Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Facts:: G.R. No. 149152 February 2, 2007
Facts:: G.R. No. 149152 February 2, 2007
FACTS:
The accused-petitioner police officer Mamangun was charged before the Sandiganbayan
with the crime of Murder. On or about the 31st day of July 1992, held at Meycauyan, Bulacan, a
hold-up- robbery was reported in the area and that the suspect went to the rooftop of the
house. The accused Mamangun, together with two other police officers responded in the area.
It is undisputed fact that 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. Contreras died of the gunshot wound.
The prosecution lone eyewitness said that accused Mamangun fired his gun although Gener
identified himself while uttering the words to Mamangun’s group with “Hindi ako, hindi ako” to
which Mamangun replied, " Anong hindi ako?“
After due proceedings, Sandiganbayan came out with its decision finding the accused-
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of only the crime of Homicide. Hence this petition.
HELD:
ISSUE:
Can the petitioner claim the justifying circumstance of lawful performance of a duty?
HELD:
No. The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under paragraph 5, Article 11, of the
Revised Penal Code 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.
Self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated as a valid justifying
circumstance in this case. For, from the above admitted, uncontroverted or 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.
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.