duty or
the lawful exercise of his right or office. Thus, it must be shown that the acts of the accused relative to the
crime charged were indeed lawfully or duly performed; the burden necessarily shifts on him to prove such
hypothesis.

We find that the requisites for justification under Article 11 (5) of the Revised Penal Code do not obtain in
this case.
The undisputed presence of all the accused at the situs of the incident is a legitimate law enforcement
operation. No objection is strong enough to defeat the claim that all of them – who were either police and
barangay officers or CHDF members tasked with the maintenance of peace and order – were bound to, as
they did, respond to information of a suspected rebel infiltration in the locality. While, it may certainly be
argued that rebellion is a continuing offense, it is interesting that nothing in the evidence suggests that the
accused were acting under an official order to open fire at or kill the suspects under any and all
circumstances. Even more telling is the absence of reference to the victims having launched such
aggression as would threaten the safety of any one of the accused, or having exhibited such defiance of
authority that would have instigated the accused, particularly those armed, to embark on a violent attack
with their firearms in self-defense.

But whether or not the passengers of the subject jeepney were NPA members and whether or not they
were at the time armed, are immaterial in the present inquiry inasmuch as they do not stand as accused in
the prosecution at hand. Besides, even assuming that they were as the accused believed them to be, the
actuations of these responding law enforcers must inevitably be ranged against reasonable expectations
that arise in the legitimate course of performance of policing duties. The rules of engagement, of which
every law enforcer must be thoroughly knowledgeable and for which he must always exercise the highest
caution, do not require that he should immediately draw or fire his weapon if the person to be accosted
does not heed his call. Pursuit without danger should be his next move, and not vengeance for personal
feelings or a damaged pride. Police work requires nothing more than the lawful apprehension of suspects,
since the completion of the process pertains to other government officers or agencies.

The records disclose no ill motives attributed to petitioners by the prosecution. It is interesting that, in
negating the allegation that they had by their acts intended to kill the occupants of the jeepney, petitioners
turn to their co-accused Pamintuan, whose picture depicted in the defense evidence is certainly an ugly
one: petitioners affidavits as well as Yapyucos testimony are replete with suggestions that it was Pamintuan
alone who harbored the motive to ambush the suspects as it was he who their (petitioners) minds that which
they later on conceded to be a mistaken belief as to the identity of the suspects. Cinco, for one, stated in
court that Pamintuan had once reported to him that Flores, a relative of his (Pamintuan), was frequently
meeting with NPA members and that the San Miguel Corporation plant where the victims were employed
was being penetrated by NPA members. He also affirmed Yapyucos claim that there had been a number
of ambuscades launched against members of law enforcement in Quebiawan and in the neighboring areas
supposedly by NPA members at around the time of the incident. But as the Sandiganbayan pointed out, it
is unfortunate that Pamintuan had died during the pendency of these cases even before his opportunity to
testify in court emerged.

WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are DENIED. The joint decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case
Nos. 16612, 16613 and 16614, dated June 27, 1995, are hereby AFFIRMED with the following
MODIFICATIONS:

(a) In Criminal Case No. 16612, petitioners are sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as the minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, as the maximum; in Criminal Case No. 16614, the indeterminate sentence is hereby modified to
Two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as the maximum, and Six (6) months of arresto
mayor, as the minimum.

(b) Petitioners are DIRECTED to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of Leodevince Licup in the
amount of P77,000.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 in moral damages, as well as Noel Villanueva, in
the amount of P51,700.00 as actual and compensatory damages, and P20,000.00 as moral damages.

SO ORDERED.
(Inclusion: Justifying circumstance; lawful exercise of right. The availability of the justifying circumstance o f
fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office under Article 11 (5) of the Revised Penal Code rests
on proof that (a) the accused acted in the performance of his duty or in the lawful exercise of his right or
office, and (b) the injury caused or the offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due
performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. The justification is based on the
complete absence of intent and negligence on the part of the accused, inasmuch as guilt of a felony
connotes that it was committed with criminal intent or with fault or negligence.