DECISION

PERALTA, J.:
Law enforcers thrust their lives in unimaginable zones of peril. Yet resort to wanton violence is never
justified when their duty could be performed otherwise. A "shoot first, think later" disposition occupies
no decent place in a civilized society. Never has homicide or murder been a function of law
enforcement. The public peace is never predicated on the cost of human life.
These are petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the June
30, 1995 Decision1 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 16612, 16613 and 16614 cases
for murder, frustrated murder and multiple counts of attempted murder, respectively. 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)2 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.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
Criminal Case No. 16613:
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 intent to kill, attack Eduardo S.
Flores, Alejandro R. de Vera, Restituto G. Calma and Raul V. Panlican with automatic weapons by

firing directly at the green Toyota Tamaraw jitney ridden by said Eduardo S. Flores, Alejandro R. de
Vera, Restituto G. Calma and Raul V. Panlican, having commenced the commission of murder
directly by overt acts of execution which should produce the murder by reason of some cause or
accident other than their own spontaneous desistance.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
Criminal Case No. 16614:
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 intent of taking the life of Noel C.
Villanueva, attack the latter with automatic weapons by firing directly at the green Toyota Tamaraw
jitney driven by said Noel C. Villanueva and inflicting multiple gunshot wounds which are necessarily
mortal and having performed all the acts which would have produced the crime of murder, but which
did not, by reason of causes independent of the defendants will, namely, the able and timely medical
assistance given to said Noel C. Villanueva, which prevented his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
Hailed to court on April 30, 1991 after having voluntarily surrendered to the authorities, 6 the accused
except Pabalan who died earlier on June 12, 1990,7 and Yapyuco who was then allegedly
indisposed8 entered individual pleas of not guilty.9 A month later, Yapyuco voluntarily surrendered
to the authorities, and at his arraignment likewise entered a negative plea. 10 In the meantime, Mario
Reyes, Andres Reyes, David, Lugtu, Lacson, Yu and Manguerra jointly filed a Motion for Bail relative
to Criminal Case No. 16612.11 Said motion was heard on the premise, as previously agreed upon by
both the prosecution and the defense, that these cases would be jointly tried and that the evidence
adduced at said hearing would automatically constitute evidence at the trial on the merits. 12 On May
10, 1991, the Sandiganbayan granted bail in Criminal Case No. 16612. 13Yapyuco likewise applied for
bail on May 15, 1991 and the same was also granted on May 21, 1991. 14 Pamintuan died on
November 21, 1992,15 and accordingly, the charges against him were dismissed.
At the July 4, 1991 pre-trial conference, the remaining accused waived the pre-trial
inquest. 16 Hence, joint trial on the merits ensued and picked up from where the presentation of
evidence left off at the hearing on the bail applications.
The prosecution established that in the evening of April 5, 1988, Villanueva, Flores, Calma, De Vera,
Panlican and Licup 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
religious procession had passed. As they were all inebriated, 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 profusely.17
Both Flores and Villanueva, contrary to what the defense would claim, allegedly did not see any one
on the road flag them down.18 In open court, Flores executed a sketch19 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 reproved 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. 20 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.21
Flores remembered that there were two sudden bursts of gunfire which very rapidly succeeded each
other, and that they were given no warning shot at all contrary to what the defense would say.22 He
professed that he, together with his co-passengers, were also aboard the Sarao jeepney on its way
to the hospital and inside it he observed two men, each holding long firearms, seated beside the
driver. He continued that as soon as he and his companions had been dropped off at the hospital,
the driver of the Sarao jeepney immediately drove off together with his two armed companions. 23 He
further narrated that the day after the shooting, he brought Licup to the Makati Medical Center where
the latter expired on April 7, 1988.24 He 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. 25 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.26
Salangsang, also an electrician at the San Miguel Corporation plant, affirmed the presence of his
companions at his residence on the subject date and time, and corroborated Villanuevas and Flores
narration of the events immediately preceding the shooting. He recounted that after seeing off his
guests shortly after the procession had passed his house and reminding them to proceed carefully
on the pothole-studded roads, he was alarmed when moments later, he heard a volley of gunfire
from a distance which was shortly followed by Flores frantic call for help. He immediately proceeded
to the scene on his bicycle and saw Pamintuan by the lamppost just outside the gate of Narons
house where, inside, he noticed a congregation of more or less six people whom he could not
recognize. 27 At this point, he witnessed Licup and Villanueva being loaded into another jeepney
occupied by three men who appeared to be in uniform. He then retrieved the keys of the Tamaraw
jeepney from Villanueva and decided to deliver it to his mothers house, but before driving off, he
allegedly caught a glance of Mario Reyes on the wheel of an owner-type jeepney idling in front of the
ill-fated Tamaraw; it was the same jeepney which he remembered to be that frequently used by
Yapyuco in patrolling the barangay. He claimed he spent the night at his mothers house and in the
morning, a policeman came looking for him with whom, however, he was not able to talk. 28
Salangsang observed that the scene of the incident was dark because the electric post in front of
Narons house was strangely not lit when he arrived, and that none of the neighboring houses was
illuminated. He admitted his uncertainty as to whether it was Yapyucos group or the group of
Pamintuan that brought his injured companions to the hospital, but he could tell with certainty that it
was the Sarao jeepney previously identified by Villanueva and Flores that brought his injured
companions to the hospital.29

