People v. Ulep G.R. No. 132547 September 20, 2000: in The Aftermath of An Incident
People v. Ulep G.R. No. 132547 September 20, 2000: in The Aftermath of An Incident
Ulep
G.R. No. 132547 September 20, 2000
In the aftermath of an incident where a certain Buenaventura Wapili went berserk at Kidapawan,
Cotabato, in the early morning of 22 December 1995, Police Officer Ernesto Ulep was found guilty of
murder and sentenced to death by the trial court for killing Wapili; Hence, this case of automatic review
before the SC.
FACTS
1. At around 2 o’clock in the morning Buenaventura Wapili was having a high fever and was in a
delirious state, talking insensibly to himself in his room and smashing the furniture therein.
2. Dario Leydan, his brother-in-law, unable to pacify him, called in Pastor Bonid to “pray over”
Wapili but they were unable to enter the latter's room as he became wild and violent.
3. Still unable to pacify Wapili, Leydan, went to the house of policewoman Norma Plando, a
neighbor, and asked for assistance. Using a hand-held radio, Plando then contacted SPO1
Ernesto Ulep and 2 other policemen which were assigned nearby in the Roman Catholic Church
of Kidapawan.
4. Upon the arrival of the policemen, all armed with M-16 Rifles, a naked Wapili approached them
armed with a bolo or a rattan stool, the actual weapon is disputed.
5. SPO1 Ulep fired a warning shot in the air and told Wapili to put down his weapons or they would
shoot him. But Wapili retorted "pusila” and continued advancing towards the police officers.
When Wapili was near them, SPO1 Ulep shot the victim with his M-16 rifle, hitting him in various
parts of his body. As the victim slumped to the ground, SPO1 Ulep came closer and pumped
another bullet into his head and literally blew his brains out.
ISSUE
RULING
1. No. since the second requisite is absent which states that the injury caused or the offense
committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise
of such right or office. In this case, when SPO1 shot the victim in the head even the latter
slumped to the ground is unreasonable act. However, when the accused fired a warning shot, it
shows that he has no motive and intention to kill the victim.
2. The court reiterated that the Ulep’s decision to kill was made in an instant and the victim's
helpless position was merely incidental to his having been previously shot. In this respect, there
is an incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfilment of a duty which is deemed as special or
privileged mitigating circumstance. Such circumstance reduces the penalty by one or two
degrees than that prescribed by law in accordance to Article 69 of the RPC. In addition, the court
acknowledged the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
3. The Supreme Court held that SPO1 ERNESTO ULEP is found guilty of HOMICIDE instead of
Murder, and is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years, two (2) months and
ten (10) days of prison correccional medium as minimum, to six (6) years, four (4) months and
twenty (20) days of prision mayor.