SALVADOR YAPYUCO y ENRIQUEZ vs.

also there and he, together with Pamintuan,

HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE transferred Villanueva and Licup to a Sarao jeepney
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and taken to the nearby St. Francis Hospital. Inside
the jeepney, it was observed that two men, each
MARIO D. REYES, ANDRES S. REYES and holding long firearms, seated beside the driver. As
VIRGILIO A. MANGUERRA vs. HONORABLE soon as he and his companions had been dropped off
SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE at the hospital, the driver of the Sarao jeepney
PHILIPPINES immediately drove off together with his two armed
companions. He claimed that all the accused in the
case had not been known to him prior to the incident,
GERVACIO B. CUNANAN, JR. and ERNESTO except for Pamintuan whom he identified to be his
PUNO vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and wife’s uncle and with whom he denied having had any
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES rift nor with the other accused for that matter, which
would have otherwise inspired ill motives. 
FACTS:
Salangsang, who arrived at the scene, saw a
A shooting incident transpired on April 5, 1988 in congregation of more or less six people inside the
Barangay Quebiawan, San Fernando, Pampanga house and Mario Reyes who was on the wheel of an
which caused the death of Leodevince Licup and owner-type jeepney idling in front of the ill-fated
injured Noel Villanueva. Accused were petitioners Tamaraw. It was the same jeepney which was
Salvador Yapyuco, Jr., Generoso Cunanan, Jr. and frequently used by Yapyuco in patrolling the
Ernesto Puno who were members of the Integrated barangay. It was further observed Salangsang
National Police (INP) stationed at the Sindalan observed that the place of the incident was dark
Substation in San Fernando, Pampanga; Jose because the electric post in front of Naron’s house
Pamintuan (dead already) and Mario Reyes, who was strangely not lit and that none of the neighboring
were barangay captains of Quebiawan and Del houses was illuminated.
Carmen, respectively; Ernesto Puno, Andres Reyes,
Virgilio Manguerra, Ruben Lugtu, Moises Lacson, Daisy Dabor, the forensic chemist, found the
Renato Yu, Jaime Pabalan (died earlier on June 12, suspected firearms positive for gunpowder residue.
1990) and Carlos David, who were either members of She also found 11 bullet holes on it, most of which
the Civil Home Defense Force (CHDF) or civilian had punctured the door at the passenger side of the
volunteer officers in Barangays Quebiawan, Del vehicle at oblique and perpendicular directions,
Carmen and Telebastagan. They were all charged meaning, the bullets might have been fired while the
with murder, multiple attempted murder and frustrated jeepney was either at a standstill or moving forward in
murder in 3 Informations. After having voluntarily a straight line, or gradually making a turn at the curve
surrendered to the authorities, the accused entered on the road.
individual pleas of not guilty.
Dr. Pedro Solis, Jr., medico-legal consultant, noted
The prosecution established that in the evening of nothing serious in Villanueva’s wounds and that the
April 5, 1988, Villanueva, Licup and 4 other incapacity would last between 10 and 30 days only.
companions were at the residence of Salangsang as With respect to Licup, Dr. Solis noted a lacerated
guests at the barrio fiesta celebration. As they left the wound at the right temporal region of the head – one
residence at 7:30 pm, Villanueva drove a Tamaraw consistent with being hit by a hard and blunt object
jeepney at 5-10 kph with headlights dimmed while and not a bullet. He noted three (3) gunshot wounds
Licup was in the passenger seat and the rest of his the locations of which suggested that Licup was
companions at the back. Suddenly, as they were upright when fired upon from the front.
approaching a left curve on the road, they met a burst
of gunfire and instantly, Villanueva and Licup were Of all the accused, only Yapyuco, the commander of
both wounded and bleeding profusely. the Sindalan Police Substation, took the stand for the
defense. He narrated that in the afternoon of April 5,
Flores (one of the 4) and Villanueva, contrary to what 1988, he and his men received a summon for police
the defense would claim, allegedly did not see any assistance from David, who supposedly was
one on the road flag them down. No warning shot was instructed by Pamintuan, concerning a reported
given After jumping out of the jeepney, Flores saw presence of armed NPA members in Quebiawan.
from behind Pamintuan emerging from the house of Yapyuco allegedly called on their main station for
Lenlen Naron on the right side of the road right after reinforcement but no additional men could be
the curve where the jeepney had taken a left turn. dispatched. Hence, he decided to respond and
Frantic and shaken, he instantaneously introduced instructed his men to put on their uniforms and bring
himself and his companions to be employees of San their M-16 rifles with them. At the place appointed, he
Miguel Corporation but instead, Pamintuan reproved and his group met with Pamintuan who told him that
them for not stopping when flagged. Petitioner Yu was he had earlier spotted 4 men carrying long firearms.
