Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Facts:: G.R. No. 149152 February 2, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Tim
    92 views1 page
    The accused police officer Mamangun was charged with murder for fatally shooting Gener Contreras while responding to a reported robbery. Mamangun claimed the shooting was in lawful performance of his duty. However, the eyewitness testified that Contreras identified himself before being shot. The court found Mamangun guilty of homicide, not murder, rejecting his claim of lawful performance of duty because he failed to prove the killing was necessary to his duties as a police officer or that Contreras was unlawfully aggressive.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    MAMANGUN_vs._PEOPLE_--_justifying_circumstance

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The accused police officer Mamangun was charged with murder for fatally shooting Gener Contreras while responding to a reported robbery. Mamangun claimed the shooting was in lawful performance of his duty. However, the eyewitness testified that Contreras identified himself before being shot. The court found Mamangun guilty of homicide, not murder, rejecting his claim of lawful performance of duty because he failed to prove the killing was necessary to his duties as a police officer or that Contreras was unlawfully aggressive.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    92 views1 page

    Facts:: G.R. No. 149152 February 2, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Tim
    The accused police officer Mamangun was charged with murder for fatally shooting Gener Contreras while responding to a reported robbery. Mamangun claimed the shooting was in lawful performance of his duty. However, the eyewitness testified that Contreras identified himself before being shot. The court found Mamangun guilty of homicide, not murder, rejecting his claim of lawful performance of duty because he failed to prove the killing was necessary to his duties as a police officer or that Contreras was unlawfully aggressive.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    RUFINO S. MAMANGUN vs.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


    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.

    You might also like