Daisy Dabor, forensic chemist at the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory in Camp Olivas,
affirmed that she had previously examined the firearms suspected to have been used by petitioners
in the shooting and found them positive for gunpowder residue. She could not, however, determine
exactly when the firearms were discharged; neither could she tell how many firearms were
discharged that night nor the relative positions of the gunmen. She admitted having declined to
administer paraffin test on petitioners and on the other accused because the opportunity therefor
came only 72 hours after the incident. She affirmed having also examined the Tamaraw jeepney and
found eleven (11) bullet holes on it, most of which had punctured the door at the passenger side of
the vehicle at oblique and perpendicular directions. She explained, rather inconclusively, that the
bullets that hit at an angle might have been fired while the jeepney was either at a standstill or
moving forward in a straight line, or gradually making a turn at the curve on the road. 30 Additionally,
Silvestre Lapitan, administrative and supply officer of the INP-Pampanga Provincial Command
tasked with the issuance of firearms and ammunitions to members of the local police force and
CHDF and CVO members, identified in court the memorandum receipts for the firearms he had
issued to Mario Reyes, Andres Reyes, Manguerra, Pabalan and Yapyuco.31
Dr. Pedro Solis, Jr., medico-legal consultant at the Makati Medical Center, examined the injuries of
Villanueva and Licup on April 6, 1988. He recovered multiple metal shrapnel from the occipital region
of Villanuevas head as well as from the posterior aspect of his chest; he noted nothing serious in
these wounds in that the incapacity would last between 10 and 30 days only. He also located a bullet
wound on the front lateral portion of the right thigh, and he theorized that this wound would be
caused by a firearm discharged in front of the victim, assuming the assailant and the victim were
both standing upright on the ground and the firearm was fired from the level of the assailants waist;
but if the victim was seated, the position of his thigh must be horizontal so that with the shot coming
from his front, the trajectory of the bullet would be upward. He hypothesized that if the shot would
come behind Villanueva, the bullet would enter the thigh of the seated victim and exit at a lower
level.32
With respect to Licup, Dr. Solis declared he was still alive when examined. On the patient, he noted
a lacerated wound at the right temporal region of the head one consistent with being hit by a hard
and blunt object and not a bullet. He noted three (3) gunshot wounds the locations of which
suggested that Licup was upright when fired upon from the front: one is a through-and-through
wound in the middle lateral aspect of the middle portion of the right leg; another, through-andthrough wound at the middle portion of the right forearm; and third one, a wound in the abdomen
which critically and fatally involved the stomach and the intestines. He hypothesized that if Licup was
seated in the passenger seat as claimed, his right leg must have been exposed and the assailant
must have been in front of him holding the gun slightly higher than the level of the bullet entry in the
leg. He found that the wound in the abdomen had entered from the left side and crossed over to and
exited at the right, which suggested that the gunman must have been positioned at Licups left side.
He explained that if this wound had been inflicted ahead of that in the forearm, then the former must
have been fired after Licup had changed his position as a reaction to the first bullet that hit him. He
said that the wound on the leg must have been caused by a bullet fired at the victims back and hit
the jeepney at a downward angle without hitting any hard surface prior.33
Dr. Solis believed that the wound on Licups right forearm must have been caused by a bullet fired
from the front but slightly obliquely to the right of the victim. Hypothesizing, he held the improbability
of Licup being hit on the abdomen, considering that he might have changed position following the
infliction of the other wounds, unless there was more than one assailant who fired multiple shots
from either side of the Tamaraw jeepney; however, he proceeded to rule out the possibility of Licup
having changed position especially if the gunfire was delivered very rapidly. He could not tell which
of Licups three wounds was first inflicted, yet it could be that the bullet to the abdomen was
delivered ahead of the others because it would have caused Licup to lean forward and stoop down
with his head lying low and steady.34