Moments later, Pamintuan announced the approach incident could not have been the product of a well-
of his suspects, hence, Yapyuco, Cunanan and Puno planned and well-coordinated police operation but
took post in the middle of the road at the curve where was the result of either a hidden agenda concocted by
the Tamaraw jeepney conveying the victims would Barangay Captains Mario Reyes and Pamintuan, or a
make an inevitable turn. As the jeepney came much hasty and amateurish attempt to gain
closer, Pamintuan announced that it was the target commendation.57
vehicle, so they allegedly flagged it down and
signaled for it to stop. Instead of stopping, the jeepney As to the nature of the offenses committed, the
accelerated and swerved to its left. This allegedly Sandiganbayan found that the qualifying
inspired them to fire warning shots but the jeepney circumstance of treachery has not been proved. It
continued pacing forward, hence, they were impelled was not shown how the aggression commenced and
to fire at the tires thereof and instantaneously, how the acts causing injury and death began and
gunshots allegedly came bursting from the direction of developed. Moreover, this circumstance must be
Naron’s house directly at the subject jeepney. Holding supported by proof of a deliberate and conscious
their fire, they then immediately searched the vehicle adoption of the mode of attack and cannot be drawn
but found no firearms. They then saw 2 injured from mere suppositions or from circumstances
passengers whom they loaded into his jeepney and immediately preceding the aggression. The same
delivered to nearby St. Francis Hospital. From there, finding holds true for evident premeditation because
they returned to the scene supposedly to investigate between the time Yapyuco received the summons
and look for the people who fired directly at the and the time he and his men responded at the scene,
jeepney. They found no one. there was found to be no sufficient time to allow for
the materialization of all the elements of that
Yapyuco explained that the peace and order situation circumstance.
at the time was in bad shape, as in fact there were
several law enforcement officers in the area who had ISSUES:
been ambushed supposedly by rebel elements. He
denied that they had committed an ambuscade
because otherwise, all the occupants of the Tamaraw A. Whether or not the justifying circumstance under
jeepney would have been killed.  The shots which Article 11 (5) of the Revised Penal Code is applicable.
directly hit the passenger door of the jeepney did not (NO)
come from him or from his fellow police officers.
B. Whether or not the concept of mistake of fact is
SANDIGANBAYAN: it found Yapyuco, Cunanan, applicable. (NO)
Puno, Manguera and Mario and Andres Reyes guilty
as co-principals in the separate offense of homicide C. Whether or not the petitioners acted with deliberate
for the eventual death of Licup and of attempted intent. (YES)
homicide for the injury sustained by Villanueva and
acquitted the rest in those cases. It acquitted all of HELD:
them of attempted murder charged in respect of
Flores, Panlican, De Vera and Calma.
A. The availability of the justifying circumstance of
fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office
It was declared that the shootout has been committed rests on proof that (a) the accused acted in the
by petitioners herein willfully under the guise of performance of his duty or in the lawful exercise of his
maintaining peace and order; that the acts performed right or office and (b) the injury caused or the offense
by them preparatory to the shooting, which ensured committed is the necessary consequence of the due
the execution of their evil plan without risk to performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of
themselves, demonstrate a clear intent to kill the such right or office. The justification is based on the
occupants of the subject vehicle; that the fact they complete absence of intent and negligence on the
had consciously intended to inflict harm and injury part of the accused. Where invoked, this ground for
and had voluntarily performed those acts negates non-liability amounts to an acknowledgment that the
their defense of lawful performance of official duty; hat accused has caused the injury or has committed the
the theory of mistaken belief could not likewise benefit offense charged. However, he may not be penalized
petitioners because there was supposedly no showing because the resulting injury or offense is a necessary
that they had sufficient basis or probable cause to rely consequence of the due performance of his duty or
fully on Pamintuan’s report that the victims were the lawful exercise of his right or office. Thus, it must
armed NPA members, and they have not been able be shown by the accused hat the acts of the accused
by evidence to preclude ulterior motives or gross were lawfully or duly performed.
inexcusable negligence when they acted as they did;
that there was insufficient or total absence of factual
basis to assume that the occupants of the jeepney The undisputed presence of all the accused at the
were members of the NPA; and that the shooting situs of the incident is a legitimate law enforcement
operation. They are bound to respond to information B. In the context of criminal law, a "mistake of fact" is
of a suspected rebel infiltration in the locality. Theirs, a misapprehension of a fact which, if true, would have
therefore, is the specific duty to identify the occupants justified the act or omission which is the subject of the
of their suspect vehicle and search for firearms inside prosecution. A reasonable mistake of fact is a
it to validate the information they had received. This is defense to a charge of crime where it negates the
not what happened. It must be noted that there is an intent component of the crime. It may be a defense
absence of reference to the victims having launched even if the offense charged requires proof of only
such aggression as would threaten the safety of any general intent. The inquiry is into the mistaken belief
one of the accused, or having exhibited such defiance of the defendant, and it does not look at all to the
of authority that would have instigated the accused, belief or state of mind of any other person. A proper
particularly those armed, to embark on a violent invocation of this defense requires (a) that the
attack with their firearms in self-defense. No material mistake be honest and reasonable;(b) that it be a
evidence was presented at the trial to show that the matter of fact; and (c) that it negate the culpability
accused were placed in real mortal danger in the required to commit the crime or the existence of the
presence of the victims, except maybe their bare mental state which the statute prescribes with respect
suspicion that the suspects were armed and were to an element of the offense. Besides, as held in
probably prepared to conduct hostilities. People v. Oanis and Baxinela v. People, the
justification of an act, which is otherwise criminal on
The rules of engagement, of which every law enforcer the basis of a mistake of fact, must preclude
must be thoroughly knowledgeable and for which he negligence or bad faith on the part of the accused.
must always exercise the highest caution, do not
require that he should immediately draw or fire his C. The prosecution is burdened to prove corpus
weapon if the person to be accosted does not heed delicti beyond reasonable doubt either by direct
his call. Pursuit without danger should be his next evidence or by circumstantial or presumptive
move, and not vengeance for personal feelings or a evidence. Corpus delicti consists of two things: first,
damaged pride. Police work requires nothing more the criminal act and second, defendant's agency in
than the lawful apprehension of suspects, since the the commission of the act. In homicide (by dolo) as
completion of the process pertains to other well as in murder cases, the prosecution must prove:
government officers or agencies. (a) the death of the party alleged to be dead; (b) that
the death was produced by the criminal act of some
A law enforcer in the performance of duty is justified other than the deceased and was not the result of
in using such force as is reasonably necessary to accident, natural cause or suicide; and (c) that
secure and detain the offender, overcome his defendant committed the criminal act or was in some
resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he way criminally responsible for the act which produced
escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm. United the death. I
States v. Campo has laid down the rule that an agent
of the authorities is not authorized to use force except In other words, proof of homicide or murder requires
in an extreme case when he is attacked or is the incontrovertible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that
subject of resistance, and finds no other means to the victim was deliberately killed (with malice), that is,
comply with his duty or cause himself to be respected with intent to kill. Such evidence may consist in the
and obeyed by the offender. In case injury or death use of weapons by the malefactors, the nature,
results, the same could be justified in inflicting the location and number of wounds sustained by the
injury or causing the death of the offender if the officer victim and the words uttered by the malefactors
had used necessary force. He is, however, never before, at the time or immediately after the killing of
justified in using unnecessary force or in treating the the victim. If the victim dies because of a deliberate
offender with wanton violence, or in resorting to act of the malefactors, intent to kill is conclusively
dangerous means when the arrest could be effected presumed. In such case, even if there is no intent to
otherwise. kill, the crime is homicide because with respect to
crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks
Petitioners rationalize their election to aim their fire particularly to the material results following the
directly at the jeepney by claiming that it failed to unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for
heed the first round of warning shots as well as the all the consequences thereof.  Evidence of intent to
signal for it to stop and instead tried to flee. While it is kill is crucial only to a finding of frustrated and
possible that the jeepney had been flagged down but attempted homicide, as the same is an essential
because it was pacing the dark road with its element of these offenses, and thus must be proved
headlights dimmed, missed petitioners’ signal to stop, with the same degree of certainty as that required of
petitioners’ quick resolve to use their firearms when in the other elements of said offenses.