Finally, Atty. Victor Bartolome, hearing officer at the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM)
affirmed that the accused police officers Yapyuco, Cunanan and Puno had been administratively
charged with and tried for gross misconduct as a consequence of the subject shooting incident and
that he had in fact conducted investigations thereon sometime in 1989 and 1990 which culminated in
their dismissal from service.35 Dolly Porquerio, stenographer at the NAPOLCOM, testified that at the
hearing of the administrative case, Yapyuco authenticated the report on the shooting incident dated
April 5, 1988 which he had previously prepared at his office. This, according to her, together with the
sketch showing the relative position of the responding law enforcers and the Tamaraw jeepney at the
scene of the incident, had been forwarded to the NAPOLCOM Central Office for consideration. 36 The
Sandiganbayan, in fact, subpoenaed these documents together with the joint counter-affidavits
which had been submitted in that case by Yapyuco, Cunanan and Puno.
Of all the accused, only Yapyuco took the stand for the defense. He identified himself as the
commander of the Sindalan Police Substation in San Fernando, Pampanga and the superior officer
of petitioners Cunanan and Puno and of the accused Yu whose jurisdiction included Barangays
Quebiawan and Telebastagan. He 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.37
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,38 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.39
Yapyuco recalled that one of the occupants of the jeepney then alighted and exclaimed at
Pamintuan that they were San Miguel Corporation employees. Holding their fire, Yapyuco and his
men then immediately searched the vehicle but found no firearms but instead, two injured
passengers whom they loaded into his jeepney and delivered to nearby St. Francis 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. 40
Yapyuco explained that the peace and order situation in Barangay Quebiawan at the time was in bad
shape, as in fact there were several law enforcement officers in the area who had been ambushed
supposedly by rebel elements,41 and that he frequently patrolled the barangay on account of reported
sightings of unidentified armed men therein.42 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, 43 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. 44He denied that
they had committed an ambuscade because otherwise, all the occupants of the Tamaraw jeepney

would have been killed. 45 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.46
Furthermore, Yapyuco professed that he had not communicated with any one of the accused after
the incident because he was at the time very confused; yet he did know that his co-accused had
already been investigated by the main police station in San Fernando, but the inquiries did not
include himself, Cunanan and Puno.47 He admitted an administrative case against him, Cunanan and
Puno at the close of which they had been ordered dismissed from service; yet on appeal, the
decision was reversed and they were exonerated. He likewise alluded to an investigation
independently conducted by their station commander, S/Supt. Rolando Cinco. 48
S/Supt Rolando Cinco, then Station Commander of the INP in San Fernando, Pampanga
acknowledged the volatility of the peace and order situation in his jurisdiction, where members of the
police force had fallen victims of ambuscade by lawless elements. He said that he himself has
actually conducted investigations on the Pamintuan report that rebel elements had been trying to
infiltrate the employment force of San Miguel Corporation plant, and that he has accordingly
conducted "clearing operations" in sugarcane plantations in the barangay. He intimated that days
prior to the incident, Yapyucos team had already been alerted of the presence of NPA members in
the area. Corroborating Yapyucos declaration, he confessed having investigated the shooting
incident and making a report on it in which, curiously, was supposedly attached Pamintuans
statement referring to Flores as being "married to a resident of Barangay Quebiawan" and found
after surveillance to be "frequently visited by NPA members." He affirmed having found that guns
were indeed fired that night and that the chief investigator was able to gather bullet shells from the
scene. 49
Cunanan and Puno did not take the witness stand but adopted the testimony of Yapyuco as well as
the latters documentary evidence.50 Mario Reyes, Andres Reyes, Lugtu, Lacson, Yu and Manguera,
waived their right to present evidence and submitted their memorandum as told. 51
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; or whether they had deliberately
ambushed the victims with the intent of killing them.52 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 dispositive portion of the June 30, 1995 Joint Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
I. In Crim. Case No. 16612, accused Salvador Yapyuco y Enriquez, Generoso Cunanan, Jr. y
Basco, Ernesto Puno y Tungol, Mario Reyes y David, Andres Reyes y Salangsang and
Virgilio Manguerra y Adona are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as coprincipals in the offense of Homicide, as defined and penalized under Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code, and crediting all of them with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender, without any aggravating circumstance present or proven, each of said accused is
hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from SIX (6) YEARS and ONE

(1) DAY of prision correccional, as the minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY
of reclusion temporal, as the maximum; to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the
deceased victim Leodevince Licup in the amounts of P77,000.00 as actual damages
and P600,000.00 as moral/exemplary damages, and to pay their proportionate shares of the
costs of said action.
II. In Crim. Case No. 16613, for insufficiency of evidence, all the accused charged in the
information, namely, Salvador Yapyuco y Enriquez, Generoso Cunanan, Jr. y Basco, Ernesto
Puno y Tungol, Mario Reyes y David, Carlos David y Baez, Ruben Lugtu y Lacson, Moises
Lacson y Adona, Renato Yu y Barrera, Andres Reyes y Salangsang and Virgilio Manguerra y
Adona are hereby acquitted of the offense of Multiple Attempted Murder charged therein,
with costs de oficio.
III. In Crim. Case No. 16614, accused Salvador Yapyuco y Enriquez, Generoso Cunanan, Jr.
y Basco, Ernesto Puno y Tungol, Mario Reyes y David, Andres Reyes y Salangsang and
Virgilio Manguerra y Adona are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as coprincipals in the offense Attempted Homicide, as defined and penalized under Article 249, in
relation to Article 6, paragraph 3, both of the Revised Penal Code, and crediting them with
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, without any aggravating circumstance
present or proven, each of said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty ranging from SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional as the
minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the maximum; to
indemnify, jointly and severally, the offended party Noel Villanueva in the amount
of P51,700.00 as actual and compensatory damages, plusP120,000.00 as moral/exemplary
damages, and to pay their proportionate share of the costs of said action.
SO ORDERED.53
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.