fact there was at least one other vehicle at the scene
– the Sarao jeepney owned by Yapyuco – is In the instant case, petitioners, without abandoning
incomprehensible. their claim that they did not intend to kill anyone of the
victims, admit having willfully discharged their service
firearms; and the manner by which the bullets the accomplishment of the same unlawful object,
concentrated on the passenger side of the jeepney each doing a part so that their combined acts, though
permits no other conclusion than that the shots were apparently independent of each other were, in fact,
intended for the persons lying along the line of fire. connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of
The firearms used by petitioners were either M16 rifle, personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.
.30 caliber garand rifle and .30 caliber carbine. While To exist, it does not require an agreement for an
the use of these weapons does not always amount to appreciable period prior to the
unnecessary force, they are nevertheless inherently occurrence.1a\^/phi1 From the legal viewpoint,
lethal in nature. At the level the bullets were fired and conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of
hit the jeepney, it is not difficult to imagine the the offense, the accused had the same purpose and
possibility of the passengers thereof being hit and were united in its execution. Conspiracy once found,
even killed. It must be stressed that the subject continues until the object of it has been accomplished
jeepney was fired upon while it was pacing the road and unless abandoned or broken up. To hold an
and at that moment, it is not as much too difficult to accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of
aim and target the tires thereof as it is to imagine the conspiracy, there must be intentional participation in
peril to which its passengers would be exposed even the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the
assuming that the gunfire was aimed at the tires – common design and purpose.
especially considering that petitioners do not appear
to be mere rookie law enforcers or unskilled The instant case requires no proof of any previous
neophytes in encounters with lawless elements in the agreement among petitioners that they were really
streets. Judging by the location of the bullet holes on bent on a violent attack upon their suspects.
the subject jeepney and the firearms employed, the Petitioners had been ignited by the common impulse
likelihood of the passenger next to the driver – and in not to let their suspect jeepney flee and evade their
fact even the driver himself – of being hit and injured authority when it suddenly occurred to them that the
or even killed is great to say the least, certain to be vehicle was attempting to escape as it supposedly
precise. accelerated despite the signal for it to stop and submit
to them. By their concerted action of almost
Accordingly, the clear intent of petitioners to bring simultaneously opening fire at the jeepney from the
forth death on Licup who was seated on the posts they had deliberately taken around the
passenger side and to Villanueva who was occupying immediate environment of the suspects, conveniently
the wheel is demonstrated. The circumstances of the affording an opportunity to target the driver, they did
shooting breed no other inference than that the firing achieve their object as shown by the concentration of
was deliberate and not attributable to sheer accident bullet entries on the passenger side of the jeepney at
or mere lack of skill. angular and perpendicular trajectories.

In relation thereto, Yapyuco’s alternative claim that he

and his co-petitioners must be found guilty merely of
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and
frustrated homicide must be dismissed. First, the
crimes committed in these cases are not merely
criminal negligence, the killing being intentional and
not accidental. In criminal negligence, the injury
caused to another should be unintentional, it being
the incident of another act performed without
malice.There can be no frustrated homicide through
reckless negligence inasmuch as reckless negligence
implies lack of intent to kill, and without intent to kill
the crime of frustrated homicide cannot exist. Second,
that petitioners by their acts exhibited conspiracy
which militates against their claim of reckless
imprudence.

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that

there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree
to commit a felony and decide to commit it.
Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence as
it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused
before, during and after the commission of the crime,
showing that they had acted with a common purpose
and design. Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved
that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards